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

everyone staying with us has to present identification regardless of their sex or gender

I've stayed with them numerous times and I've never had to present any ID.

We've usually gone as a group booking and booked a whole room to ourselves so the person who booked the room may well have had to provide ID, I don't know; I've never asked, but I never have.

So this isn't quite true either.

I can’t recall ever being asked for ID at a youth hostel either.

And let's not forget the YHA Exec, lest any of them decide to 'Do a Hunt' and move on when the shit looks as though it's starting to hit the fan.

James Blake CEO
William Howarth
Jake Chalmers
Jerry Robinson
Anita Kerwin-Nye

They do ask for id (well they told us to bring it). But then you can change changing your sex marker on drivers licences, passports, etc is all self I.D isn't it?

Timelady - yes this exactly. We need to hold these people accountable for the exclusionary positions they are taking. These are people claiming to be 'diversity professionals' yet clearly don't give a damn about people from minority faiths that can't share with the opposite sex or the privacy of women particularly those of lower income or the 25% of women who have been sexually assaulted and may not be comfortable or even able to consider this.

Not a scrap of concern for women who not knowing the policy who could wake up in the middle of the night in the half-light to find a male bodied person (who quite innocently might have just arrived and be changing for bed). That would have been quite sufficient some years ago (possibly now?) to start my panic attacks all over again.

If the policy is all fine and progressive then they need to be upfront about it - as in all over the front of their website. That way no one is unknowingly bounced into a situation that could be damaging for them.

Not sure if it has already been posted here but there is an excellent article arguing for single sex clarification and spelling out the letter of the law here: fairplayforwomen.com/single-sex/

Single sex services & the Equality Act: A new statutory Code of Practice must help everyone get clear what “single sex” means.

Extracts:

The EHRC have previously promoted the idea of ‘trans inclusive single sex spaces’, but this is a logical impossibility, and its guidance to date is inconsistent with the Equality Act.

There are eight specific provisions allowing single sex facilities in the Equality Act.

In addition the public sector duty (Section 149) makes it a legal obligation for local authorities, NHS Trusts and other public bodies to assess how their policies impact on people with protected characteristics, including women and girls.

The Equality Act is clear that ‘single sex services’, and the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ relate to the protected characteristic of sex, and that this has an objective defined meaning. A woman is a ‘female of any age’. Thus, there are two sexes. Sex is observed at birth and is stated on your birth certificate. This remains biologically true throughout life.

A straightforward interpretation of the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act is that males are excluded from women’s services on the basis that they do not share the protected characteristic of being female (and vice versa). Any other protected characteristics they have is not relevant.

Many politicians and influential organisations including the Equality and Human Rights Commission have argued that “single sex spaces should be trans inclusive”. This sounds nice, but is impossible (apart from, of course, in the sense that people should not be excluded from or harassed in single sex spaces of their own sex, because of non conforming gender expression).

Transgender people may value ‘gender-affirming services’ (that is services where they are treated as if they were members of the opposite sex), friendship groups and formal associations and service providers can choose to provide such services amongst consenting adults. But it is not a proportionate means to a legitimate aim under the Equality Act to compel people using or providing single sex services to pretend that they do not perceive sex, or to conscript them into sharing spaces where where they are undressing or vulnerable with people of the opposite sex in order to provide them with a gender-validating experience.

Single sex services are already justified under the Equality Act, to achieve the legitimate aim of allowing people of either sex to access services equitably, and with reasonable privacy and dignity, and to address the disadvantages and obstacles faced by women and girls. There is no quid pro quo which says that in order to access these services women and girls must submit to the demand that they provide ‘gender affirmation’ to dysphoric males (nor, indeed that they become unwilling or unwitting participants in someone else’s sexual paraphilia).

[... there is also a lot of information about certain trans advocacy groups misrepresenting the law in order to bully women into giving up their spaces...]. For example...

Stonewall tells schools that it is a “legal requirement under the Equality Act” to allow a trans young person “to use the toilets and changing rooms of their self-identified gender rather than of their assigned sex” (it isn’t).

Sicaro - thanks, very useful article. I'll use that as a base for letters to the Exec and Trustees

Let's get this clear....

...if Jessica Yaniv, who is legally female according to their ID but still retains their male genitalia, rocked up requesting a bed in the YHA women's dormitory, where unaccompanied female teenagers might be sleeping, that'd be OK with you, Margaret Hart and James Blake?

Many politicians and influential organisations including the Equality and Human Rights Commission have argued that “single sex spaces should be trans inclusive”.

Of course single sex spaces should be trans inclusive. How could this be arguable? Simple human kindness and consideration. It's obvious that men and men's spaces should accept men who express themselves differently, men who are GNC, men who struggle with their self-perception, men who enjoy exploring their feminine aspects.

Maybe we need to be a bit more like Kiwifarms by archiving evidence of those responsible for this policy if/when things go wrong. With that in mind, here's a screenshot of the current YHA trustees, so they can be held to account if necessary.

