Shocked by YHA transgender policy wording

[CliffsofMoherVisitor]

I think this is the first time I have posted in this section. I have quietly read the threads for months as a lurker and become increasingly horrified at the creeping intrusion of males into women's spaces/sports.

What's prompted me to post is stumbling on the YHA's transgender policy. As you may already know (and it has been discussed before here, it is no longer single-sex dormitories - males can self-id as females and sleep in the female dormitory and vice versa. Reading the policy, it sounds like the YHA are trying to do the right thing (they quote the gender reassignment parts of the Equality Act), but it feels like they simply haven't thought it through.

The self-ID part of the policy and all its implications is troubling - self-IDing adult males sleeping in the same room/bunk as female children for example - how do you safeguard against a predator simply lying about their identity? But the line in the policy that upset me most was in relation to the sex-specific exemptions in the Equality Act as follows:

"In certain circumstances we may choose to invoke these exemptions; however, this is not as a rule. An example of these circumstances is people who have been the victims of abuse. In such situations we would work with all parties to provide a solution while still ensuring access everyone has access to our services. We invite people who meet the above criteria to get in touch with us in advance; please contact our customer care department at [email protected]. Individual requests will be dealt with on a case by case basis. Please be aware that these requests can take up to 14 days to process."

Am I correct in my reading that a female victim of abuse has to not only reveal this to the YHA, but do so 14 days in advance of their stay to ensure a female-only space? What if a transgender person arrives without a booking on the day? Is a female meant to go to the desk of the Youth Hostel and reveal their traumatic history to the receptionist? Then the receptionist decides what to do? What if there is no other accommodation available? Some Youth Hostels are in remote places. I find this statement absolutely mind-boggling in its impracticality, and sheer disregard for the experiences of abused women.

I feel so sad, I such good experiences Youth Hostelling as a teenager and a young woman, and I always stayed in YHA due to feeling safer as a single female ("Backpacker" hostels were often mixed sex dormitories). I did this even though YHA was usually more expensive.

I have always had a soft spot for YHA and think (thought) that they did good work for example doing trips for inner city kids to get out and experience the countryside, do hiking etc and of course, allowing a cheap yet safe place for females to stay when travelling. Therefore, even though I am more a Premier Inn type these days, I have always maintained my YHA membership via yearly standing order to support them - going back over 20 years now.

I'm not against trans-gender people using YHA at all - with segregation by sex, not by gender "identity", as it was originally. Perhaps with the provision of a third space open to both sexes? ie Male, Female and Mixed.

So - I think I have to cancel my standing order :( Should I write and tell them why, or will they label any protest "transphobia"?

Link to current YHA policy

A woman was sexually assaulted at a youth hostel in London last week.

www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime-court/police-investigate-alleged-sex-assault-at-swiss-cottage-backpackers-hostel-1-6228779

But this never happens of course.

I haven't been asked to disclose why I want single sex rooms. But I've booked via third party, hence emailing the YHA directly

St Pancras YHA about two weeks ago, although I should note the flags have since been taken down.

Another follow up. This is the response I eventually received from them - right on their 15 day timeline for new queries:

As a charity that is open to all, we are committed to ensuring that everyone can enjoy a stay with us. We constantly review our access policies to ensure that everyone has fair and equal access to our services and that we operate within the law. 1 million people stay with us each year in a safe, welcoming and inclusive environment.

We recognise this is a sensitive debate with strong and heartfelt views on all sides which we hear. We have a long tradition of meeting the needs of all guests with a flexible and sensitive approach that reflects our charity values.

Guests who want to access our services do not have to stay in shared accommodation. We have a range of private rooms, including en-suite which allow us to be flexible in our approach to meet the needs of everyone.

We understand for some people their personal circumstances mean that sharing a room with someone born the opposite sex causes concerns. This is why - in such cases - we consider applying exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 (Schedule 3 paragraph 28 and Schedule 23 paragraph 3) which relate to communal accommodation; specifically, sleeping facilities.

