Single sex sessions, Harrogate Turkish baths

[Itwasjustresting]

Nudity will be banned at single sex sessions in order to be more inclusive.

“A separate report said while there has been an increase in mixed-sex sessions over the last year, there was "concern" around access for those of varying gender categories including transgender, gender dysphoria and transsexual.

"This is due to the potential access to single sex sessions by someone of technically the opposite sex, especially to those sessions where swimwear is optional," the report said.

Now, I may have read this wrong, but if someone “technically” of the opposite sex has accessed a single-sex session, surely it has stopped being single-sex?

www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/council/harrogate-turkish-baths-set-to-u-turn-on-move-to-mixed-sex-sessions-only-3204075

I think they realise. But I think they are probably unwilling to keep putting staff in difficult positions regarding enforcement of who attends and how they behave.
By having equal amounts of male/female sessions they are avoiding criticism and offering fair/equal access. It also allows staff attendance not to be restricted on sex, which probably makes it easier for any trans employees too.
By removing the naked option no one can deliberately use that to offend or behave inappropriately.
I think overall it's as fair and reasonable as they can be. But it is a shame that it does restrict some freedoms.
The leisure centre I go to (changing village is mixed sex - there is nearly always a staff member present, the floor is exceptionally well mopped) also has a spa area, with sauna and jacuzzi. Many large signs in place insisting that swimwear is worn at all times. Even during single sex sessions.

The female-only sessions at Harrogate Turkish Spa Baths have been an important provision for a long time for women. Its a very special place.

In the 1990's a friend of mine was part of a documentary about why it was so significant.

I have been. It's very lovely.
But, it's run by a local authority, which means decisions will be taken by people without emotional investment in the place. Budgets are tight and they have a duty of care to their staff. These will be more significantly weighted than the tradition of use.
It's cynical, but Councils are used to taking unpopular decisions. I suspect they will make these changes and ride out the criticism.

[quote R0wantrees]This is an ideal case to illustrate how Equality Act single sex exceptions clause should be used but providers are unable/unwilling to use it.

A female single sex bathing session where women are naked can exclude all male people (including those who have a GRC) whether staff or customers.

Male people are not discriminated against as they have the option to attend either the mixed sex or single male sex sessions at the baths.

Naomi Cunningham (Barrister), Oral evidence: Reform of the Gender Recognition Act, HC 884
Wednesday 10 February 2021

"Just a tiny point on language. Can we try to talk about the exceptions” in the Equality Act, not the “exemptions”, because “exemptions” makes them sound like something special that has to be applied for, and they are not.

The general rule is that you cannot discriminate in various circumstances and there are exceptions to those rules, and those exceptions always apply in the circumstances where they apply. You do not have to make a special application for an exemption from the rule; they are just situations where the rule does not apply."

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1693/default/[/quote]
Thanks for that clarification, duly noted!

It's cynical, but Councils are used to taking unpopular decisions. I suspect they will make these changes and ride out the criticism.

Many councils have being misadvised with respect of Equality Act legislation.
In 2018 women challenged those who were misquoting (and therefore misapplying) The Equality Act.
Anne Sinnott's forthcoming Judicial Review vs EHRC will likely reveal further the extent of the failures.

I meant that comment about unpopular decisions in a wider context (planning, road changes, school places, etc), but the misapplication of the Equality Act is a huge issue.

It would be interesting to see Harrogate Borough Council’s actual Equality Policy, as the Equalities section on the website seems a little confused over Protected Characteristics:

The Public Sector Equality Duty was created by the Equality Act 2010 and replaces the race, disability and gender equality duties. The duty came into force in April 2011 and covers age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation marriage and civil partnership.

Note it lists Gender not Sex.

www.harrogate.gov.uk/community/equalities-statement/2

Someone who lives in their area needs to send them a correct version. The propagation of this error is not always malicious or deliberate.

Agreed Errol, I realised that my own local council had something similar in its policy, so I contacted them and they responded within 24 hours to tell me they had updated their policy and website (and they had).

[quote LostToucan]It would be interesting to see Harrogate Borough Council’s actual Equality Policy, as the Equalities section on the website seems a little confused over Protected Characteristics:

The Public Sector Equality Duty was created by the Equality Act 2010 and replaces the race, disability and gender equality duties. The duty came into force in April 2011 and covers age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation marriage and civil partnership.

