Center Parcs upholding single sex spaces?

[gcnotterf1]

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

Whereas, if you stick the male transgirl in the girls instead, there's probably a similar 10% chance that that particular transgirl is a git and thus an actual hazard to the girls.

So I can see why schools do it. That still removes the safe feelings and privacy of the girls, though.

Schools have implemented transgender rights policies because they have been misadvised by lobbyists.These policies are in conflict with their Safeguarding policies.

Safeguarding frameworks do not work using calculations of risk such as this.

As well as the protection of single sex physical boundaries in changing rooms & toilets, ensuring that both boys & girls learn the importance of consent, respect for others safety dignity & privacy are also parts of the Safeguarding framework.

When schools 'teach' girls that they should not exercise their right to object to males in single sex spaces this is a Safeguarding failure When schools demonstrate that the wishes/perceived needs of an individual male pupil can compromise the safety, dignity & privacy of girls this undermines Safeguarding protections. Children take the lessons about consent & respecting boundaries they learn in school into the world.

Well, yes. I'm all for a git-free zone. I just think that many places are operating on a more pragmatic level than that.

R0wantrees, your articulate posts put my hastier thoughts to shame.

There's a reason why good Safeguarding is frequently described as robust rather than pragmatic!

Jackyholyoake, formerly of this parish, reminded me of the actual law, given that some people seem intent on misinterpreting it.

If a person does not have a GRC they should be treated the same as everyone who is of that same natural sex. Thus, a male who transitions should be treated the same as any other male and vice versa.

It only takes one woman to "reasonably object" to have any man removed from any women's facility / service.

And here is the relevant part of the Equality Act, Schedule 3, section 27, subsection 6:

The condition is that
(a) the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b) the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

So Vicky, you - and Center Parcs - are in contravention of the Equality Act. And I - and most other women - reasonably object to your presence in our communal spaces where we are in a state of undress.

Can I suggest that everyone who writes to Center Parcs makes them aware that they are breaking the law in their enthusiasm to be inclusive?

I've just found the original sturdy pyjamas quote. It's on www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3314566-another-girlguiding-update?msgid=79987458, by ADarkAndStormyKnight on 5/8/18 (that long ago!!!) at 13:58.

In response to another poster's My sleeping mat was right next to hers as there wasn’t much space. It was fine but I could not have done this with a self identified (ie male at birth) transwoman. I don’t know any woman who would feel safe sleeping right next to a male bodied person they had only met once before, ADarkAndStormyKnight said: Really? I would be fine with that, and would just pack some sturdy pyjamas to save anyone from seeing anything they don't need to. It's a public hall, with several people sleeping in it. What do you think might happen?

I'd love to know what actually makes a pair of pyjamas 'sturdy'.

I'd love to know what actually makes a pair of pyjamas 'sturdy'.

Padlocks?

Actually, re-reading the quote - the sturdy pyjamas aren't for the wearer's protection at all. They're to "save anyone from seeing anything they don't need to" which I think implies that protecting the said male bodied person from embarassment is the priority here.

I apologise for crediting the sturdy pyjamas quote to Stephen Whittle, although the stuff about emergency contraception for tweens is actually way worse! The heady days of 2018...

Can anyone remember what the verb ‘swhittling’ was coined to describe? I’m several Proseccos in already.

In other news, we’ve clearly had some visitors:

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/ewqit7/why_is_mumsnet_so_transphobic/

They’ve completely misrepresented us, of course, as if Justine and co would let us post pictures of trans people to mock! They are just making shit up for the upvotes.

Transgender women can use single sex changing rooms as they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the equality act.

Yes, tw can use single sex changing rooms and must not be discriminated against because of their PC of gender reassignment. Tw have the same right to use male changing rooms as any other male. If that's not happening you should complain because that's discrimination.

SpartacusAutisticus said it best:

This ridiculous notion that having rights accorded to one protected characteristic affords rights granted to another needs to stop. Having the PC of gender reassignment gives protections to those who meet the criteria for that PC, it doesn't give rights accorded under the PC of sex, any more than it gives rights under the PCs of maternity, age or disability.

To exclude them you'd need to prove you had a legitimate reason and it was proportional (proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim).

Preventing harassment is always a legitimate aim because harassment is prohibited conduct under the equality act.

Harassment is unwanted conduct (in this case CP's mixed sex changing rooms policy) related to a protected characteristic (in this case sex) which has the purpose or effect of violating our dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for us (see many women's posts on this thread for examples).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Excluding a tw from an open plan female changing room is always a proportionate means because allowing one single tw access to that space makes it mixed sex for everyone.

