Non Binary Gym Changing Rooms

[NevermindNelson]

I’ve just had an email from a gym I use explaining that their changing rooms are going to become gender neutral. I don’t even know where to start to reply. The email states that they’re proud to do this.

I want to reply with the reasons that I’m cancelling my membership, but all I’ve got so far is, “What, seriously?”

Maybe I should just send this - Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities. Because they have made the changing rooms unisex, haven’t they?

Edited to correct the term as ‘gender neutral’

Ours has this but with lots of cubicles so not a problem

"One person connected to the gym" replied? And "nothing to worry about it's only for one class"?

That looks like an "escalate to management". Formal letter to management asking if the gym is starting mixed-sex shared changing rooms, ask how they will ensure that your privacy and safety are respected, enclose a copy of the emails, and say you will resign (and ask for a refund) if they can't give a satisfactory answer.

Do not explain to them. Let them explain themselves to you. Wait for them to tell you why they think mixed-sex changing rooms are a good idea. With any luck they will backtrack.

I would also ask for clarification on this class. You need to know at what times it could be possible for a group of men to walk in while you're naked.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay I've used their contact form to ask, I did that yesterday morning, so they've got another 24 hours to respond. And yes, you're right, this is about them explaining to me, not the other way round.

It does not matter if its only one bloke on Tuesday mornings when pinned down. The fact is that if getting undressed on the premises now involves the risk of finding yourself stripping off in front of a random bloke who by walking in has declared his entitlement to use you and your body and his zero care for your boundaries, consent, access or humanity because he has needs ....

then a hell of a lot of women just now cannot risk using the site for that which it was intended. It is no longer accessible. It's like telling a wheelchair user: we mostly have ramps, but sometimes we'll take them all away because another customer pouts at the sight of them. So come and good luck, you might be able to use your membership or you might not, but you're not as an important customer as the pouty one so we're not bothered about your reliable access or equality. But crack on with paying us the same for services you might not be able to use.

What wheelchair user is going to say ok, I've got time to fuck about seeing whether or not I'm included today and I'll suck up all your risks as opposed to fuck it, I'll go find somewhere with a brain that actually gets accessibility and isn't busy kissing up to ridiculous and prejudiced political positions?

And if you're prepared to fuck over your entire women clientele - because no one's bothered to find out how many have accessibility needs incompatible with yay get your kit off with random men - for one bloke on a Tuesday morning as opposed to finding a quiet, private solution for that one bloke that meets his need without him removing provision from women?

Then you don't deserve women members anyway.

The only solution is likely to vote with your feet or threaten to. They ultimately have the right to choose how they use their property and whether they want to host a mixed sex session x number of times a week.

It's not that simple. If you provide a service to clients, you cannot just decide to discriminate against a group with protected characteristics. A B&B owner cannot decide not to accept gay or black guests, for example, even in their own home. And indirect discrimination is also illegal - you could not, for example, ban all face-coverings, even if you argued that you weren't doing so on religious grounds, because the ban would affect one group of people much more than others.

What is less clear-cut is when mixed sex facilities discriminate against women and people of particular religions and races (e.g. Muslim women, women from conservative Jewish and Christian traditions). AFAIK, there is no case law as yet to establish this. But any company that changes its services in a way that potentially disadvantage one group with protected characteristics is taking a big risk.

Sounds as if they're starting to backtrack already - from "proud to announce" to "nothing to worry about" and from "gender neutral changing rooms" to "only one class".

But I didn't think the Equality Act stipulates that women are entitled to single sex areas, unless I'm mistaken. I'm presuming that if it did all these big companies wouldn't be able to implement unisex toilets/dressing rooms like they are in droves

Obviously though in real terms it's bonkers for a gym to expect women to get naked in front of men, even more so to change things when they already had suitable provision.

How do you know there’s never been an issue, or has there never been an issue when you attended? Or more likely, are you the issue?

wise up to what exactly?

are you saying opening up women’s changing rooms to men doesn’t increase the chances of voyeurism, sexual assault, intimidation? If so, you need to wise up.

And here we are - straight from the EHRC:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/guidance-separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-equality-act-sex-and-gender-reassignment-exceptions.pdf

See Example 5:

1. The service is likely to be used by more than one person at the same time and a woman might reasonably object to the presence of a man (or vice versa). Example: separate male and female changing rooms.

And if this is about transgender people the closest example (not quite the same) is on page 8:

Example: A gym has separate-sex communal changing rooms. There is concern about the safety and dignity of trans men changing in an open plan environment. The gym therefore decides to introduce an additional gender-neutral changing room with self-contained units.

Is your gym providing "self-contained units" to women whose safety and dignity might be compromised by an open-plan environment for both sexes?

all these big companies wouldn't be able to implement unisex toilets/dressing rooms like they are in droves

As a pp said, the case law doesn't exist yet, and it is somewhat contested. It would be an expensive case to fight and the UK doesn't do huge punitive compenastions payments so really we have to wait for the government to clear up what's permitted and what's required.

But it's worth noting that some big companies quickly rolled back from providing only mixed-sex facilities. For example Primark now provide mixed and women-only changing.

@Nn9011 watch this video (roght to the end) and tell me there is no problem with men in women's spaces

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zwUe7-4-_TY&pp=ygUObXIgbWVubm8gc29uZ3M%3D

The EA does not give women the right to single sex areas, but I was more responding to your comment that the gym "ultimately have the right to choose how they use their property". That isn't the case. If the OP could demonstrate that they had discriminated against her with regards to a protected characteristic, they would be in breach of the EA (unless they could demonstrate a need to do so which is permitted under the EA).