Things have already gone wrong if abuse victims are being required to disclose this to YHA staff, and plan their trips 14 days in advance. And unless transwomen also have to do similar (which it seems they don't) how the heck does it help anyway?

There's no point at all providing 'mens' and 'women's' facilities unless the EA exemptions are invoked - actually, I'm slightly surprised it's legal. There's no case at all for segregation by 'gender' whatever the heck that word means. All it can do is lull women and girls into a false sense of security.

I travelled as a single young woman for many months using mixed sex hostels. It was absolutely fine until it wasn’t. Fortunately I woke up at what I believe was the early stages of the assault and scared the guy off. I would never book mixed sex dorms now and it shortened my trip because I ran out of money paying for private rooms.

The mealy mouthed “single gender” wording they use almost infuriates me as much as the policy itself. The thought that women could intentionally choose what they believed to be single sex accommodation and wake to realise they were sharing with men, however innocent those men may be, is a betrayal.

Every organisation who does this should be forced to have a big disclaimer where women can see “women, note that these are not single sex facilities and our policy is that you should be obliged to share with male bodies.” If they’re so damn proud of being inclusive they should declare it openly, not change the rules on the sly and hope women don’t make a fuss.

It's a disgusting, nonsensical policy that will fall apart at the first sign of reality.

Perhaps they would like to confirm whether or not Jessica Yaniv, Jess Bradley or Karen White would be sleeping in a room with women and 12-year-old girls?

I don't think predatory males are going to be stalking the hostels of Britain pretending to be trans gender

It’s funny you should say that @stucknoue, but until recently I didn’t think men could be housed in women’s prisons, or demand treat a woman offering services for women only wax their balls, or take first and second place in sport by competing against women, or be awarded “women in business” prizes.

Funny how wrong we can be, eh?

This policy is sooooo wrong in many ways. It simply can't have been established as lawful. The only way to secure our rights (again) is to challenge policies like this in court. We have to do it. I know there are a few cases ongoing (which I have contributed to), but these organisational policies, eg sports bodies, schools, yha, nhs hospitals - they surely must be indirect sex discrimination.

It shows how different the trans rights movement has been compared to the disability rights movement. The principles with access for disabled people (from the training I've had, I'm not a lawyer!) are that organisations/businesses have to make reasonable adjustments. The test of 'reasonable' takes into account the resources available to the organisation, and the needs of other users. And health and safety has to come first. There is no wa 'reasonable adjustment' would include 'other users of the service will be asked to disclose their history of sexual abuse in order to be offered a service which they can use'.

This is a bit like the Caledonian Sleeper policy for allotting shared cabins. I think they introduced a policy where they base it on self id gender. I can't find a thread on it though (think the search is not working).

Caledonian sleeper policy now states that

Two people are permitted to book together and share a room but if you book on your own you may have to share a room with someone of the same sex

www.sleeper.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CSGuestCharterSept2016.pdf

That seems pretty clear; sex is mentioned four times in the document but no reference as far as I can see to gender.

What happened with the Caledonian sleeper policy then?

Are they now conflating sex with gender? (Ie saying sex but they mean gender)

Did people misinderstand the policy at the time?

Have they taken concerns on board and reinstated single sex cabins?

I think that the case was in the papers after that date so they were misunderstanding their own policy.

Surely this has to be a story for Sanchez Manning or Andrew Gilligan. I hope they read this board - I suspect they do.

Andrew G has gone off to be Boris' Bikes Spokesperson...

The Times has other good journalists eg Lucy Bannerman.

Looking at the dates in that Caledonian Sleeper link above, it was uploaded in Feb 2019, but is dated 2016. I'm wondering if they reinstated the old version after all the fuss last year.

They were supposed to be doing away with strangers sharing cabins

www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/sharing-with-stranger-on-scotland-london-sleeper-train-to-be-banned-1-4667468

but looks as though that isn't currently the case. D'you know, this might be an unpublicised win for the GC campaign.

A very significant proportion of women have been sexually abused / attacked in their past - at least a quarter officially, more anecdotally IME. So if women did take them up on this they would have a lot to deal with. I certainly would. I have been abused but they have no way of knowing or checking that.

In fact part of me wonders if this policy, though not well thought through, is an attempt to give women their own self ID in response. They can self-id as needing their own safe space.

However it is ridiculously daft as the whole point is the risk of abuse - protect those who’ve already been abused while laying those who haven’t open to their first experience of it. Lovely.

I think if you really think no men will abuse self-ID in situations like this, you can’t have much experience of what some men are like (or read the news). It’s access to sleeping women and children on a plate.

Also, it’s not just a 100% straight non-trans make pretending to be trans that’s the issue. It’s also people who may or may not be trans and live as a woman etc, but who are also predatory or have an agenda to expose themselves to women, and have male genitals and male bodies. They may genuinely consider themselves female but they can still be a danger, with male genitals and on average bigger, stronger bodies. I don’t care how “genuine” their feelings are - it’s their body I don’t want to share private space with.

Well we had a safe space. It was women’s dorms

Yes and that's how it should be.