In recent days some people have expressed concern at the way those who want to stay with us can talk to us about these personal circumstances. We have heard these concerns and have reviewed our practice. One specific concern is that we would request specific details of abuse in order for us to apply the exemptions. This was never our intention and we would like to apologise for any upset caused. We have amended our policy in light of this feedback, the latest version can be found here .

For those who do not wish to share accommodation with people they have not met before, our hostels have private accommodation available to them. This can often be the cheapest way to stay with us when travelling with friends or as part of a group. Booking this private accommodation can be done online or phone using our standard booking processes.

We invite those who don’t want to use a private room but have concerns about sharing accommodation with people that they don’t know to get in touch with us in advance. This includes those who wish to apply the exemptions under the Equality Act. Staff are trained in handling individual requests, and subject to availability, we are able to accommodate single guests in a private room.

Everyone staying with us in any type of room is required to present identification regardless of their sex or gender. If we believe that individuals are not genuinely who they claim to be, for whatever reason, then we reserve the right to deny access to any, or all, of our services. If we find individuals are trying to gain access to spaces they should not be in they will be excluded from using our network.

Inclusivity and access are core priorities for YHA. We continuously review our position and documentation to ensure we not only remain compliant with the law but provide the best experience for our wide and diverse customer base in line with our charitable mission and values.

So basically if a female doesn't like it, the onus is on them to complain OR book more expensive private rooms. NB. I specifically commented as a lone female traveller, so their (prewritten) reply of "the cheapest way to stay with us when travelling with friends or as part of a group" is irrelevant.

And that males opinions on accessing female facilities hold as much weight as females. Twas ever thus.

Oh look, another organisation whose staff have magic powers to discern who is “genuinely” trans or not

They completely misunderstand the Equality Act

You don't "consider applying the exemption" on an ad hoc basis.... You have policies which are designed not to discriminate against any of the 9 protected characteristics, except where is is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

Their current policy discriminates against religious women and any women who don't believe that women can have a penis by denying them access to the cheapest accommodation for single travellers

We understand for some people their personal circumstances mean that sharing a room with someone born the opposite sex causes concerns.

Someone 'born the opposite sex' is and always will be the opposite sex. The problem is not sharing with someone born the opposite sex it's with sharing with someone who is the opposite sex.

Do they think people can actually change sex?

So if you haven't been raped or otherwise traumatized there's no reason you would or should be requesting a single sex space, in their opinion? Maybe you're allowed to use religion as an excuse? But the assumption that it's just unpossible for women as a whole to not want to share sleeping space with random males and that if you do there must be some special reason is written right into their policy at a foundational level. Which is creepy and gross and utterly male.

Like, look, dudes, we know you don't understand why, or are determined to pretend that you don't, but at a certain point logic dictates that if lots and lots of women are saying this it is most likely a thing that is common among women and not the result of some sort of special circumstances.

Inclusivity and access are core priorities for YHA

Why? I mean just why exactly is being inclusive now a core priority, over and above upholding the Equality Act? Why? For what reason?

I want them to explain why they are totally misrepresenting Equality law in favour of their notion of never applying the exemptions correctly and making it a priority to automatically demote the needs of female service users. I want them to state that very clearly.

And as being inclusive is such a core tenet of the organisation, then I’m sure they will have no problem articulating why this is being introduced as a priority over and above our rights. Let’s hear it.

If they claim to have female dorms and Male dorms then they are already providing the single sex exemption. If they are not providing single sex dorms then they may be discriminating against women.

The one near me states it offers Single Sex Dormitories.

The question is, if anyone can self ID their sex then this becomes a Mixed Sex dorm. And this is not clearly stated in their information, it’s hidden inside a policy.

Interesting that they are putting together a new 10 Year Strategy and are looking for public feedback.

Here’s the link for anyone who feels inclined to give them some input. They are asking for public views direct to:

[email protected]

There’s also Twitter #YHAStrategy2020

www.yha.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/About%20YHA/Strategy/Strategic%20themes-compressed.pdf

"Inclusive" is such a weasel word. Youth hostels should indeed be accessible to a wide range of people, which means for example that they should be reasonably priced. Making what purport to be single sex dorms mixed sex may "include" trans people, but it excludes a whole lot of other people, from women who just aren't comfortable sharing with men (I suspect this is in reality most women) to women whose religion forbids them to do so to women whose families would refuse to let them stay there if they realized to...it's a long list of people to exclude for the sake of letting a few penis having individuals bunk in with the girls because they'll scream at you on Twitter if you don't.