Note it lists Gender not Sex.

www.harrogate.gov.uk/community/equalities-statement/2[/quote]
It appears Harrogate Borough Council was missed in 2018 when so many were corrected:

WPUK
18th June 2018
'Grassroots women’s pressure forces local authorities to comply with the law over sex and gender'
(extract)
"Local councils around Britain have been forced to change legally inaccurate equalities information on their websites by women’s rights campaigners. Many authorities have been found to be in breach of the Equalities Act by stating that “gender” is a protected characteristic, as opposed to “sex,” and some authorities have listed the two terms interchangeably, which they have sought to rectify due to sustained campaigning.

Supported and encouraged by grassroots campaign group Women’s Place UK and others, women from across Britain are now writing to their local councils to ensure that they have the correct list of nine protected characteristics.

Clackmannanshire initially replied to queries by saying ‘Hi, we talk about gender discrimination rather then sex discrimination as it’s more inclusive.”

twitter.com/ClacksCouncil/status/1005104288253861892

But after being challenged by campaigners have corrected their guidance

twitter.com/ClacksCouncil/status/1006109396491960321

Derbyshire County Council were also initially defiant in the incorrect use of their terms

twitter.com/Derbyshirecc/status/1006103009695293440

but after lots of women contacted them to challenge this position they agreed to change the wording

twitter.com/Derbyshirecc/status/1007226036667473920

Some of the other councils who have corrected their guidance after lobbying by campaigners are Nottinghamshire, Stockport, West Oxfordshire, Wigan, Bournemouth, Salford, Winchester, Manchester City, Luton, Lambeth and Kensington & Chelsea, Pembrokeshire, Wrexham and Rhondda Cynon Taff.

The Welsh Government has also made the changes after being contacted by campaigners.

Women across the UK will continue to challenge councils and other organisations who are getting equality law wrong.

The 9 protected characteristics are

Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage & civil partnership
Pregnancy & Maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation" (continues)
womansplaceuk.org/grassroots-womens-pressure-forces-local-authorities-to-comply-with-the-law-over-sex-and-gender/

There’s certainly sone hints in the press discussions that the all-male sessions were stopped after “inappropriate behaviour”.

Ah, that's interesting.

I can't help but think that is pretty shitty for the vast majority of men who are not looking for a place to go for sex but actually just what they are supposed to be there for. It's not like London is poorly served for places for gay saunas.

If that was the problem they should have hired some burley guys to make it clear that stuff it just not on.

That’s one of the most depressing things about the current situation and one of the things tha makes it absolutely clear that this is a men’s rights movement. Women are losing things they value because men are determined to invade and are being encouraged to do so

Let's be honest about this, it's also the lack of will and guts to withstand very poor behaviour on the part of some male people who are utterly intolerant of female people having anything they cannot own and take. It's that simple. There is an inability to tolerate female people having any provision at all to meet sex based needs, even if it's one single session alongside ample other alternative accessible sessions. It is people unable to think intersectionally, who do not care about inclusion, diversity, and feel an entitlement to insist that they and their needs be centred by everything. It's an attitude often seen on the boards here.

"I want it. I need it. Fuck what happens to everyone else, anyone not centering me and daring to have disabilities/faiths/traumas that make that impossible for me should lose their civil rights'.

It's appalling behaviour. And demonstrates exactly why female people need sex based rights, because without it, they're the constant losers in a snatch and grab raid.

This will result in what we've forcast from the start, in that more vulnerable females will just quietly lose their access. They will have less, they will be marginalised, they will be discriminated against. But they're a lot less scary and noisy to upset, and there will always be those who enjoy misogyny to smugly say "good".

Most five year olds could process the unacceptability of this. But yes. You cannot leave your staff to face an angry, shouty couple of six foot people insisting they are coming into the women only session.

This was being discussed on radio 2. Of course they completely missed the implied meaning of 'inclusivity' and many callers were crying 'prude'.
It's obvious for anyone reading between the lines this is about protecting staff from being in a situation where they are having to gatekeep female swimming sessions from natal males.
It's such a shame the media isn't being honest in it's coverage because this is absolutely the sort of thing we should be discussing: the accessibility for women of all cultures and how identity muddies the waters. Ultimately more women miss out than others benefit.
People also confusing traditional single sex settings like Japanese onsens and mixed sex bathing. Very different atmospheres and users for the services.

Weirdly I just looked up the Clackmannanshire Council website, and under their equality and diversity section they have listed gender again instead of sex.

