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’

I don’t follow the logic of any of this.

NB people do not usually claim that they have undergone gender reassignment; they reject gender. Can you cite any statute or case law that treats NB people as having undergone gender reassignment?

And the gym does not need to assert a right to offer services to NB people under the EA. It can offer services to any group it likes, as long as it’s not discriminating against PCs by doing so. If it’s offering the occasional class for NB people but also offers classes for everyone else, it’s unlikely to be acting in a discriminatory way.

"The fact is, these young people go into male changing rooms all the time, because they identify as male. Which throws up the exact thing you're worried about - that they are surrounded by biological males who are seeing them undress."

Can you tell us why you believe that these female people are 'surrounded by biological males who are seeing them undress'? The female trans people I know are not there amongst male people getting naked. Why do you feel that they are?

We have also had quite a number of female trans people state on these boards that they most definitely do not get naked in front of male people. They find alternative solutions. They even have an app so that they can.

Are you doing this personally? Or is this based on your expectation of what happens only?

Transmen who choose to use the male changing facilities are exercising a choice. They are entitled to use female facilities if they wish.

If both changing rooms are mixed sex then choice is taken away from all females to stay safe in female only facilities.

Why shouldn't women be able to choose to stay safe and private away from males?

What the gym should really do is put in some cubicles.

I think we can all agree on that! I also agree that teenagers can be stubborn twits.

I don't agree that an official mixed sex facility safeguards them more than them blundering into the gents.

It's a magnet for predators. And an authorised one at that. I don't think any company should be in a position where they can sanction it.

The biggest risk reduction you can have is to sex segregate. And making women who identify as a men aware of that would be a step in the right direction. Rather than accommodating their delusion.

I agree. if this is the arrangement at the gym, then it is poor safeguarding. And I wonder if it is really driven by an expectation that female people are getting naked in male change rooms where there are no cubicle, rather than the reality.

The reality is that the final outcome is poor safeguarding. Even with waivers signed or whatever. This would result in female people having a very poor result and I would believe it is a case of discrimination not to provide a female single sex provision in some way.

@limefrog you are very naive. In this situation (which I reckon isn’t the one that will be happening btw) by advertising a specific class is mixed sexed, it does increase risk. Because good men stay out of women’s spaces. And so will women stay out of mixed spaces. So you are left with vulnerable youngsters and men who are interested in being in a mixed sex space.

A comparable situation happened near me. It ended up with social services and police involvement as the lgbtq+ friends under 18 and middle aged men who liked school uniforms were mixing.

Tbh I think the most likely scenario is a man who wants to use the women’s changing room because of the ‘proud’ statement. They seem to be the demographic that makes the most noise about this.

It is a session where people can go and not feel they are making anyone uncomfortable by being in the wrong changing room - that has its place and can actually be a good thing for both non binary people AND women

What is the benefit to women?

The reality is that the final outcome is poor safeguarding. Even with waivers signed or whatever.

I wasn't serious about disclaimers, in case that wasn't clear.

I wondered if that poster would think it a good idea. I've seen too many people try desperately to accommodate a low safeguarded situation because of 'validation'.

I wondered if that poster thought getting young women to sign away their safety was worth it.

A Select Committee is not the Government; their recommendations are not Government statements and do not create law.

Taylor v Landrover was an employment tribunal case and therefore does not set legal precedent. They do not have the same status as employment tribunal appeals.

No idea Datun.

I find it concerning that some people believe though, that there are young female people getting naked in communal changing rooms as a matter of regularity with male people. I think this needs to be clarified and some evidence presented. Not that some young female people will go into a cubicle and use it in a male facility, but that they are right there naked with the male people as a matter of course.

I am keen to see if limefrog has personal experience of this, or has made some assumptions. If this based on personal experience, then that is fucking concerning.

Actually, either is fucking concerning.

I don't think we're disagreeing, I think we're saying different things.

The EA does permit single-sex provision. The EA does not, however, create any entitlement to single-sex spaces.

So, if the gym tells the OP that it is not allowed to offer single-sex changing rooms, that it is definitely not correct - the EA specifies that it can (as you say).

However, the gym is not under any legal obligation to offer single-sex spaces.

I think you're projecting a lot of wishful thinking here: this is not what the OP is describing at all.

Clearly advertised times of the week and different sessions for different needs (mixed sex, gender neutral, female only etc) would be lovely. But you'd still have men jumping up and down demanding their right to take their clothes off with women in the female only sessions. As has happened in many, many other situations: it is the key issue at hand for women.

That their right to not required to be with men who state a belief in being a woman in situations where being undressed or vulnerable is a part of the activity is constantly under attack.

Which throws up the exact thing you're worried about - that they are surrounded by biological males who are seeing them undress.

Consent.

Consent is the bit you're missing.

