Trans Swimming sessions

[DaveDave]

Just saw the below event advertised at my local pool. How come this is ok but we can't have biologically female only swimming sessions? I'm annoyed, not because of the event, but because it seems impossible to have female only swimming without being accused of being transphobic.

"Been hoping for a swimming event that's only for trans, non-binary, and/or intersex people? Well, here it is!

To ensure privacy we have booked an entire public pool so it's just for us! Apart from the lifeguards, the rest of the building will be empty too, so there's no need to worry about which changing room to use or people staring. Whether you want to swim laps, float about, or just hang out, you're very welcome. We want these sessions to be accessible to as many people who need them, so if you need a carer who is cisgender to attend with you they are welcome to come along. Parents/guardians are welcome to come and wait in the changing rooms but will not be allowed in the pool or on the poolside.

VENUE: The venue will be given to you during booking to ensure privacy. Please do not advertise this information. You can arrive 15 minutes prior to our swimming session starting, but please note that if you arrive more than 15 minutes late you may be locked out. There is very little phone reception by the pool so you may not be able to get in touch with anyone to let you into the building.

CHANGING FACILITIES: The changing room is gender neutral, wheelchair accessible, and has individual changing and shower cubicles. Before swimming you'll have 15 mins to get ready, and 30 mins at the end.

AGE RANGE: This event is for all ages, but if you're under 18 you'll need to get a consent form signed. Just let us know when you're booking and we'll send you one to bring filled in on the day. Please bear in mind that we do not currently allow cisgender parents and guardians to be in the pool or on the poolside.

DRESS CODE: As always, genitals covered. If you have [insert word you're comfortable using for your chest/boobs/breast tissue] you'll need to have your chest covered too. A rash vest would be best, but if you don't have one or can't afford one a light weight t-shirt is also acceptable.

BOOKING: To book, or ask any questions, contact [email protected]. If you are disabled and need a cisgender carer to attend with you please let me know during booking.

COST: This event is free to attend but as a charity we welcome donations. You can donate on our website

www.rainbow-project.org/donate/ or there will be a donation bucket available at the event.

(redacted)

There used to be a lot of women-only swim sessions, at least when I lived in Glasgow. I think that a lot of Muslim women used them. Not sure if these still exist.

Ah. Seems not.
2019

'Glasgow Life's definition includes anyone who identifies as trans rather than just those who have fully transitioned. This opens lessons up to men who cross-dress.

Their guidance to staff states: "The person is entitled to participate in single sex sessions and cannot be excluded from participation of (sic) their chosen gender."
Glasgow Life's guidelines include those who are not fully transitioned

...
It adds that the policy includes: “Cross-dressing people (who cross dress because they feel more comfortable expressing themselves in masculine or feminine clothing).”

The guidelines say any customers who object should have the policy “sensitively” explained to them.

It adds: "Some customers may complain if they feel that someone whom they think of being of the opposite sex is in their changing room. This is understandable and it requires sensitive explanation of .... our policy of trying to facilitate equal access within our venues.”

But staff are told to treat any such complaint as a hate crime.'

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4151421/glasgow-swimming-cross-dressing-men-female-classes/

Glasgow Life will cover all municipal pools in Glasgow, as far as I know. That's quite a lot of Muslim and Jewish women who may be excluded from swimming lessons they used to participate in.

Maybe this is why wild swimming has taken off so much in the past few years ...

Govanhill baths looks a bit more promising:

www.govanhillbaths.com/learn-to-swim-at-govanhill-baths/

'Where classes are catering for single sex sessions, this will be clearly stated.'

I'm so glad to hear that Govanhill baths seems to have sensible policies, Arabella.
Someone I know was involved in campaigning for the baths to reopen and it seemed like a wonderful project.

And look what else they say on their website- as people have repeatedly said on this thread, specific sessions for trans people can be really valuable and groups should be free to organise these, but women need to be allowed to have female-only sessions:

"The plan for the refurbished building is based on extensive consultations with the people of Govanhill. A key finding was that the lack of segregated swimming (e.g. for women or minority groups) is a real barrier to people being able to swim. We will therefore have segregated swimming and other events as a core part of our activity plan. Here are some examples of what will be on offer:

*Weekly women-only swimming sessions, swimming lessons, and water aerobics
*Women-only spa nights, for women to try swimming, yoga, the Turkish Suite, and meditation
*Swimming lessons by and for minority groups
*Men-only activities, to provide a social space which does not revolve around the sale of alcohol
.
In addition, there is a real lack of local facilities which offer LGBTQIA+-only exercise. This bias towards straight spaces can be a real barrier to people who wish to access fitness facilities. We will therefore be offering LGBTQIA+ swimming and other activities, in order to provide a safe space for LGBTQIA+ people to socialise and take part in exercise. At Govanhill Baths we do everything by- and for the community, so any classes for LGBTQIA+ groups will be led by people from within that community.
We hope that all of these plans will be a step towards making the baths a resource for everyone in the local community. We are always open to new ideas as well, so get in touch if you would like to suggest an activity!"