I wonder if that was quietly changed back, or am I on the wrong page?

www.clacks.gov.uk/council/eqopps/

I also checked out Derbyshire Council's website, and they have a document called 'Guidance on Equality Analysis 2019'. They have listed the protected characteristics as the following:

These duties relate to the nine protected characteristic groups defined by the Equality Act 2010, namely:

 Age
 Disability
 Gender or Sex
 Gender re-assignment
 Pregnancy and maternity
 Race
 Religion and belief, including non-belief
 Sexual orientation, and
 Marriage and Civil Partnership (albeit solely in relation to the need to eradicate unlawful prohibited conduct)

So even after it was pointed out to them in 2018, they decided to amend the Equalities Act themselves and just add in Gender regardless - how sneaky!

I wonder if they are Stonewall champions?

Sorry this is getting annoying now... Nottinghamshire council have a pdf on their website about diversity and inclusion, and how important the correct language is etc.

Chapter 2 is titled 'Sex and Language' and the first line is this: Sex discrimination is differential treatment of people on the basis of gender.

Why do they keep doing this? It's so frustrating. Gender and sex are not the same thing!!

North Yorkshire CC (which covers Harrogate) isn’t any better either:

Our responsibilities
The Equality Act 2010 says that we must not treat people unfairly because of age, disability, sex (gender), gender reassignment, sexual orientation, race, religion or belief, pregnancy or maternity, marriage or civil partnership. These are called “protected characteristics”.

www.northyorks.gov.uk/sites/default/files/fileroot/About%20the%20council/Strategies%2C%20plans%20and%20policies/Equality_and_diversity_policy_statement_2018.pdf

How hard is it to accurately type out a list of nine things?

That is so sneaky! Just quote and follow the actual.law, ffs!

East Sussex CC is even better:

3. The duty to promote equality
3.1. We recognise that we have a particular responsibility to ensure that equality is central to the development of our policies and practices in respect of race, gender, disability, religion and belief, sexuality and age. This means we will tackle discrimination, encourage understanding and promote equality of opportunity in relation to each of these strands in all aspects of our work.

What happened to sex, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, and marriage and civil partnership?

I wonder if they have some puritanical reason for not using the word sex, and just think gender is a more 'naice' way of saying it.

Perhaps they don't realise that one is biologically based, and the other is based on feelings and therefore means whatever people decide it means on the day = relatively useless as a descriptor.

However the two councils that were alerted to the problem and changed it in 2018 must understand why this was pointed out to them...so now they don't care that it's incorrect.

@LostToucan

East Sussex CC is even better:

3. The duty to promote equality
3.1. We recognise that we have a particular responsibility to ensure that equality is central to the development of our policies and practices in respect of race, gender, disability, religion and belief, sexuality and age. This means we will tackle discrimination, encourage understanding and promote equality of opportunity in relation to each of these strands in all aspects of our work.

What happened to sex, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, and marriage and civil partnership?

Yes, they seem to have edited it completely...who writes these things? Surely they looked up the original legislation and the correct wording of it.

The fact that these are councils makes it worse - they are part of the government.

What confuses me is why they need to be single sex. I've been to Germany many times and swim without clothes in a mixed pool, it's optional, if you aren't comfortable you can wear a swim suit. In Germany it's been over 12's too not over 18. We are too hung up on nudity here

I have been to a spa in Germany. My friend deliberately took me on the day that it was mandatory for everyone to wear bathing costumes. She knew I'd have an attack of the vapours otherwise.
In all seriousness though, if you're fine with nudity, then that's fine, also fine if you're not. Many many reasons why you might not be though. Not fine to judge others.

There was a piece about this today on the Jeremy Vine show on BBCR2. He completely missed the point and after some schoolboy snickering, seemed to conclude that Brits are repressed when it comes to taking their kit off in public. Thought that the inclusion of remaining clothed was for people a bit embarrassed about their wobbly bits.

This was published on Tuesday.

That was until today when the council announced it had published the 39-page report online, although with large parts blanked out.

(Due to personal data and crimes being referred to in responses.)

www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/council/harrogate-turkish-baths-publishes-survey-results-with-highly-sensitive-info-blacked-out-3216220?fbclid=IwAR0whCBPtTxD2Ys-QHocgWGq5vaq8kIzvR5mCH1YAjnk9lkB3ndpp9Cenoo