If a female teenager is absolutely desperate to get her kit off in front of random men, and is under aged, then yes it's concerning and yes there's a limited amount you can do. Other than hope she is merely making men very uncomfortable as opposed to being exploited or assaulted. And a kid in this situation is by definition going to be vulnerable.

I'm more concerned about the females, teenaged or otherwise, told to get their kit off with a bloke against their consent and will, or lose access to the facilities because of the bloke's belief that he is something other than a bloke. And his total lack of care about the women's experience of this, or their feelings, or their needs.

A woman who consents to get undressed in front of unknown men to validate their identities by exposing her body - well, her boundary issues are sad, but are not my problem. I'll settle for a space where non consenting women are not compelled to choose between rank exploitation by a male however distressed it may make them, or from losing all access to the resource or service.
And I don't believe in the 21st century where people are wittering endlessly about DEI, that I actually just had to type that last sentence out and that I live in a country where men, and their women enablers, have made this an issue for women. WTAF.

Here you go: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9515/

There has only been that one case at the ET so far but it’s not unreasonable to describe NB people as ‘proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.’ when ‘part of the process’ is simply changing your name on a gas bill 😬

Fortunately for everyone’s sanity (they are prone to idiosyncratic decisions), ETs do not make case law.

The review of current law, to which you have linked, confirms that, ‘Non-binary genders are not recognised in UK law’.

The only way i could see this being acceptable would be if it was for a children’s class and the changing rooms were made gender neutral for that period and also exclusively used for the children so that both male and female parents/carers could assist young children of either sex with changing. Joe could take his daughter Molly and Mary could take her twins Jane and John in together to change. As long as there was a cut-off on child age, I think most people would be happy with this as the adults themselves would not be changing, they would all just be helping their children.
I can’t think of any other situation where this could be even remotely acceptable

I meant 'entitled' as it's their right and can't be denied. As it stands, companies can say "sorry, our facilities are mixed sex".

This. I think sticking to the facts is the best approach.

Yes, we’re officially in in no man’s (enbie?) legal land but there is no material difference between a man who says he is proposing to undergo part of process to change gender with the final destination as ‘woman’ and a man who says he is proposing to undergo part of process to change gender with a destination that isn’t woman, seeing as humans cannot actually change sex and most transgender people don’t bother with the GRC process.

Both are still blokes and neither belongs in the female changing room, but both can currently claim the Gender Reassignment characteristic and any rejection of either could lead to litigation, and even if that’s ultimately unsuccessful it’s a massive pain in the arse for a business.

Not only is that untrue, but you have yourself posted a link, clarifying that that is untrue. Being non-binary is not recognised by UK law, as the link you shared states.

‘gender’ isn’t recognised in law either tho!

The whole things a shit show but it’s not surprising that a gym would assume that nonbinary is protected in the same way that other sorts of transgender is when the government website says this:

A gender neutral changing space
It's mixed sex. 'Gender' is irrelevant.

Females going into the male changing rooms are actively choosing to take the risk themselves.

That is entirely different to putting ALL the females in female changing rooms at risk by letting males in.

These spaces are rightfully segregated by sex not any of the imagined 'genders'

You can't pretend your way out of your sex.
Why can't a 'non binary' with a penis use the men's like all the other men? They are male after all.

If the genderists want special spaces they can campaign for them, instead of demanding single sex provision that is wanted by the vast majority, be removed.

I'm beginning to wonder when we're going to get to the point where someone tries to bluntly make the argument that not providing a load of unconsenting women to validate an AGP fetish is 'discrimination'. So the Hamas / Taliban like position that women really don't count as much as men and need to simply be tools for men to use.

I mean that IS the whole argument really, otherwise third spaces (plus spaces for each sex) would solve everything. Except we know that the vast majority of women would self- exclude from the third space and go into the women's space and that's insufficiently erm let's say validating, which is why TRAs aren't advocating for third or even solely trans spaces (trans only spaces are fine with me! I wouldn't feel at all discriminated against as long as there's single sex too).

There was a right on the money cartoon on here once which was a load of transwomen all in a bathroom (labelled 'women') together and all getting really fed up that it was only the male kind of woman they were sharing with.

Both are still blokes and neither belongs in the female changing room, but both can currently claim the Gender Reassignment characteristic

Even if that were the case, the protection for anyone with one of the defined charateristics is protection from discrimination compared with someone who is the same apart from that characteristic. So a man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment cannot be treated less favourably than another man. He does not have the right to be treated the same as a woman.

We don't even know for certain that the changes in the gym are being made to accommodate trans people, let alone NB. For some reason, you have seized on the idea that the gym is nervous about being sued by NB people, and you've invented some elaborate theory about why.

As for the Law not recognising gender, do you want to take another pass at that? The EA on gender reassignment? The Court of Session ruling? The GRA? Any of those ring a bell?