It's especially proportionate when you've been offered a suitable alternative to changing with men. Did you explain what was wrong with the initial offer of private changing facilities? Maybe I missed that post.

That's decided by a court case and applied on a case by case basis.

'Case by case' is not in the EA anywhere. EHRC put it in their statutory code following pressure from TRA orgs in 2011.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice

EHRC statutory code is not compatible with the EA because 'case by case' makes the single sex exceptions impossible to use.

One of the recommendations from the recent inquiry into enforcing the equality act and the role of the EHRC was that EHRC should write new statutory code to bring greater clarity around the use of single sex exceptions. EHRC refused because they said there is no case law. This is shocking because a huge part of their role is to bring case law.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmwomeq/96/9604.htm

We will bring them case law.

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/eux86m/changing_rooms_presenting_as_a_male/
This post from the transgender UK sub reddit tells you what you need to know about attitudes to inhabiting female spaces. He wants to present male while using female changing rooms and is looking for stores that tolerate it. He's already familiar with m&s. His posting history is mostly in the 'diapers and lingerie' subreddit, where he sells videos of himself. Given his username (nappylover123) it's not a great surprise.

Private companies can probably set their own rules tbh as long as they don't breach the law.

Eg a nudist resort wouldn't have to adhere!

Of course in general single sex for taking clothes off etc is the norm. And companies did it because that's the norm. Which conicides with what most people want.

If CP want to go mixed sex communal then there's no law against that. They do however IMO have a duty to make it clear that is their policy as it does deviate from what customers may be expecting. So they can decide whether they want to do that or not, and go elsewhere if not.

That thing about M&s bra fitting.

Bra fitting is quite clothes off and touchy.

The women who work in that dept have to go into a closed space with a person with top off and touch them.

Can they say no?

It's open to so much abuse.

I'm sure they can say no as long as they don't mind being sacked. Which the architects of the policy no doubt regard as a perfectly reasonable consequence for female disobedience in response to demands that they touch a male when they don't want to.

Yes FrogsFrogs. If CP don't make their mixed sex policy clear then they risk harassing their customers.

With the nudist resort example it depends whether they describe themselves as mixed sex or single sex. One of the tests for harassment is whether it is reasonable for the unwanted conduct to have that effect.

If you book a stay at a mixed sex nudist resort and are subjected to male nudity / male people seeing you nude then you could not reasonably complain of harassment.

If you book a stay at a women only nudist resort and are subjected to male nudity / male people seeing you nude then it would be very reasonable.

The women who work in that dept have to go into a closed space with a person with top off and touch them.

Can they say no?

Yes. This scenario is explicitly covered in Schedule 3, part 7, para 27:

(7)The condition is that—

(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and

(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/paragraph/27

Employers are prohibited from unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of harassing employees.

This is what the single sex exceptions are for.

Legally they have the right to say no. In terms of corporate policy though? We already know that M&S doesn't care about whether or not they're compliant with the Equality Act.

I'm sure they can say no as long as they don't mind being sacked.

Anyone bringing a complaint in relation to the EA is protected by law from victimisation. Even if your complaint is not upheld. As long as you act in good faith you are protected.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/27

You don't have to wait 2 years to get employment rights connected to the EA. You have these rights from day 1 in the job and even before, during the recruitment process.

This is why we need to continue bringing case law, ProdigalKittens. A couple of good cases could see all the corporations frantically rewriting their unlawful policies.

EHRC statutory code needs to be challenged by judicial review. We're getting the hang of these

The moment someone brings a case against her employer for trying to force her to facilitate someone's fetish in a very hands on sort of way I will be right there donating to the fundraiser! At this rate that employer will most likely be M&S, since they're the ones most openly laying out the welcome mat.

In reality though these types of laws depend on

The person feeling confident enough to report
And the strength to follow it through

The govt changed the rules around employment tribunals a few years back which resulted in a massive drop in women taking employers to tribunal around maternity/ sex discrimination (I think it was reversed by the supreme court but googling is not helping me find out!). These things are not easy and there are barriers.

Add to that, that women are told to be kind, and that any case would potentially have them accused of bigotry etc

I think in reality most women will just go along with it tbh. Or quietly leave the job.

Laws only work if people are in a position to exercise them as we are finding out now. Eg law says over age 8 in schools changing facilities should be single sex. Schools are putting in policies which break this law. But if no one takes it to court, then the fact it's against the law is neither here nor there.

Well quite!