Virgin Active changing rooms segregated by gender identity

[EdgeOfACoin]

Okay, I know this has been mentioned on passing on another thread, but I think it needs its own discussion.

Virgin Active have said that their changing rooms are segregated by gender identity and not by biological sex:

mobile.twitter.com/VirginActiveUK/status/1303378847711272961

I'm a VA member. This is something I would be prepared to cancel my membership over. Are they seriously saying that any male may access women-only communal changing rooms, where there are no individual cubicles, where women routinely queue for showers, provided he says he identifies as a woman?

This isn't about toilets. This isn't about who is 'peeing next to you' in the next cubicle. This is about women having to agree to undress in the presence of male-bodied strangers if they wish to use the facilities.

How is this even remotely defensible?

(I like the Twitter replies though.)

The problem with those is proving the intent. The TW presumably would claim they just wanted to change like the other ladies.

There is no provision in the equalities legislation for segregating by gender identity. They either need to provide proper mixed sex facilities honestly, or else stick with segregating by sex. Or a combination of these.

Surely it should be that simple?

I noticed for the first time yesterday that the swimming pool had men's and ladies rooms off the changing village area (also used as team changing rooms, but the pools aren't open to the public when the schools or swim team are in). I think it's a good arrangement.

Self ID changing rooms is an open invitation to voyeurs.

The problem with those is proving the intent

It's also requires women and girls to be subject to harm first before action is taken, rather than having measures that protect.
Let's be honest, conviction rates are woeful, it's no deterrent.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3850749-Court-hearing-EVAW-CWJ-against-CPS

The CPS don't prosecute rape cases so what chance is there of a prosecutions for indecent exposure.

Quite. There isn't reliable judicial response to a situation of clearly and forensically evidenced harm having happened.

The most any place will be able to do is what M&S said - which boiled down to 'well if this policy means you're sexually harassed, assaulted or distressed on our site because of our insistence that male people can be wherever they want to, we'll be very sorry about it for you afterwards'.

It's a stark choice for females. Take the risk/suck up the consequences - which may be life altering. Or avoid the space and lose equal access to public life.

Also worth considering: in a situation of forensically evidenced rape sufficient that CPS will take it into a court room, the female involved always and normally has to deal with a lawyer arguing that what she was wearing/doing/the place she was in/the time of day she chose puts some of the responsibility for the rape on to her. So seriously, how long will it be before some woman, somewhere, hears: "but you knew it was a mixed sex changing room where male people would be present, and you chose to go in there anyway and take your clothes off...?"

The TW presumably would claim they just wanted to change like the other ladies.hmm

You mean: 'like the ladies'. The inclusion of the word 'other' suggests that the TW is, in fact, a woman and, if we're being truthful to ourselves, we all know that that's bollocks!

@ListeningQuietly

There’s a market for female only gyms and swimming pools. Someone ought to be capitalising on that. No thank you. I like to go swimming with my husband and family. I like mixed classes. I like to meet with friends and families in the cafe.

The Changing rooms are men / women / accessible
the gym should not be

Its not mandatory for you to use them you know

When will "they" get it. We don't want to share communal changing rooms, showers, toilets or prisons cells with male bodied people. Wear what you want, choose which ever names or pronouns you want to be referred to as, just dont ask us to compromise our safety or dignity.

Not only does the 2010 Equality Act permit single-sex facilities etc in certain circumstances, it also makes harassment connected to a protected characteristic illegal. Under section 26 could VA be guilty of the harassment of women by allowing males into what are designated as women's changing rooms? Surely by allowing males into a female-only space, VA could be said to be guilty of harrassment by violating our dignity and creating an intimidating, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. I'm very glad that I belong to a Bannatyne's.

@NiceLegsShameAboutTheFace

The TW presumably would claim they just wanted to change like the other ladies.hmm

You mean: 'like the ladies'. The inclusion of the word 'other' suggests that the TW is, in fact, a woman and, if we're being truthful to ourselves, we all know that that's bollocks!

Yes; I meant that would be their claim. (I might just possibly have been channelling david walliams when I wrote it)

I am sure Branson doesn’t give a shit about women’s safety, privacy or dignity. Complaints will probably be ignored. So hit him in the pocket - cancel memberships, go to rival facilities that DO provide single sex changing rooms. Let him see whether he can make a profit from the (tiny minority of) trans people who will remain his only customers.
Oh, and publicise VA’s decision as widely as possible. Potential customers should be warned that they and their teenage daughters will be subjected to naked penises in a mixed sex changing room.
This stupid decision is a flashers’ and voyeurs’ charter - they have only to pretend that they identify as female and the staff will have to let them in, whatever their “gender identity”.

A genuine transwoman would surely empathise with women and stay out, to avoid distressing the very people they identify with.

@Babdoc

I am sure Branson doesn’t give a shit about women’s safety, privacy or dignity. Complaints will probably be ignored. So hit him in the pocket - cancel memberships, go to rival facilities that DO provide single sex changing rooms. Let him see whether he can make a profit from the (tiny minority of) trans people who will remain his only customers. Oh, and publicise VA’s decision as widely as possible. Potential customers should be warned that they and their teenage daughters will be subjected to naked penises in a mixed sex changing room. This stupid decision is a flashers’ and voyeurs’ charter - they have only to pretend that they identify as female and the staff will have to let them in, whatever their “gender identity”. A genuine transwoman would surely empathise with women and stay out, to avoid distressing the very people they identify with.