(And in case it is isn't obvious) I would never suggest segregation as a blanket policy.
Most pools, the majority of the time, are open to everyone. Both sexes, all ages, and of course all religions, faiths, ethnicities, sexualities, etc. So someone like IrishJ would hopefully feel comfortable and not out of place. Transwomen could come and quietly swim. Male and female friends could swim at the same time, motivating each other to keep up with their fitness goals and catching up over a cup of tea afterwards. The young teenager / tween who feels uncomfortable with the gendered expectations placed on her developing female body, can go swimming with Granny (who the group in the OP would class as 'cis') and forget about those pressures for a while in the sheer joy of moving her body through the water.

But some minorities- including females- do need to be allowed to have their own sessions in order to take part at all.

I would only support segregation, as a blanket policy, when it comes to areas that should be segregated by sex such as changing rooms, showers, toilets. In the scenario described by the OP, the organisation seems to be hiring the whole building so, safeguarding aside, this shouldn't be a problem. But day to day it might.

Well, Govanhill includes large immigrant and ethnic minority populations, so I'm really very unsurprised that the community would have pointed that out! But it's great to hear they're listening - too often it seems the feelings/wants/thoughts of minorities are supported only when they are politically convenient.

Nicola Sturgeon's constituency - Pollokshields East - has a large Asian population. I wonder how they feel about her determination to break down single sex protections.

I would just like to add, having read some of the replies, that I’m absolutely not arguing for these sessions, or agains women’s only sessions, not do I believe that those sessions being trans exclusionary should be an issue.

My point was simply that with so many people self IDing and some looking more feminine that others hoe would you ensure you successfully excluded the right people.

For what it’s worth
i don’t believe that trans women are women, nor that they have exclusive rights to women’s only spaces. Anymore than I believe I have a right to mens only spaces, often I am accepted in such places, but that doesn’t give me a right.

I chose my path in life, and I chose to present as male. I know a lot of people will say it’s not a choice. But it is, however uncomfortable I was within my skin I could’ve chosen to not do anything about it.

As I said, sometimes it made things like swimming difficult in the early years.
But life went on, I either didn’t go, or I recognised I looked too male to enter women’s spaces and I quietly changed in men’s/unisex facilities. As I still do today.

I didn’t kick and scream that life was unfair and I needed my own pool.

I accepted everything that came with my new gender role, good and bad.

Women require their own safe sessions because of years of abuse and objectification by men, and I stand behind any woman advocating for such a space.

At no point, have trans people routinely been abused or objectified at swimming pools.

Some pools I’ve been to have said no to ‘man’ wearing a chest covering which makes it harder for a trans man to wear male swim wear but keep their chests covered if pre surgery

But a simple change in policy to allow ANYONE to cover themselves if they feel more confident doing so would have solved that problem.

There’s a huge different between a trans person wanting a swim
and a trans person inserting themselves in to s female space to prove a point.

One is absolutely fine, the other is not.

Men-only activities, to provide a social space which does not revolve around the sale of alcohol

this is a hugely important point too. But off topic for the conversation. But really excellent.

My point was simply that with so many people self IDing and some looking more feminine that others hoe would you ensure you successfully excluded the right people.

Yes, it's perhaps difficult in some cases to be 100% sure who is male and female.

In the same way, we can't always be sure that someone ordering a pint in a pub is over 18. There is variation in appearance, and there are things people can do to better 'pass' as over 18.

But this doesn't mean that we just remove the age restrictions on alcohol.

We have campaigns to make it clear that under 18s cannot purchase alcohol, and we trust most people to stick to the law.

There will always be people who are willing to abuse the system, break the law, ignore the rules and wishes of others.

We don't arrange our society to accommodate them by removing all laws, regulations, conventions and protocols. That would be madness.

I thought that's what you were saying IrishDJ. Thank you for coming back and adding to this thread.

Sorry, not DJ but J! Sorry about that

Perhaps as a test case a women's group should block book the pool and organise a women's session. That will show whether it is being done fairly.

Some pools did offer a men-only session (following a backlash over women's sessions). They were discontinued due to lack of patronage.

There used to be 'men only' sessions at one of the Glasgow pools, iirc. Mostly the sauna was really busy. (It was a gay cruising event, basically.)

Interesting.

Another LA focus was lack of fathers at children's centres at the time (15 plus years back) Lots of surveys done, lots of complaints that the centres were all women focused, fathers didn't feel welcomed, felt the things on the boards (about child development, playing with your child etc) wasn't aimed at men.

Carefully planned noticeboards were introduced, father only sessions introduced and made as fun as possible with cake etc. No impact or increase in engagement from the men who had wanted these changes.

Rather like the historic complaint on MN of 'where's Dadsnet then? it's not fair!' followed by the link to Dadsnet which is always a bit of a quiet and underused spot.

