Center Parcs upholding single sex spaces?

[gcnotterf1]

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

i've emailed them

I was just going to look at the PN twitter, but one of the lead articles is about how 85% of queer people are possessed by ghosts. So now I'm going to edge quietly away.

I have so many questions about this, but the foremost might be if Pink News is running to world's most patient and devoted trolling scheme. Has anyone offered to send over an exorcist yet?

Can we be clear then that this is garbage:
The Center Parcs policy appears to be in potential contradiction to UK equalities law, which protects trans people’s right to use the single-sex space corresponding to their gender identity
I think it is but double checking!

Oh yes @pombear, definitely. Men don’t want these insufficiently manly men around, so they can thrown in the “not a man” box, here ch unfortunately means “woman” as male is our society’s default.

Also suits lots of men who want access to women’s spaces to validate themselves or spy/ prey on us.

It’s terribly inconvenient for all of them when we say “no”

Well done CP!

Mayday19
"Can we be clear then that this is garbage:
The Center Parcs policy appears to be in potential contradiction to UK equalities law, which protects trans people’s right to use the single-sex space corresponding to their gender identity
*I think it is but double checking!"

Yes, that is indeed utter utter garbage!

There is provision in the Equality Act 2010 for excluding even those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) from single-sex spaces. It is legitimate to do so, under certain circumstances, but the law is not at all well-defined.

And I'm sorry, I don't have solid references to hand, but wine has been taken.

^Can we be clear then that this is garbage:
^^ The Center Parcs policy appears to be in potential contradiction to UK equalities law, which protects trans people’s right to use the single-sex space corresponding to their gender identity
^I think it is but double checking!

It is. The EA doesn't deal in "gender identity" and is clear that a man is a male of any age, and that there are potentially legitimate occasions when it's appropriate to exclude all males, including MTF trans people, from female spaces, and vice versa.

Thanks very much! Are the "certain circumstances" described, or left vague?

Examples are given, but not an exhaustive list,

The takeaway is that Pink News is lying to its readers about what the Equality Act says, which is rather concerning. Stonewall is too.

It is clear that CP are not breaking the equality act. Your gender identity is irrelevant to the equalities act. Gender does not exist as a protected category. CP appear to expect you to use the facilities associated with the sex on your birth certificate.

This probably means that people who have undergone legal gender reassignment can use facilities of the sex that is not their genetic sex. It's just people who are unwillin or unable ( or in the process) to get legal gender reassignment that are being asked to respect the biological sex separated facilities

I am sure that some women will ( justifiably ) find that an uncomfortable position. Unfortunatly, it is a grey area in the equality act. Whilst this does state that sometimes accommodation on the basis of legal gender/sex might not be appropriate, the only example given is I think of a rape crisis centre , in which case biological sex can be given precedence over gender reassignment.

So they are totally within the equality act and are not even pushing for a differentiation between legal gender and sex, which could be allowed. So I see it as playing totally safe and strictly within the law. And for that, they have gained my respect , becuase they appear to have actually done some fact checking. Unlike other organisations.

( I know some people may feel differently, this is my position, which is influenced by what seems to be a difference between TRA and people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, partly because the latter in my experience would be looking to use some alternative facility anyway. Which seems to show an understanding and empathy for woman And I am glad that CP have facilities for them )

The takeaway is that Pink News is lying to its readers about what the Equality Act says, which is rather concerning. Stonewall is too.

Yes, it's curious why Stonewall directly lobbied to remove the EA single sex exemptions when it comes to trans people, given that they don't think such exemptions exist. You wonder why they went to the trouble.

If Pink News is lying, can we report them to the IPSO?

Centrer Parcs have probably had to deal with this issue already and taken legal advice about how to approach it. I'm sure this person isn't the first MTF trans wanting to access the female changing rooms at CP.

There's a large difference between a one off event where a male is in female changing rooms in a shop or at a swimming pool and going on holiday and coming across that person every day in the changing rooms. Especially when the pool is such a big part of the CP experience.

