Center Parcs upholding single sex spaces?

[gcnotterf1]

www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/30/center-parcs-trans-woman-changing-rooms-equalities-act-victoria-hodges/

There are always people willing to flout rules. Bus lanes, disabled parking spaces, cycling on the pavement. But by and large people are considerate.

And for all of those things it's not the threat of legal action that by and large prevents people from doing it, it's consideration for other people first, after that social censure, the fear of someone confronting you next. So for people that don't give a shit about others, they may care about not being seen to do the wrong thing / not being confronted. It's this layer of prevention / protection which is being removed around the safeguarding of girls in public spaces like loos and changing rooms.

I mean if you think about disabled spaces; presumably it would be more 'comfortable' for everyone to use the disabled spaces as they're bigger and closer to wherever you want to be. But it's not a nice thing to do, will make disabled people's lives less comfortable and may actually cause them harm in a minority of cases. We don't see companies rushing all over themselves to state that customers should use the parking space in which they feel most comfortable, do we?

As a post op trans woman without a GRC I am legally male and use the female toilets when in public.

I’m still waiting on how you would realistically police a law that would ban me from doing so.

Is it only a law that would prevent you - an admitted legal male - entering a space reserved for females -Not common decency, or consideration for others?

Why do you think you should get to use facilities that are reserved for others?

A law exists already to protect women's single sex services - the exemptions to the Equality Act.

Women's facilities have, in the past, been "policed" by other women saying "er, excuse me, this is the ladies" - but thanks to certain TRAs campaigning against women's rights, venues have ben heavily pressured into removing the woman from the facility, not the male being challenged.

Certain TRAs have successfully dismantled the social conventions (that had been in place since the advent of women's separate facilites) that prevented males being allowed to enter facilities reserved for women.

As has happened exactly in this case.

@Bronners1978, can't you see how deeply wrong your question is?

"I'm legally male, how would you stop me"
I mean Jesus. We'd stop you by saying "Excuse me, this is the women's room." And we'd expect you to leave, because this isn't a space meant for you. Should you refuse, sure, I guess at some point someone might call the cops but hey, why would anyone make it go that far?

Transwomen are males who wish to present as if they were women. That's fine, be as you wish, make your choices, and anyone offering violence and abuse for that is a bastard (anyone abusing a person is a bastard.)
Campaign for trans spaces if you don't feel comfortable using the spaces that are for your sex. God knows we women had to, and most of us would happily campaign with you for trans spaces. We know how shitty it is to feel excluded and endangered - that's our whole damned life.

But don't swan into our spaces, ignoring our boundaries and consent. Those aren't yours to take. To essentially dare us to try stop you ? Careful there, your male entitlement is showing.

So at CP did anyone seek the consent of the women and girls in the single sex female changing to change it to mixed sex to enable Vicky to go in?

Did someone ask the female users first before they started changing? Was the sign in the door changed to "mixed sex"? Or (most likely) did the management team at CP take it upon themselves to consent on behalf or the women and girls?

I’m still waiting on how you would realistically police a law that would ban me from doing so

Where there are Safeguarding loopholes there will be a number of responses neccesary to close it. These may include policy and/or legislative changes, raising public awareness etc

All adults as well as companies, voluntary organisations & public statuatory services are responsible for Safeguarding children & vulnerable adults

The whole thing is ridiculous. You don’t need to be in that changing room. You want to be. It is nothing to do with being female or not and EVERYTHING to do with you trying to bulldozer over everyone else’s feelings. I can’t use a female changing room, because the person I care for is male. Guess what? STILL female.

My husband's workplace (huge) now has men's, women's, and unisex loos. They did this to accommodate the trans employees while being respectful of the women.

Women who don't mind can use the unisex facilities alongside trans employees. Men who prefer the speed and convenience of urinals still have them. And women who do mind still have privacy.

