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

Thanks Itsall.

My post has taken on a life of its own I see! Thank you for your responses here and for the snowballing on to Twitter. I do hope the YHA will listen to the points that have been made and come up with a better policy, one that restores single sex accommodation for all women, and particularly those who have been assaulted or have religions to follow. Otherwise I suspect many women will simply quietly stop hostelling. I see they've responded on Twitter that they are reviewing things so we'll see how far it goes.

I am still going to write to them through the post and will do it tomorrow as I have some time. (Still can't quite believe the bit about revealing abuse.)

Is the YHA statement deliberately missing the point? The point is that nobody should be making the YHA dorms an inclusive environment for everybody. By doing so they make the YHA dorms unsafe and unwelcoming to girls and women.
I absolutely agree that everyone can and should be able to express their gender however they want to, in the environment set aside for their own sex. We need sex segregation for everyone as the default, with third space provision for those who don’t want to be segregated by sex for whatever reason.

It seems reasonably foreseeable that this policy will, unfortunately, enable a sexual assault to occur, that would not have occurred in a single sex dorm.

[not due to TW but to predatory men exploiting the lack of safeguarding]

Therefore I wonder if YH would be civilly liable for negligence, if that occurred. If so that may matter to them.

Organisations are terrified, absolutely terrified, of offending the 1% of the population who are trans.

And they clearly don’t care about the 51% of the population who are female.

How? Why? How can 51% of the population have so little power?

[although noting that some women, usually wealthier women, are not fussed about the loss of female spaces so it must be a bit lower than 51% in reality]

If trans people are only 1% of the population, it's possible that some hostels will never have a trans customer, but they have put a policy in place which could potentially put off huge numbers of women and girls. A policy which doesn't even comply with the law, and could lead to legal action against them. It's insane.

It's astonishing that this 1% of people, who we are led to believe are the most oppressed ever, have so much power.

Perhaps focus some campaigning on the insurance companies used by these organisations?

Ask their insurance companies whether they agree that allowing mixed sexed facilities for all does not pose any risk? Nothing to do with trans - just mixed-sex facilities.

Insurers tend to have departments and actuaries, working out actual risks in situations, rather than wishful thinking or politically woke.

I dearly hope that no harm comes from this (noting that the risk derives from predatory males exploiting the situation, as opposed to TW as a class).

There is evidence that the safest situation is to have both a female and a mixed sex option (and ideally a male option too).

Different scenario completely, but I’m aware of a deeply tragic case in the US where a young boy was killed in the male restroom while his Aunt waited outside.

Following that crime, the state in question mandated “third spaces” (mixed sex) so that parents could accompany their opposite sex children.

They didn’t simply convert female spaces to mixed sex, because it was recognised that this would place women and girls at risk. Instead, the risk of violence from males was recognised and mitigated by third spaces.

YH should take note.

the risk derives from predatory males exploiting the situation

Well yes, but some of these "are" trans in the sense of "believing themselves" to be trans rather than simply stating they are trans with no belief underlying that statement.

I'm not belittling your concerns but I don't think predatory males are going to be stalking the hostels of Britain pretending to be trans gender

Firstly, how does someone pretend to be transgender? Just say some magic words out loud. That's all it is. Expecting someone to be wearing a frock, or lipstick, is transphobic.

Something which every predator in the country will be fully aware of.

Now, every single predator in the country can, fairly inexpensively, target all those youth hostels frequented by families, and share overnight accommodation with children.

No need to become a priest, scout master, teacher, or do anything under the radar. This is completely legitimate, in fact it's celebrated. And if you've got a problem, you're a bigot.

Can they not even fathom that for some of us the mere sight of a penis is enough to set off traumatic memories? PTSD? t's not a fucking joke. This is fucking serious, and no one cares.

All they care about is protecting the feelings of transwomen. But no one, no one, is looking to protect women.

But won’t they also be ‘traumatised’ at the sight of a tampon or discussion of pregnancy/periods?

Im getting fed up of all the tantrums, bullying and threats made by a tiny minority of a tiny minority - who seem to wield power that any other ‘most discriminated sector of society in the history of the entire world ’ could only dream of.

drspouse I agree. Eg, JY is as “trans” as anyone (has an “F” on his documents).

The risk really is from allowing male people in female spaces - regards of gender ID or presentation - because how do know which ones are safe? We don’t.

the risk derives from predatory males exploiting the situation

Exactly. And given that predatory men don't tend to announce themselves, there should be single sex dorms available.

TheCuriousMonkey - This is a direct result of the bullshit guidance published by the EHRC which says that the single sex exemptions should be applied on a "case by case" basis. This is not what the Eq Act actually says, and iirc when EHRC revised their guidance they didn't change this.

It is bad enough when "case by case" refers to the male bodied person seeking access to a female space, but yha are interpreting it to mean a woman seeking a single sex space can only be granted this oh so special privilege on a "case by case" basis.

I despair.

