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’

Blimey, SWALK, that takes me back!

Or 'NORWICH'. So tender, so romantic.

I've just found out what that means 😅

I've sent one last request to end my membership. It's two weeks since their CEO wanted to speak to me and radio silence since then, so I have to conclude that they do not want to discuss it.

I'm a bit sad that it's all condensed down to trying to end my membership and talk about getting my money back - I actually wanted the discussion to happen.

I agree, I could send a recorded letter, but they could sign for it then immediately bin it - they've made it very clear that they do not want to talk about this.

They need to backdate your refund from the date you realised you would not have single sex changing rooms. Good you have all the dates.

True... and it is sad. Rather than pushing the money-back aspect you could refer instead to the promised telephone conversation. That offer was sent in an email, wasn't it? So you could say "Ms Name sent an email on Date saying that you would contact me and asking for my availability to doscuss this problem. I offered the following date. I am still awaiting your call. When are you available to speak to to me as promised? Looking forward to your reply at your earliest convenience" etc

You could also express your interest in that article and ask how they plan to provide facilities for gender-netural changing that still give women the safety, privacy and dignity that are legally required by the 2010 Equality Act. Their gym changing facilities were designed for single-sex use and haven't been modified. Offering women a toilet in reception for changing in doesn't meet those requirements. If you really want to put the CEO on the spot you could ask if their plan is really to tell any vulnerable or religious women who are their customers to change in a toilet in reception, and how does that meet their goals for inclusion?

Depends if you reckon it's worth it of course! And yes, you might still get nowhere with them. Agree it's sad.

this is the sort of thing local newspapers like, if you can be bothered

I got a reply. Apparently my emails hadn’t been reaching the right person for ‘reasons’.

I’m going to reply today, could I just have a quick sanity check that this paragraph is saying what I think it’s saying. I think it’s contradicting itself, but I might have missed a nuance. “To clarify, we are not inviting men or women into changing rooms other than the ones they would usually use, but our changing rooms will be inclusive during the specified times for those who identify otherwise.”

Honestly it’s quite clear they haven’t a clue what they’re doing or understand the implications of it

They’re trying ti play both ends to the middle and you can’t. Either changing rooms are single sex or they’re not

😂 Oh dear....

To clarify then, there will not be mixed sex changing rooms except when there are mixed sex changing rooms, and this is inclusive but exclusionary.

Not nuance. Obfuscation with a dose of denial.

It will all depend on their business definition of ‘men’ and ‘women’. Just as you questioned in the first place.

They are talking bollocks.

Changing rooms for men, for women, inclusive, exclusive, Everything for everybody all of the time except when they are not.

Schroedinger's changing rooms.

That 'to clarify' doesn't clarify things at all - apart from clarifying the fact that they are bullshitting.

And wasn't part of the problem that the 'times specified' weren't actually specified? So they haven't even managed to clarify that bit, never mind the main issue.

Ooh, that sentence is cabbage!

I think what it means is "mostly we expect people to use the changing rooms that are suitable for their biological sex, but for certain sessions people will be able to choose changing rooms according to their personal gender identification instead".

Which basically boils to down saying that for some sessions some men are welcome to use the women's changing rooms and that any women who don't want to share the changing facilities with a biological man (trans identified or otherwise) is welcome to change in a toilet in reception.

I would be tempted to ask if this is what he means and then go on to point out the lack of clarity about which times are mixed sex, and that you don't think it is fair for women to arrive for a session they have booked with the reasonable expectation of single-sex changing and then be told to change in a toilet.

You booked classes on the basis of the facilities provided. These have been changed or are about to be in a material way. Seems like breach of contract to me, and at the very least you should be returned money for the classes you have not had. You could ask about risk assessments, given that men who identify as men will be in the changing rooms.

Depending on the council you have, perhaps you could ask if there has been a breach of planning permission. Unlikely, but at least make it difficult for the company who run the gym and cause them to have to spend time.

If I have understood this correctly, seems as if you could have short-term membership or just pay on the day. So not necessarily easy identification were anything to happen.

Thank you all for your responses, I’m going to get writing and you’ve given me so much to base it on.

