My complaint to Glasgow Life re sports centres

[ImNotNigel]

( NC for obvious reasons )

Glasgow Life are the Council organisation that run sports centres in Glasgow. They have been in the papers about their policy of allowing men into women only facilities

www.heraldscotland.com/news/17588777.cross-dress-males-to-be-allowed-in-women-only-gym-sessions-in-glasgow/?ref=twtrec

I am a member so I went tonight to complaint to the manager at the local centre. He was a young man of around 30.

It took about 5 mins of patient questioning from me for him to admit it was indeed council policy. He kept maintaining that there were no mixed sex or unisex facilities, but eventually he acknowledged it.

So I asked him if I could go right then and use the male changing room, ( I’m an XX person for the avoidance of doubt ).

He told me no, because I wasn’t “going through the process of gender change”. Now the council policy specifically says this is not required, but decided not to argue this further.

I told him that I indentified as agender, which counted as trans. He looked very perplexed by this, and questioned me for another 5 mins, arguing that I wasn’t. Although he agreed that if I was, I could use the Male changing room.

He waxed lyrical about the individual cubicles for showers and changing ( within the Male changing room ). I checked that their was no requirement on me ( since I was identifying as male tonight ) to use these and I could walk around naked in the men’s changing room if I wanted to, and would this be fine.

He said “ We were told in our training that that would never happen, because you would be ashamed of your body”. So I asked if he was suggesting that I should be ashamed of my body.

He knew he was in a hole but he kept on digging.

Then he went for the sympathy vote, pointlessly appealing to my female socialisation . He tilted his head and declared

“ You know it’s hard for people like you and me to understand what it feels like to be trans and how hard it must be. So the council has to allowed them access, it’s the law”.

[ feeble attempt at forced teaming there too ]

I reminded him that I was trans myself and asked which law. He replied “ Well you know more that me as you have read up on it “ .

I asked about their Equality Impact Assessment and the about the effects on other centre users, who didn’t want to share showers and changing areas with a person of the opposite sex. He said “ Well they wouldn’t be the opposite sex would they ? “.

I guessed that was in his training too.

By the end he was losing his temper, so ( perhaps wisely ) said “ I’m not talking to you anymore, you need to speak to someone in legal”.

He went to reception to look up a number and said to his two female colleagues ( who were trying not to snigger ) “ For fucks sake, now she’s telling me she’s trans “.

I said “ I can’t believe you are questioning my gender identity. Please stop saying that, it’s very offensive “.

He threw a paper at me with a number and stormed off.

It was entertaining but rather unsatisfactory. I think I can guess who did their training.

So it’s the Council Legal Services tomorrow, that should be better.

And of course I will complain about being told that I’m not trans. Repeatedly.

I guess the training didn’t cover that bit.

Well done, Nigel.

Sorry to hear about the literal violence you just experienced in being denied your identity and being repeatedly misgendered. Can you imagine if he was dealing with a GameStop It’s MA’AM! I hope you complete a hate crime reporting incident form.

His responses just emphasize the cognitive dissonance the “training” actually educates one to do. He can’t face any common sense or practical situation as “that just would not happen”. What is he going to do when a JY type shows up wanting access to the women’s as “I am a women”? Is he going to try and convince the girls and women that they should not worry, JY is ashamed of his body?

I wonder if after your visit he went on to do some further research and realize that no GRC is required - even cross dressers are welcome to use the change room that aligns with their...clothing....how ridiculous - and you can’t tell people they aren’t trans if they say they are.

Love your direct action OP.

100% support to OP.

Well done!

Well done, ImNotNigel. You sound brave and calm; I practically had tachycardia (sp?) when I called out our local bike shop(!) whose stated inclusivity postcard on the desk had gender rather than sex listed on it as one of the protected characteristics.

Are you going to the Glasgow meeting on 24th? Seems like it might be a good (safe) way for Scottish women to organise.

Have you seen the statement they've just published?

Well they don’t understand the EA at all do they?

It’s not discrimination to ask a man with no GRC not to use the ladies changing rooms geniuses. It would be discriminatory to offer him no where to get changed

www.glasgowlife.org.uk/news/statement-regarding-equal-access-to-sport-facilities

They don't understand the law.