But Vicky was offered this unisex third space option at Center Parcs, and was so angry about it, Vicky went to Pink News and bullied CP until they meekly said that yes, changing in a communal room reserved for women and their children was just fine.

I'd gladly campaign for third spaces with trans people. I recognise and respect the risks men's spaces pose to anyone gender non-conforming (and especially to transmen, who may feel uncomfortable in the women's and unsafe in the men's provision). Nobody should struggle to fully participate in society - that's why there is still a campaign to make disabled loos suitable for a wider range of disabled people. But natal males insisting they have a right to get naked amongst naked women without our consent is the most male entitled attitude possible. How is that congruent with a claim to be female?

You want us to work with you, and to support you, and respect you? Then show some respect to us. And the most basic respect possible is to avoid forcing us to accept your naked body alongside our own naked bodies. Consent. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Again: one in three women will be raped in their lifetime. This scenario could retraumatise them. And it will certainly make most women uncomfortable, and some quite upset. You had a perfectly suitable alternative, but shouted and stamped your feet until your desire to distress, upset and possibly harm women who have never done a damn thing to you was supported. When challenged on that, you had no answer to make, because there is none.

Why not recognise that if the first alternative could harm nobody including youself, but the second, and one you prefer, could harm other people... then you should select option A? Why knowingly do something that hurts other people, just to get a kick from the validation of being allowed to? It's just so shitty as a behaviour. Why choose to be that person?

I'm really quite cross this morning. The male entitlement on display is fucking staggering.

So at CP did anyone seek the consent of the women and girls in the single sex female changing to change it to mixed sex to enable Vicky to go in?

Good question, and I bet you're right

did the management team at CP take it upon themselves to consent on behalf or the women and girls?

CP are responsible for helping to uphold safeguarding on their sites - by labelling changing rooms as single sex but actually allowing mixed sex they remove critical information that parents need to safeguard their kids.

Safeguarding failures.

Also if this goes on much longer I will actively campaign against everything they ask for til I die.

No. Please don't go there. It is absolutely not the fault of the teenage transgirls at our school that adult males are currently being shitty to adult women.

What we need is for those adult males, trans or otherwise, to set an example of actual decent behaviour to the teenagers: 'OK, kid, you identify as a girl BUT you'll need to avoid the girls' facilities, like I do, because your body is male'; and 'OK, you identify as a girl but have a male body, so you have every right to use the male facilities and we'll ensure you are safe in there.'

I can see that would add to the psychological problems of being reminded of one's actual sex. But honestly, that sounds an easier problem to surmount than trying to convince every woman and girl in the UK that males are women.

I’m still waiting on how you would realistically police a law that would ban me from doing so.

For goodness sake, once more for the ones at the back! Just common decency and consideration to other people. Most users of the men’s changing rooms would not dream of using the women’s changing room as they are decent people. You can take what you want from the fact that some people don’t care about the comfort of their fellow humans just as long as they get what they want.

You attack me, for asking a simple question, not that I’m surprised.

The admission that there is no practical way to police all spaces on the basis of biological sex totally undermines your arguments.

By perusing it so doggedly shows almost cultish, fanatical behaviour. You are chasing something you never had in the strange belief the world was at sometime better in the past.

You can push and push but in the end no government, of any persuasion, can realistically give you what you want.

The solution would be to find common ground, somewhere in the middle, that the EA tries very hard to achieve and for the most part succeeds.

You’re not interested in that which is sad.

No. Please don't go there
I'm female, it wont happen, too bloody socialised to "be nice"

However I think my ranty point was, if I feel like this and I'm as laid back as they get, how many other women are hacked off already and will not help them with anything in future?
If you upset half the population you cant then get upset that half the population won't get behind your genuine attempts to gain ground.
Am sure I'm not the only woman pissed off, I have no clout anywhere, but plenty of women do have clout and i sure hope they use it.

Why can't you see your need to bulldozers your way into our space means you don't get our support.
Why are you not demanding your own space?
Civil marriage was a half way house, allowing a way forward.
If women are forced to fight for their rights they will, and there are more of us .