As I said above, what is currently not clear cut is whether removing single sex spaces constitutes discrimination against women generally and/or women from religious or ethnic minorities. It is certainly possible that courts will find that it does, but we lack case law to establish this. From the OP's point of view, though, she can point out to the gym that they are at risk of being found to have discriminated.

The EA does not give women the right to single sex areas

It is going to have to be developed to do so. As the men (and their women helpers) have broken the protections in there for women through busily pushing their own agenda for men to have access to use women's bodies regardless of consent or care for women. Without direct gate keeping for women, many women are harmed and excluded. There is no good will coming from these activists, and it's fundamentally rooted in not caring about women, women's voices, women's needs, women's equality. You only have to look at the attempts on this thread to shame and silence women into undressing in silence or leaving in silence and pretending they don't exist.

It's like funding bids from the LAs will have to move to specifying that accessible single sex provisions for women MUST be provided, and mean single sex regardless of bits of paper with legal fictions.

The equality act has been broken by this misogynist political movement, and useful idiots like this gym who do not understand the first thing about DEI, believe what they're told by activists with agendas, and think of traumatised women, disabled women, BAME women etc as 'other' and not people who matter. In this sense, DEI has been destroyed and so has the EA. It no longer does its job because of wording that did not anticipate malicious exploitation and utter disregard for others like this.

It's being avoided however, because it will involve saying no to a group of men (and their women enablers) who will kick and scream and fuss and leave pee everywhere and scatter death threats. And there is apparently not one political party or establishment that doesn't have a sneaking sympathy for misogyny and a belief that women can just get their tits out for the lads ffs.

Skim read the doc and these seem like suggested considerations to take into account if considering implementing a single sex space. It doesn't look like they're saying single sex spaces are mandatory.

The EA does not give women the right to single sex areas, but I was more responding to your comment that the gym "ultimately have the right to choose how they use their property". That isn't the case. If the OP could demonstrate that they had discriminated against her with regards to a protected characteristic, they would be in breach of the EA (unless they could demonstrate a need to do so which is permitted under the EA).

Ah ok, I see what you mean. I was just referring to the toilet aspect.

No woman has ever done that, in fact if a door latch is broken they either won't use it or have a friend guard the door. That's awful for your friend's daughter.

That's just weird OP, what are they on? I believe the traditional suggestion is, "glue"?

I mean the place I swim at has mixed sex changing but it's all closed cubicles with doors, and with separate sex areas leading off where showers and loos are. The showers aren't screened off, so it's just to rinse off in your cossie, but it's still nice not to be doing that bang next to some hairy behemoth of a bloke in budgie smugglers.

The facilities belong to a v posh independent boys school so I imagine anyone trying funny business would be out on their ear sharpish.

It is going to have to be developed to do so. As the men (and their women helpers) have broken the protections in there for women through busily pushing their own agenda for men to have access to use women's bodies regardless of consent or care for women.

Not necessarily. We're talking about people/companies choosing how they manage the private property they own which they aren't obligated to let the public use and the public aren't obligated to attend. Prisons etc are a different matter.

You say "pushing their own agenda for men to have access to use women's bodies". They might say "allowing people the freedom of judgment free gender expression in a safe environment".

We need to play the game here IMO as what's the point of losing out of stubbornness or cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? The high moral ground won't seem so lofty when we're having to get naked in front of the lads.

I would just keep it simple and relatable. Ask "ok, where can I get dressed where men won't see me naked, because I wouldn't be comfortable with that?" I wouldn't start positioning myself as some beacon of Islamic rights because that just seems disingenuous and I think many just use it as a gotcha tbh.

The gym care about money and catering to the everyday majority. Reflecting this demographic is better than coming across as what they might perceive as 'a social justice nutter' or 'one of them bloody terf people' IMO.

I honestly think being straightforward is usually most effective. Like, if I found out women were systematically getting paid less by my employer I'd ask HR to explain why they didn't think women deserved the same salary as men. I defo wouldn't indulge in a rant about the patriarchy and email them feminist texts to read and 'educate' themselves with.

Transwoman 'sat peeing'.

I really don't want to think about the mechanics of this and what it looks like through an open door.

You say "pushing their own agenda for men to have access to use women's bodies".They might say"allowing people the freedom of judgment free gender expression in a safe environment".

Yes. Disguising male centred exploitation of women under clownfish burble is a hallmark of this movement. It can be unpicked in about three sentences.

The gym care about money and catering to the everyday majority. Reflecting this demographic is better than coming across as what they might perceive as 'a social justice nutter' or 'one of them bloody terf people' IMO.

This reflects what the gym are in fact thinking: that they, being white, middle class, of no particular faith, able bodied and privileged are the 'every day majority' and anyone not like them doesn't matter or impinge on their radar. While wittering about 'proud' of their 'inclusivity'.

I'm honestly not bothered about the good opinion of anyone shouting 'terf' to try and deflect criticism. I don't think pointing out the reality of the issues should be harder than these people are able to process, if explained in small words, albeit I accept your point that they're not very bright and highly prejudiced.

It doesn't look like they're saying single sex spaces are mandatory.

I agree, they aren't. Single sex spaces aren't mandatory. it's one of these bizarre legal double negatives. You don't have to, but you are protected if you do, and you could get hit for indirect discrimination if you don't.... The case law is atill being developed, there are various discrimination cases chugging their way towards the courts.

At least it's giving examples of seperate single-sex spaces might reasonably be expected.

I agree it's counter productive to rant at the gym owners. We have no idea wy they came up with this cockamamie idea or what's behind it. Maybe someone's naive attempt to be up-to-date, or try to cope with a difficult customer situation without realising that the easy solution is not a solution at all.

So let's rant here instead, and be calm and down to earth when talking to them.