It’s just sneaky. If you are so inclusive then make it clear.

“All our shared facilities are mixed sex and our dorms that are open and inclusive to anyone”

Why not that?

They're relying on the people who care about facilities being "inclusive" of trans people knowing what it means while the majority of people just interpret it as corporate look at us we're nice babble.

Their current policy (as written and updated as per your post BuzzShitbagBobbly)

Illegally discriminates against both men and women on the basis of sex, a protected characteristic under the EqA.

If they claim to have male dorms, to which they will grant access to males plus all females who identify as trans (whether GRC-holders or not), but deny access to all other females this is illegal discrimination against the latter.

If they claim to have female dorms, to which they will grant access to females and all males who identify as trans (whether GRC-holders or not), but deny access to all other males, this is illegal discrimination against the latter.

The sex exemptions are legal only when applied correctly. That is on one of two bases:

1. Biological sex (ie facilities dedicated to all those born into one sex class and facilities dedicated to all those born into the other sex class. No exceptions.)

1. Biological and legal sex (ie facilities dedicated to all those born into one sex class and GRC-holders of the other sex class and vice versa).

The law does not recognise self-id, and so allowing access to opposite-sex facilities to an individual who identifies as trans but whose legal and biological sex remain the same while denying access to an individual whose legal and biological sex also remain the same but who does not identify as trans is illegal sex discrimination.

A case brought on this basis should be successfully won, because it really is that clear cut in the law. Excluding someone from opposite-sex facilities or services ie discriminating against someone on the basis of their sex, is only legal under the very narrow provisions of the Equality Act.

This policy as described does not comply with the law. A law which is designed to allow the exclusion of people under certain circumstances.

All of this stuff about inclusion is nonsense anyway when you consider the impact on all those women who are excluded from single-sex dorms when you include the men claiming womanhood. But the law actually recognises, acknowledges and provides for situations where inclusion comes at a cost to a protected group and therefore allows for exclusion of those who do not meet the requirements for membership of that protected group.

These comments are awesome, thanks - and if nobody objects, will be used almost verbatim in my response.

That’s very clear and completely makes sense Charlie

Feel free and please keep us updated. Tbh what we really need is a few good test cases, and this may be an excellent candidate.

So let’s say Hairy Barry and his mate Blokey Boris, as ordinary chaps, fancied a weekend away in a female sex shared YHA dorm for larks. According to YHAs current Self ID policy, they should not be refused. Because to refuse would be discriminatory against them as males, whilst allowing in other males who feel differently?

We need a friendly Barry to test this!

Yup. Let's assume Hairy Barry is actually cleverer than his pal and tells staff he identifies as trans. Under this policy, staff are now tasked with deciding whether HB is trans enough. But he's made an effort, the dude is prepared - a tasteful outfit, subtle day make-up (I know, I know, the YHA is actually and entirely unintentionally being terribly transphobic in expecting a person who identifies as trans to conform to opposite sex stereotypes but they don't know, so we'll play by their rules).

HB gets in the female dorm, having demonstrated his sincerity by channelling his feminine side.

Blokey Boris however doesn't stand for that kind of thing and besides his erstwhile pal Colin, now Candy, has convinced him that being trans is all about the feelz and not about looks. He pleads no case, he simply asks to join his pal. Alas, he is assigned a bed in the male dorm.

As neither HB nor BB have GRCs, the YHA have now illegally discriminated against Boris. There are no grounds for excluding him that don't also apply to Barry. The law is entirely on BB's side.

Disclaimer: I doubt one can construct an actual court case from a scenario like this, but stranger things have happened...

Resurrecting this old thread to ask if anyone knows of any updates. Have there been any cases of men abusing this policy? It's come up in another forum I'm on.

How would you know? Women have been told they have no right to single sex sleeping accommodation. Who will they complain to if there's a man in there? That's YHA policy.