They don't understand the law

Agreed

from their transgender policy

The Equality Act (2010) which is the current legislation in relation to equalities both in the UK and Scotland protects the rights of transgender people. Under this legislation, trans people can use changing and showering facilities appropriate to their chosen gender, even when they may not have completed their gender reassignment or have opted for a social transition.

^ this is simply not true

Providing leisure facilities to women from strict patriarchal faiths is a perfectly legitimate aim, and excluding males from women's single sex swimming sessions would be perfectly lawful

why don't they care about women?

Thanks oldcrone saw it on LinkedIn so didnt want to link in case it linked my profile!

When it comes to facilities segregated on the basis of sex, whether a person has completed a process of gender reassignment or not is entirely irrelevant to their right to access single-sex facilities. The only thing that matters is whether they share that particular protected characteristic or not. Sharing in the case of sex means either legal or biological sex. Which always excludes those who do not have a GRC.

They quote this from the EA to back up their policy.

The Equality Act 2010 says that … To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.

You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it.

There is nothing there that says you have to be treated as if you have changed sex. How can anyone read that and interpret it in that way? I suppose they might have had some "advice" from somewhere.

And well done, ImNotNigel

I've not got anywhere yet. Got told yesterday they'd phone me back once they found someone who understands the law but nothing. Phoned again today, to chase them up, so some higher manager got called in who is now looking into this and will call me back asap.

As they never took the time to actually listen to what my points might be, I'm at a loss as to how the higher manager can possibly look into my issue.

Since then, we have had more than 20 million attendances across our sport facilities and no reports of inappropriate behaviour in regard to trans customers. Trans men and trans women have been using our facilities for many years without incident.

It never happens. What will they do when it does?

There is nothing there that says you have to be treated as if you have changed sex. How can anyone read that and interpret it in that way? I suppose they might have had some "advice" from somewhere.

Undoubtedly so.

no reports of inappropriate behaviour in regard to trans customers. Trans men and trans women have been using our facilities for many years without incident.

That’s great. I’m sure they’re right. But it’s totally irrelevant. It’s the free pass for predatory men to access women’s spaces with no means of stopping them that’s the issue I am concerned with. How any individual identifies is not a concern to me, fill your boots, go gender infinity number. But let women retain our spaces as the law defines.

Since then, we have had more than 20 million attendances across our sport facilities and no reports of inappropriate behaviour in regard to trans customers. Trans men and trans women have been using our facilities for many years without incident.

Several points to unpick here, in no particular order:

1. That doesn't mean no-one has been 'offended', merely that (apparently) they've had no complaints.

1. Except they have, haven't they? Our OP has - in fact - complained.

1. When undertaking risk assessments, the absence of any previous incident/accident does not mean that no risk assessment need be carried out - have risk assessments been carried out? We are pointing out the risks - so they need to undertake appropriate assessments and determine what they are going to do to mitigate and reduce risks, e.g.

There is a risk, now that this policy has been publicised, that predatory men will claim to be women in order to predate. What do they propose to do to reduce this risk? Saying "Women assaulted by such a man should tell the staff" is not reduction of risk.

Our facilities provide a safe, welcoming environment for all of our customers.... Everyone can feel safe and secure

Except women, who have concerns, or are excluded by the inclusion of males in female spaces.

Equality is at the core of everything we do

Except for equality on the basis of sex, freedom of belief, religion, culture..... we'll just skip over the clashes of equality here. (Where is the equality impact assessment?)

If anyone, at any time, feels unsure or uncomfortable in using our services, they should immediately contact a member of staff for assistance.

Except if that 'anyone' happens to be a non trans identified biological female with a problem, that member of staff will immediately record their contact as a 'hate crime'. So no, that's not reassuring, that's exceptionally sinister and threatening.

Transmen and transwomen may have been using their service for years- most likely these are actually transsexual people - what do they feel will be the outcome now it has been widely nationally publicised that any male at any time can access any female only provision with nothing more than saying the magic words, and females will be written up for hate crimes if they in any way protest or even approach a member of staff to discuss a problem? What effect is this publicity likely to have on men who enjoy accessing women for sexual harassment and voyeurism? How do they plan to deal with the inevitable effects of this?

And yes, their version of the EA has NOT come from the EA or the commission, but straight from a trans organisation advisor.

I suppose they might have had some "advice" from somewhere.

That goes without saying...

Saoradh are heading to Glasgow after causing outrage in the wake of journalist Lyra McKee's murder in Derry.