I'd guess they've probably canvassed their customers to find out how they feel about this. They won't want people choosing to go on holiday somewhere else because they're worried about coming across males in the female changing rooms. It's their bottom line that is at risk.

To be clear - the pool change rooms at CP are unisex.

Some CP sites have additional single sex changing rooms.

If you read the article then this issue is specific to the single sex Spa changing facilities at Whinfell.

These are open plan (having used them myself on many occasions). Lockers on the outer walls, changing benches in the centre and a "hub" of counters with hairdryers, chairs and mirrors.

To the side of that (within the same space) is a "bathroom" area. From memory 2/3 toilet stalls that are fully enclosed (by which I mean floor to ceiling doors) plus 5/6 shower cubicles with semi opaque glass doors.

What I'm trying to spell out is that it is a very open space and privacy is generally provided by the women in it - by which I mean my own experience is that there is a general etiquette that men wouldn't comprehend.

There are however, separate

Apologies -

There are however separate I.e. individual changing facilities available should you need/want/request them.

As ever on Thursday threads, Louise Whitfield sets out the law clearly here : www.equallyours.org.uk/deighton-pierce-glynn-briefing-on-how-legislation-protects-women-only-spaces-and-services/

It is legal to exclude male bodied people from women only spaces, even if they have a GRC.

Hodges doesn't have one so is not permitted to use them. I hope Hodges does spunk a load of cash up the wall pursuing this actually because I'm sick to death of the likes of Penis News deliberately misrepresenting the legal position. And the point about Stonewall is an excellent one.

Given this is a spa, I also wonder what treatments Hodges is going for. A masseuse for example should be entitled to only provide services to some if she chooses.

It made me think - a lot of this may be more about saving male's discomfort about being around someone who's not demonstrating full 'masculinity' by women budging up and making room.

OMG lightbulb moment

How the fuck have I not made this link before??!!

Yes, it's curious why Stonewall directly lobbied to remove the EA single sex exemptions when it comes to trans people, given that they don't think such exemptions exist. You wonder why they went to the trouble.

Such a good point. Very similar to 'if trans rights don't threaten women's rights why are you so desperate to stop us discussing them?'.

And the perennial 'if there's no difference between TW and women why do you only ever prioritise the ones who were born with a penis?.

Emailed my support

It sounds like Pink News are referring to ‘Stonewall Law’, which the LGB alliance have talked about lately, am not sure if they coined the term.

Of course, it’s the actual law that applies here and as far as I‘m aware, CP’s policy is lawful and could actually be more firmly single-sex than it is (could invoke the exemption to exclude those who acquired their ‘legal female’ status via a GRC). It sounds like a moderate, trans-inclusive position.

a lot of this may be more about saving male's discomfort about being around someone who's not demonstrating full 'masculinity'

I wholly support male born people who have chosen a different identity, whether trans, NB, whatever, being able to opt out of toxic masculinity and the reactions of men. No one should have to go into a situation and undress/be vulnerable where they feel unsafe, where their dignity and privacy is at risk.

I just believe this applies equally to female born people too.

This is a generous interpretation but if this was the case, third spaces would be gladly accepted. Third spaces are rejected out of hand. Why? Because there are no women in them. Women being present is an intrinsic, necessary part of using women's spaces. This is using women. In fact, as I've just said on another thread, it's using the bodies of those women.

The expectation is that women should not expect to be consulted in this, and that good women will allow their body/physical presence to be used for the betterment and wellbeing of a male, which we know will include males for whom sexual thrill is a part of this.

I don't wholly blame Victoria. Victoria is seeking the entitlement Victoria has been led to believe is their legal due and social due from women, by the rhetoric and ideology and misquoting of the law that is rife from the TRA community. And that women getting stroppy about providing their bodies for use are unkind, uninclusive and wrong. By refusing to put Victoria's needs first and to allow themselves to be used for Victoria's purposes.

Brilliant post Michelle, yes the tragedy of it is that transwomen were told to do this, told to live as women, told to use female facilities, it's just nobody thought to talk to women about this.