I am about to self-ID as a man - the update!

[YesItsADebate]

I have received a written response from the swimming pool that I originally approached as a self-ID man (original thread here), dated last Friday.

Dear […]
We have fully considered your request, taking into account the legal obligations to those who are stating that they are transsexual and our local and national rules and duties to consider your request to join our men only swimming group.

Firstly, as an organisation we do not yet have specific policies in place and are relying on national equality legislation and considered legal challenges. However we will now be looking to put in place fully thought out policies in relation to transsexuals and our leisure facilities, including swimming. We remain committed to the principles of equal opportunities for our customers and will consider all requests relating to transgender on a case by case basis, and in doing so balancing the needs of a particular customer against the reasonable expectations and needs of all other customers.

In relation to your specific request to join our men only swimming session, we feel we are within our rights at this time to turn down your request. We have discussed your own needs and position as to your gender recognition and have considered the object behind single-sex sessions. Our conclusion is that, as present, it would not be appropriate for you to join the men only swimming sessions. However, as per other national swimming association/leisure facilities we would be more than happy to have a transgender only swimming session if there was found to be a local need for such a session.

In relation to access to appropriate toilets, again this will need to be considered on a case by case basis. However, at this time with no specific policy in place we feel that the best option available would be to use the gender neutral toilet ie the accessible toilets.

We would ask that you respect our stated policy on swimming attire, which is that swimmers must wear clothing that is appropriate and modest.

Your Sincerely

[…]
Chief Executive

I would love to know what their objective definition of 'modest' is, but I hope that doesn't become the main point of discussion. I consider this to be a full-on, unmitigated win for women's rights, safety, privacy and dignity.

I will be responding to thank them, writing to my MP to give him the update and asking him to support them and to support #ManFriday in approaching Swim England to discuss.

patodp

I don't understand you.
How does one tell the difference between an 'opportunistic male' and a 'genuine transperson'?

And why is one a problem but the other not?

I genuinely can't understand your position. You are unwaveringly confident that a pool staff member can magically gatekeep who is OK and who is not, but you yourself can't explain HOW?

My examples are hypothetical, but I could provide a real life counterpart for each of them. I am actually asking this question of everybody who is of the opinion that case by case decision making will work well, how would you decide the hypotheticals? And what do you expect would be the likely impact of refusing people's requests to validate their gender?

More positively, I think triple services is what we should be asking for and any service provider who offfers or proposes that should be encouraged.

Sanderz - which of my hypotheticals would you refuse?

Definitely number 4 Barracker, the rest I don't know. Number 4 because they would definitely cause alarm to women if they didn't even look a little bit transexual. Maybe we want different things? I don't mind sharing with people if they're well behaved, keep their bits covered up and don't do anything creepy like the long stare or all that stuff. So if anyone did anything like that I'm pleased someone could say no to them. And if they didn't and were just getting on with things and looked obviously like a transsexual I think I'd be okay with that.

It is the 'modest' bit that causes me concern.

It suggests they simply don't want to see your boobies and think that will cause a storm (which it would)

Whereas a man wanting access to the women's session would have his penis covered up, is therefore modest, therefore gets access?

Hasn't someone got a suitably on side and hairy Nigel that can go and test it the other way around?

Well done OP!

It wouldn’t surprise me if the annoyingly entitled Lily Whatserface went down to Dulwich pool and demanded to swim in a female only swim session. Now that would be interesting...

If Lily demanded to swim in a men only session - now that would make a lot of heads explode!

YesIt'sADebate

Swim England have removed the trans guidance from their webpage...

It's definitely a step in the right direction and seems even more promising if they are actually revisiting their guidelines

Wow - man Friday mumsnetters did that. I am in awe.

Interesting view fromRLJ in today’s mail (I have opened another thread about this, but my threads usually die a lonely death so posting here too.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5520823/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Britain-taken-leave-senses.html

Say what you like about the Mail, but Littlejohn seems to actually get the self-ID issue and unlike some more mealy mouthed journos elsewhere, isn't afraid to spell it out. A column like that also reaches a lot of mainstream readers.

Get him and Rod Liddle (Times/Spectator) onside and you'll be half way there. They would positively revel in the flak generated by the TRAs and throw it right back.

I too wonder whether the response to a mtf trans person would have been different. Anyone have a dh willing to give it a go 😄

If I got my brother riled up enough about it he would - and God help them. When he gets the bit between his teeth he just doesnt stop!

So proud.

Well done OP! Everything you did was brilliant!

However I've just gotten to pg4 with BarrackerBarmer's comments and I have to say I agree. Everything the OP did was excellent, but the reply back is not. I too read it as a dismissal of her being able to self id because they read it as her being an activist. She was also super polite and wrote to them first which was lovely, but it gave them time to sort out their 'no' response.

The reality is that a TIM will not ask. They will show up and demand entry. The staff will not challenge them and that is how it will continue. There will be no case by case assessment, they will just deny the women who are trying to make a point sadly.

Surely the case by case scenario isn't entirely dependent on the person who is asking, but the people who it will effect?

That's the purpose of the impact assessment.

To decide which group it impacts the most.

Which will, of course, be largely dependent on how vocal they are.

And that will be dependent on whether they are confident enough in their rights.

I don't disagree that telling women they can't swim is an awful lot easier than telling men.

Which is why we still need to keep doing this. We need to give women the power.

Interpreting that email is difficult.

Whether it's a win or not, this is at least getting the issue talked about.

Sanderz

In terms of prisons. A GRC gives a prisoner automatic transfer rights. Unless they have to be housed in the highest security possible, in which case there isn't one of those in the female estate (unsurprisingly).

Without a GRC, it's done on a case by case basis. So a transwoman embezzler might get transferred, but not a rapist.

I don't know how it works the other way round, with transmen. I don't know if automatic means compulsory.

But given only 1% of trans-people have a GRC, I imagine the chances of a transman prisoner with one is remote.

But regarding the case by case decision:

The massive majority of swim sessions are unisex and freely available to anyone, including trans people.

This is just about whether anyone of any sex can self identify into the women only or men only swim. The bottom line really is that a women only or men only swim is sex segregated on basis of biology. If you've altered your physical appearance enough that people would be confused then either you can explain or access the unisex swims. They've also mentioned the possibility of a trans only swim if enough people wanted that.

Why would a transwoman be insisting on accessing a women only swim, really? Why that probably one single session a week instead of all the other available sessions where it wouldn't be an issue?

The changing rooms is the unanswered issue. The OP was told she had an alternative to the women's changing room in form of the 'accessible' (disabled) toilets. So has two options to choose from.

Oh I see, thank you Datun that makes sense.

Suggesting that the "accessible toilets" are now also the "gender neutral toilets" is awful

Maybe this needs flagging up to some vociferous campaigners like Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, to point out that accessible toilets are there for a purpose other than to provide a space away from regular sex segregated toilets?

I was thinking what Mumsnut said.

But bloody well done getting it in writing.

MargeH, Rod Liddle clearly said on Question Time a few months back that he is "with the feminists in this"

Isn't it interesting, as pp have pointed out, that Swim England have withdrawn their guide. Presumably, the pool operator has consulted with Swim England. We will need to keep an eye out for the new guide.