What the actual fuck is going on in Glasgow? They have been invited by the arse end of the SNP.

SNP are a bloody joke party. Always have been. They are just so anti-everything I was brought up to believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the GRA was specific in that the comparitor in relation to discrimination was someone of their 'original' sex.

So the protections from discrimination for transwoman are that they cannot be discriminated against as a result of gender reassignment - so if men are allowed somewhere, then so are transwomen, but it is not the case that excluding transwomen from women's spaces is discrimination?

So I don't really understand their references to the Equality Act in their policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the GRA was specific in that the comparator in relation to discrimination was someone of their 'original' sex.

The original case that related to the issue of a comparator was pre-GRA 2004. It was this case from 2003: www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fa2c94e0775e7ef4e3 [see para 70 onward]

A subsequent case, in 2013, relied on that earlier comparator decision:
www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7bb60d03e7f57eb1a1f [see paras 63 - 68]

That "no complaints' comment is hilarious. The idea that they have been able to interrogate a ten plus year database of complaints records to find zero reports is just laughable. If they have any sort of system to capture and track this I will be stunned. Unless of course its the hate crime form they have been conveniently furnished with for trans to use. And as nigel found out getting them to agree with even the idea that women could have a problem with this is impossible.

NotNigel you are a fucking star!

What gets me is our data is technically better protected than our physical safety.

The ICO's ruling against Bounty UK was amazing.

Under the heading of 'Contraventions of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress' they wrote:

(7) In representations made to the Commissioner, Bounty pointed to a lack of complaints about Bounty's processing of data in the circumstances described. Bounty also stated that only a tiny proportion of those registering 'online' went on to view the supplementary list linked to the Privacy Policy, suggesting that very few data subjects were concerned about the 'named list' and so (if any) detriment to those individuals would be minumal. Bounty relies upon a lack of any evidence of actual distress, stating this case is based upon an assumption of 'risk'. The Commissioner's view is that the above is demonstrative of the 'invisible' nature of the processing whereby individuals are unaware, either before or after, of the processing of their data in these circumstances. She considers that if individuals were aware of the processing of their personal data in these circumstances there would be a real likelihood of substantial damage or distress of the nature described above.

It puts the risk of as far more important than actual complaints.

The ICO were at pains to stress that people might suffer serious distress from their data privacy not being respected in line with their expectations, that this distress would be amplified because of mothers concerns over the effect on their young children and feeling that they had been mislead in someway was part of that distress.

Bare in mind what the Sexual Offences Act 2003 states about Voyeurism

Voyeurism
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b)he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.

And
(4)A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1)

And the definition of voyeurism is
Voyeurism: interpretation
(1)For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and—
(a)the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,
(b)the person is using a lavatory, or
(c)the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
(2)In section 67, “structure” includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure.

If a council are knowingly enabling people who are cross dressers who dress in the opposite sexes clothes for sexual reasons rather than for explicitly sexual ones and they have cubicles with flimsy curtains which could be used for the purpose of voyeurism, could you argue that by not properly informing users explicitly and clearly that the 'average persons reasonable expectation' that separate changing rooms for male and females, were false and not in fact single sex?

If so are they were not allowing users to consent and they were not offering the opportunity for them to opt out and maintain their privacy either?

And could that mean they actually fall foul of clause 4 referring to structures because they are aware that the purpose of cross dressing is ultimately about sexual gratification?

If they have not done a risk assessment, are they complicit and enabling voyeurism?

I come back to the point the ICO make:

Harm is done, even if victims are unaware because if the victims were properly informed they would have acted in a different manner to the way they did in order to minimise risk, by withholding their consent to prevent even the possibility of a situation occurring. Harm is quantified not simply as a criminal act itself but also was quantified as the physiological effect of feeling deliberately misled and had been at risk of possible exploitation (the possibility that they have been a victim but they can neither confirm nor discount what has actually happened) because they were not properly informed.

If there has been no research into whether users would modify their behaviour if the policy is explicitly explained, how can an organisation say they are in line with the law here? There can not be consent if people are not aware because they have not been explicitly told facilities are not single sex.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the GRA was specific in that the comparitor in relation to discrimination was someone of their 'original' sex.

So I don't really understand their references to the Equality Act in their policy.

You're right and they don't understand the Equality Act.