@LlynTegid this is one of my issues - the gym and I have already had communication around a condition I have which causes pain, which means that I have to choose my classes carefully. They aren’t flagging up the classes that are included, so if I wanted to book a class that I can actually go to, I don’t know if it’s a men in changing rooms one.

the gym and I have already had communication around a condition I have which causes pain, which means that I have to choose my classes carefully. They aren’t flagging up the classes that are included, so if I wanted to book a class that I can actually go to, I don’t know if it’s a men in changing rooms one.

And that's a significant problem for inclusion. They're further excluding women whose access to exercise is limited by a health condition. That's not a good strategy at all.

A reader could have a stab at what that piece of gobbledegook actually means, namely that changing rooms will be mixed sex sometimes.

But they couldn't be sure because the writer isn't clear what they mean by the words 'men', 'women', 'usually use', 'inclusive', 'specified times' and 'identify otherwise'.

So all the important words really.

So I think it could be a good idea to flip a very concrete interpretation back at them and ask "is this what you mean?" and explain the consequences.

So it is helpful to ask if they really do mean "the women's changing room will be mixed-sex sometimes when you allow in men who identity as women, and you can't tell clients in advance, and all the women who require single-sex changing have to go and change in the toilet in reception instead" and then point out that this policy does restrict access to exercise for women whose access is already limited by health conditions.

I am not a lawyer but if a woman has a health condition which means she can't just come back a bit later or easily choose a different class, and if she is self excluding by leaving the gym altogether or going to fewer sessions after being told to change in the toilet or that she risks meeting a man without warning in the changing room .... then I do think that could be secondary discrimination on sex and/or disability. Not that you'd want to fight a legal case. But it could go badly for them if anyone did.

Apologies I forget to mention earlier- what are their plans for Muslim or Orthodox Jewish women who are members? Or are they Islamophobic and/or anti-semitic?

I asked this in my latest email. I’ve since had a response from one I sent two days ago. At this point it feels a bit like a Two Ronnies sketch.

I don’t know if the right person has got my latest email as some of them weren’t being escalated to the right person and were just being ignored. Who knows which one will be replayed to next, if any 🤷🏻‍♀️

@AmaryllisNightAndDay

“So I think it could be a good idea to flip a very concrete interpretation back at them and ask "is this what you mean?" and explain the consequences.

So it is helpful to ask if they really do mean "the women's changing room will be mixed-sex sometimes when you allow in men who identity as women, and you can't tell clients in advance, and all the women who require single-sex changing have to go and change in the toilet in reception instead" and then point out that this policy does restrict access to exercise for women whose access is already limited by health conditions.”

I did that with my response today and it created a totally confusing paragraph - I could only do what I could with what I had.

At this point it feels a bit like a Two Ronnies sketch.

😂 It's a laugh or cry one, isn't it?

The whole 'if you can't do mixed changing we will send you to change in a toilet...'

Uhm, this would be treating women with disadvantages less favourably specifically on the grounds of their disadvantage than women without it. (Who continue to get access to a full changing room.) Discrimination: those women would have a good case legally.

Also numbers: how many women are they excluding from any changing room to send to take turns in a toilet compared to how many men will benefit from being granted their wish to get changed in a room with females getting undressed around them? Because that is the bit being provided to them. Is this proportionate?

Why and how have they reached the decision that it is fine to dismiss women customers to less favourable and exclusionary provision in the toilet, but not men who prefer not to use the male facilities provided for them? Why should it be women who are negatively affected and lose facilities rather than the male people who do not wish to use the male facilities?

And if they're actually interested in inclusion and equality, and not being sued by pissed off women or male people with gender identities, why are they not providing an additional third space changing room that is either gender neutral or has a few single well equipped cubicles? No one should be being sent to change in the toilet. It may be appropriate to offer one single customer with a significant issue, such as not wishing to change in their sex based space due to cosmetic and emotional differences, access to staff changing facilities.

Have you thought of a solicitor's letter here letting them know that the Equality Act actually protects other people apart from male people with gender identities and this is not going to go well for them in court? Or at least advise them to seek legal advice.

RavingStone · 16/11/2023 10:57

As an aside I'd welcome a plain English campaign that pointed out male facilities were for males of any gender ID and female facilities were for females of any gender ID. Gender neutral.

It would have to be VERY plain, because as we know, transw would still go into the women's, claiming to be women of woman female gender.