You'd be forgiven for a bit of pattern recognition.

with so many people self IDing and some looking more feminine that others hoe would you ensure you successfully excluded the right people.

You shift the focus from 'how do we keep out' to clear social expectations that it is required that you respect the necessary provisions for other people's access and inclusion, and that it is unacceptable behaviour to attempt to deceive or force your way into a space that has been provided for others' equality of access for your own reasons.

There are perfectly accessible mixed sex swims. I am sure that most leisure centres would very happily plan for mixed sex 'womens swims' and single sex female only swims, LGBT+ specific swims or anything else that is needed. The issue is requiring TQ+ political followers to - 'educate themselves' I think is the horrid phrase - or rather to understand that some female people have needs and barriers of their own and decent people do a bit of living and letting live. And that if your own accessibility needs have been respected and provided for, you don't destroy them for others.

@IrishJ

You are falling into the trap of assuming because sonething cannot be 100% guaranteed, it's not worth doing at all.

Let's take burglary as an example.

Burglary is, obviously, wrong and also illegal.

Most people won't rob someone else's home. Not even if they really want to. Not even if they think the homeowner is a bad person who doesn't deserve to have what they have as much as the would-be burglar deserves it. Not even if the door was left open. Not even if there's no chance at all of being caught. What stops them? The social contract that says we don't steal from each other or violate each others' homes.

But there's some people who would go ahead if there was definitely no chance of getting caught. And some who would take the risk of being caught if the place was already open because the chance is quite low and walking through an open door feels less bad somehow than actively breaking in. After all, if they really cared about their stuff they'd take more care, right?

And then there's the hard-core. They know it's illegal but for them that's not a reason not to do it, just a risk to manage. They know it will distress the homeowner both to lose their possessions and to have their home violated but that doesn't stop them. Some justify it to themselves by telling themselves that the targets are rich and the rich are immoral and deserve to be robbed, or that their need is greater, or that insurance covers it so there's no real harm. Some just don't give a shit. Some actively take pleasure in trashing the home.

The only way to stop the hard core group is physical security and even then it's not 100%.

So although we all agree burglary is wrong, it is illegal and there are a lot of controls in place, we don't stop 100% of burglaries happening. Yet no one suggests that since we can't stop all burglaries we might as well make it legal and leave the doors open when we go out.

So going back to female-only swimming....

Most male people, whatever their gender, would, I hope, respect it if society agreed that a small number of swimming sessions are not open to them, as indeed they did until very recently.

Of those who do not respect it, many will still be prevented in practice by their appearance. A small number might both "pass" and have no respect for the preference (and in some cases requirement) of some female people to swim without male, and these male people may indeed be able to infiltrate female only sessions. However, should their natal sex become clear, or they behaved in a way that made others uncomfortable, they could still be asked to leave.

So in practical terms, even though we have not been able to guarantee 100% female only at all times, by imposing the female-only rule we have still greatly improved on a situation where no controls are even attempted.

What is really important is not whether the rule can be enforced with 100% perfection, but that society should treat female-only sessions as worthy of respect, and not condone this aggressive insistence by genderists that female people should have no right to any space, activity, voice or identity which does not also include males. If the rule is generally respected, it's self-policing.

I’m not naive at all, if you read the rest of my posts. Registered charities have safeguarding obligations but I have no confidence in them fulfilling them unless they are explicitly stating they are doing so, and even then the proof is only in the action.

I pointed out they’re a registered charity to make sure it was clear it wasn’t remotely like someone organising a private kids’ party.

Yes notbad. After seeing the policy changes around safeguarding in guides, I have no confidence anymore that charities are robust in following safeguarding.

Wasn’t there a pool event in the UK similar to this before? And across the wide age group? Or was that just a meet up?

I'd like to say that Guiding is a charity for biological women only, and that we hired a pool for the evening for private use, several times.
In fact, that was back in the day when GG was for women only.
It now allows men/boys in, but only if they say they are women/girls.
You can still book the pool for private use though, even if your unit doesn't have any transwomen in it.

I pointed out they’re a registered charity to make sure it was clear it wasn’t remotely like someone organising a private kids’ party

I can't be bothered to do a huge sample, but I think (happy to be proved wrong) that in most cases of you Google <charity name> <safeguarding policy> you find the charity's safeguarding policy. The Rainbow Project doesn't seem to have one. Even on their volunteer training page www.rainbow-project.org/training-development/ they dont mention safeguarding

Mermaids has shown that high profile charities can have shit safeguarding. I don't see why so many people on this thread seem to assume on the basis of no evidence that the Rainbow Project has excellent safeguarding in place.

That wasn't aimed at the person I quoted btw!

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 10:10
The under 18 sessions should be separate, and with appropriate supervision.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 10:11
Other than that, I have no issue as long as women can have female only swimming.

I agree with both your points.