My thoughts exactly.

iirc when EHRC revised their guidance they didn't change this.

Correct. Case-by-case is in the statutory code and they only reviewed their non-statutory guidance.

One of the recommendations from the Enforcing the Equality Act inquiry is that we should have new statutory code specifically on the single sex exceptions.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147012.htm#_idTextAnchor102
(paras 28-30)

Case by case has to go.

Isn't case by case misinterpreted? E.g. the "case" is the sleeping accommodation or the women's refuge, it's not individual people. This is what needs restating.

I don't think it should ever be case-by-case. If there is a justification for segregation by sex, then that should apply to all males. Whether that's at a women's reading group or a rape crisis centre doesn't matter. If a woman goes somewhere where she is told its women-only, it has to be women-only. If there is no harm in having males there too then just have it be open to both sexes and let women decide upfront with that information if they want to join.

Not read the whole thread.

How are they defining abuse? The phrase sexual abuse makes people think of csa, probably.

But, that can't be right.

If it's not just csa but any sexually motivated crime by a man against a woman, then how many women haven't experienced something? Not many. And this is the whole reason we have sex segregation for stuff like this in the first place.

So do we all rock up with our lists, and then they judge if we have had enough shit to be allowed to sleep away from bepenised types?

My list from age 14 to current is long and wide ranging. I'm sure most women's are as well.

That also raises the question, why aren't you allowed to sleep away from men, until you have experienced enough sexually motivated crime? Isn't that kind of ageist?

So a teen girl who has maybe only been wanked at once or twice, had her boobs groped in the pub, followed once and had him say scary stuff,

Does not meet the threshold.

By the time she's 25 then she'll have had enough to meet the threshold...?

Have they thought this through.

So the NSPCC has their ‘pants’ campaign about safeguarding for children.

Ah, just to mention, the NSPCC does have their 'pants' campaign, including lots of great messages about only you have the right to know when you feel uncomfortable, your 'no' should always be respected, you should never have to expose your body in a situation where you feel uncomfortable..... the NSPCC also simultaneously states that girls not wanting to share toilets, communal showers or sleeping spaces with boys identifying as girls should be reminded to be kind and inclusive.

The batshittery knows no bounds. This won't end in a happy paradise of women welcoming AGP men into their midst and skipping off into a hair flicking, tampon sharing, Chanel scented girly happy ever after. It will end with women getting very, very pissed off, leaving public life and public spaces, and getting steadily more determined that men can't be women. End of. Regardless as circumstances. #winningheartsandmindsFAIL

The obvious basic solution is that a T or NB person not comfortable sharing a dorm with people of their sex should be provided with a single room of their own. Obviously at no extra cost, that's inclusion. I'm not going to get excited about 'oh but it's outing to have to announce they're TG on booking' - if you have a need you have to state it to have it met, get over yourself. I don't expect airport assistance as a disabled person or a ground floor room without having to declare why I need it, and it's perfectly discreet to phone or put it on a booking form.

What's not inclusion is making all women's spaces mixed sex and despairingly saying women just have to get used to it, while excluding women of faiths and cultures that don't fit with this, women with disabilities that don't fit with this, all child safeguarding and single sex law, and women who just plain have boundaries and life experience and won't be putting up with this shit.

'The obvious basic solution is that a T or NB person not comfortable sharing a dorm with people of their sex should be provided with a single room of their own. Obviously at no extra cost, that's inclusion'

That won't work though.
They would see that could be exploited and never do it.
While simultaneously saying that self id is fine for getting into opposite sex stuff :/

I don't understand really why we can't just break down strict gender role / sex steteotype and let people dress how they like, be 'feminine' or whatever but stick to same sex.

I also just realised that their policy allows for women who have been traumatised by a man / men not to have to sleep in a dorm with penis people (if she tells them the details at least 14 days in advance).

The fact that creepy men exist is totally absent.

So they believe that any man who says 'I am trans' presents no risk to women, ever. But they will accommodate women who are wary of men, implication is this is a bit hysterical but they'll be understanding about it?

I'd honestly far rather the YHA experimented with single rooms allocated for TG/NB people on request and had that overwhelmingly exploited to the point of needing to reconsider than they experimented with stuffing any male who self identifies into women's sleeping space. The results of that one being exploited are going to be a little bit more serious. (Devastating may be a better word? Expensive? Involving whacking great law suits? Worse case scenario possibly a death? Insurers please copy.)

People taking the piss over single rooms - well that's a bridge everyone can afford to cross as they come to it.

A man states this and it is blot be taken on face value - no questions.

But a woman who states ‘I do not feel safe’ has to what, prove that they have been assaulted and give them two weeks notice?

I call bullshit.

The core goal is for a man to never have to run up against any information that challenges his self image.

Any boundaries around women's safety - challenges that. Asking people to self identify on booking - challenges that. It's honestly more important to these people to protect a male's feelings than that a woman shouldn't be raped or worse. That's the level of insanity.