Absolutely agree with this.

I though Branson had sold the majority share of virgin gyms now. Anyway it's a bit of a game changer either way. I was contemplating which gym to sign back up to and it was a choice between virgin and one other. Needless to say, it won't be virgin.

To be quite honest, I wouldn't use any gym (or shop) that only has communal changing rooms. It's got to be either lockable cubicles, or curtain cubicles in a woman only area.

But the showers have frosted glass (which isn’t completely opaque). No thanks! The swimming pool has open ones.

@feelingverylazytoday

To be quite honest, I wouldn't use any gym (or shop) that only has communal changing rooms. It's got to be either lockable cubicles, or curtain cubicles in a woman only area.

Neither would I. The problem with virgin is they pretend they have single sex changing rooms, when they are, in fact mixed.

Women aren't being told the truth in order to make their own decision.

I see no one who posted that they were fine with it has come back to explain what we do with the female people who aren't fine with it and can't use a gym changing room under these circumstances.

Always leaves me wondering if this hadn't occurred to them, or if they just really don't want to face the problems involved for women, or that they are aware they're supporting a policy that excludes some women from any access at all to public life in order to give men more choice and options, and are uncomfortable with admitting how utterly and appallingly sexist and unequal this is.

Women aren't being told the truth in order to make their own decision.

The whole approach is cloaked in shhh, by stealth, don't frighten the horses, this is openly shared by the political lobby as their chosen approach with explanation that because if it was open and honest the public would have the time and power to resist it.

The hope is that most women will put up, shut up and accept the disadvantages quietly, and in time will get used to women in the UK not having privacy, dignity or freedom at any time from males regardless of how vulnerable. And the women excluded by this policy are largely from vulnerable groups without much of a voice, or capacity to organise and make a fuss, and hopefully will just self exclude and vanish and no one will notice they've gone. After all, it's not like anyone cares about their protected characteristics and inclusion in society, is it? Or that words like 'inclusive' and 'kind' and 'intersectional' actually have any real value or meaning?

I'm still waiting to hear back. I have emailed my branch of VA and the generic info email.
I will drive down there Monday or Tuesday if I don't hear back. I froze my membership for now so haven't been there since lockdown.

Michelle

We really need a like button.

It will never fail to shock me that women (and men who claim to be on the left) support policies that prioritise the feelings of men, however they identify or present, to the detriment of women's safety, dignity and ability to engage in public life. This impacts already marginalised women the most.

I see no one who posted that they were fine with it has come back to explain what we do with the female people who aren't fine with it and can't use a gym changing room under these circumstances.

I find that people who are in favour of the idea always try to fudge the issues. For instance, Layla Moran in one interview kept going on about individual cubicles in swimming pool changing rooms and couldn't see what the problem was.

However, chain gyms such as VA or Fitness First* are not comparable to local swimming pools, as they are not targeted at families and do not need to provide family changing areas. VA is a gym aimed at adults (although teenagers may go from age 16 and from 14 if accompanied by an adult). I don't love communal changing areas, even single-sex ones, but I can just about live with single-sex ones.

With the current policy (it seems) the choices are very stark: either you are prepared to undress in the presence of males who identify as females, or you don't use the changing facilities. I haven't come across anyone on here who is willing to defend that.

I did have a conversation with a guy at work once, who took the view that women should just stop being prudish and men and women should change together (apparently everyone in Scandinavia have no such 'hang ups'), but at least he was honest enough to argue in favour of mixed-sex changing rooms. He didn't bother to argue in favour of changing areas being segregated on the basis of 'gender identity'.

I swear this is why TRAs like to keep the focus on toilets. It diverts people from thinking about things like changing rooms and hospitals.

*Disclaimer: I've no idea where Fitness First stand on this issue.

The VA I go to is very family orientated. There is a creche/softplay. Childrens' swimming lessons. A play area in the cafe. A separate children's swimming pool.
Children can use gym area from age 10 with patent. From 14 alone but parent has to be in building.
I do not want myself or girls exposed to men in our changing room. It is pretty much all communal so we can't even use cubicles for privacy.

This is a really disappointing development. I've started to get back in the gym after lockdown and decided I really missed swimming, so was looking to switch to a VA (the local public pool is 20m of human soup whereas VA has a 25m, reportedly v.well maintained pool that's also closer to my house). I really don't want to have to change in the vicinity of male bodied strangers though, however they identify.

I personally think that private companies should be able to do this if they want, but only if its very clear to the customers.

However I can't see how it's justified by the law at the moment. I would like to see it challenged tbh, so that the company has to put their justification (presumably they will say that to do otherwise will discriminate on gender reassignment), allowing others to argue the opposite (that doing this isn't justified by the EA and discriminates on sex, or religious belief because some female customers will be be able to use the service). I really want to see this all play out in court.

Maybe the judicial review of the ehrc guidence by Ann sinnott will do that in effect?

@ErrolTheDragon

I'm sorry ☺️ I've just reread my post and it came across as though I we're trying to correct you, which wasn't the case at all. I was just venting my frustration at male people who 'just want to be like women'. I'm feeling battered by it all. Sorry again ☺️