You can push and push but in the end no government, of any persuasion, can realistically give you what you want

Change that to women instead of government and right back at ya

And for all of those things it's not the threat of legal action that by and large prevents people from doing it, it's consideration for other people first, after that social censure, the fear of someone confronting you next. So for people that don't give a shit about others, they may care about not being seen to do the wrong thing / not being confronted. It's this layer of prevention / protection which is being removed around the safeguarding of girls in public spaces like loos and changing rooms.

Agreed. And being removed both from the top - by using threats and influence to change policies, and from the bottom - by going into schools to teach children not to have personal boundaries.

The admission that there is no practical way to police all spaces on the basis of biological sex totally undermines your arguments.

Eh? How? It certainly highlights that there is HUGE difficulty in policing spaces - this is the exact thing that concerns us. If anything it supports our arguments - we would like there to be a much more practical way of policing spaces.

I mean there's no practical way to stop men raping women, or teens doing drugs, or little kids lying - it doesn't mean we just shouldn't bother though. Or does it in your world?

You can push and push but in the end no government, of any persuasion, can realistically give you what you want.

The solution would be to find common ground, somewhere in the middle, that the EA tries very hard to achieve and for the most part succeeds.

Closing Safeguarding loopholes is never based on compromise.
Risks to children & vulnerable adults are identified & as described previously, a range of actions are taken including policy, legislative & public awareness.

An example of this can be seen in today's Times with regards Sexual consent & 'positions of trust'

Sarah Champion MP in Times:
'Children need protecting in all settings, not just at school'
(extract)
If you leave your child in the care of an adult professional, you would assume that the law would apply evenly if they failed in their duty to safeguard. However, due to a legal loophole, as the law currently stands it is illegal for a teacher — but not a faith leader or sports coach — to engage in sexual activity with a 16 or 17-year-old under their supervision.

As chairwoman of the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on safeguarding in faith settings, I am publishing a report that calls on the government to extend the definition of a ‘position of trust’ to cover any adult regularly involved in caring for, training or supervising a child.

Evidence submitted to the APPG’s inquiry into ‘positions of trust’ found current legislation to be inadequate for protecting young people from adults who would groom and abuse them.

The scale of the problem is hard to determine, due in part to the legality of the act itself, but figures previously obtained by the NSPCC from local authorities showed that between 2014 and 2018, over 650 complaints were made about adults in professions not covered by the existing position of trust law having sex with children in their care.

The APPG’s inquiry found that adults holding positions in faith organisations are perceived as having authority, power and influence within their communities — and the opportunities to abuse that power are significant as a result. Furthermore, we heard that many people feel a sense of powerlessness that can exacerbate the power dynamic in relationships, making it hard to speak up about concerns." (continues)
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/children-need-protecting-in-all-settings-not-just-at-school-7wdmfj6kk

see also www.emmottsnell.co.uk/blog/sexual-consent-and-positions-of-trust

The solution would be to find common ground, somewhere in the middle, that the EA tries very hard to achieve and for the most part succeeds.

Agreed. But penises in women’s spaces is not the middle ground.

bronners where is your own sense of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

You, have a responsibility to respect the law of the land and live yr life treating others with the respect you expect them to treat you with.

We all agree policing toilets is damned near impossible but challenging Male people in spaces provided solely for females is legal and will continue to happen.

The admission that there is no practical way to police all spaces on the basis of biological sex totally undermines your arguments

Nope

There is no practical way to police all crimes...doesnt mean that laws shouldn’t be made

Agreed. But penises in women’s spaces is not the middle ground.

Males in female single sex intimate space is not the middle ground.

The middle ground is unisex facilities, something Center Parcs offered. Yet the middle ground was refused? Why?

persuing it so doggedly shows almost cultish, fanatical behaviour. You are chasing something you never had

Helloooo! Look at yourself.