Emma Hardy suing David Lloyd Gyms over trans policy

[flyingbuttress43]

Believed to be the first time in the UK that a service organisation is being sued
(as opposed to cases being taken to employment tribunals ). The case is likely to come to court late this year or early next year. She is also active in her home area of York in establishing what exactly is local NHS/councils policies on the issue and warning them of the potential risks of their trans inclusive policies. NB: she says she was told by the head of biology at York University that sex was on a spectrum.......

Once UK Active have changed their underpants and read Akua
they will issue a new policy.

I just got a response from David Lloyd about my very similar complaint last week:
"Apologies for the delayed response, I have been on annual leave and as I had been the one previously communicated with you this had filtered back to my inbox.

We do indeed follow the EHRC guidance and supreme court ruling. Apologies but I may have misunderstood, are you saying there are members in breach of these rules, as that has not been reported?

You have stated on your previous email that we have breached this and are non compliant however in your previous emails to me this was not mentioned, you were just questioning the definition. The definition is not set out by us but by the government and most recently, their supreme court ruling.

Members should now use the changing room assigned to their biological sex or we have two private change/shower areas that are not assigned to either sex, with access showers.

If you could give me more detail on incidents that are breaching with these rules I would be more than happy to help and discuss with any member in question.
"

So have they just conceded??

Are they trying to claim these rules aren't new. Or, in the parlance of the times, clarified.

I am honestly not sure on either count. I emailed them a few weeks ago post SC and then post EHRC and have been trying to get them to put it in writing, which they just have. I assume this means the legal case is going to change?

I left DL after my local club turned a blind eye to mothers bringing their adolescent (disabled) sons in to the women’s changing rooms.

There was a family changing area but these mums refused to use it, presumably for religious reasons, because of the presence of men in swimming trunks.

I wasn’t happy for my pre teen daughter having to share a space with males, whether or not they were accompanied by their mothers.

This particular branch was very badly run so it may be a one off, but I wouldn’t particularly trust them no matter what they say. It certainly wasn’t their policy to allow males in the female changing rooms, but they did nothing about people breaking the rules.

UK Active have updated their policy
therefore DLL's policy is automatically updated

and the insurers of ALL the chains will have 'had words' over the weekend

https://www.ukactive.com/ehrc/

they are basically saying that they will await the EHRC final policy (likely to be June 2025) before committing, but that in the meantime they have removed their 'trans guidance' and advise following the law using the EHRC interim statement...

so - yes they have changed - however the long term will depend on what the EHRC say

@akkakk
And what the EHRC will say is

Obey the law as stated in the Judgement

the law is the law
EHCR is merely add on refinement

Any employer dithering at this stage is in real risk of expensive enforcement

This feels massive?

It is.
Its a very gentle earthquake the tremors of which will rumble for a long time and a very long way.

so, Essentially if a gym continues offering only mixed, sorry ‘inclusive’ changing facilities, and the June 2025 statement says women must be provided with single sex facilities, members can sue the gym, and they aren’t insured because ukactive has told them to follow the law and seek specialist advice if needed. Is that what’s happening here? Is there any likelihood that the updated guidance is a bit waffly about proportionate impact in choosing to have women’s vs inclusive so it might still be legal to not have women’s changing areas? I get that women’s changing areas are now single sex, but I am less clear on whether gyms are required to have women’s only changing (I know some pools/spas near me that only have mixed. And the nude women’s swimming session was for anyone non-binary or who identified as a woman)

@Codlingmoths And the nude women’s swimming session was for anyone non-binary or who identified as a woman)
WTAF?!?

Yes I haven’t actually been there in case that’s not obvious, I thought it looked lovely but then wrote them off after seeing their mixed changing rooms, especially as I was pregnant and would struggle to change in a cubicle. They stopped the nude sessions, here’s their faq about do they still do them. (Not in the uk)
We have decided to stop our nude nights. There had been an increasing number of inappropriate enquiries regarding our Nude Nights. We take safety very (very!) seriously here so, for us even the possibility of people coming to the space with untoward intention is risk enough to make us stop and take stead, which is exactly what we are doing.

@codlingmoths They're not required to have single-sex changing for customers (only for staff) or single-sex nude swim sessions. But they're not allowed to offer "women's changing rooms" or "women's nude swim sessions" and then let people in who aren't biological women. It's either just one sex, or both sexes.

The women's nude session should have been for (biological) women, whether they identified as women, men or non-binary. If a women's swim explictly excludes biological women who identify as men then that's gender reassignment discrimination.

But having said that - if I have understood the judgment correctly, in some circumstances they might be allowed to exclude the very rare cases of women who have physically masculinised to the point where they look so much like men that they distress other women. Maybe if it was a therapy swim group... But I'm not sure if this exception to "all bio women" was the best decision from the Supreme Court, as it does muddy things.

This vehicle is reversing (ferret)...

We take safety very (very!) seriously here so, for us even the possibility of people coming to the space with untoward intention is risk enough to make us stop and take stead, which is exactly what we are doing.

WTAF did they expect to happen?

There had been an increasing number of inappropriate enquiries regarding our Nude Nights.

Note - no admission of anything untoward happening during the nude swimming nights, only people enquiring if they can do inappropriate things. Nothing happened at the sessions so we are not liable

An increasing number? - 'there were a few to begin with, that was OK, but then the number started to increase'

(PS I missed that the nude swim sessions are not in the UK so they're not bound by our laws anyway. But "women and anyone who says they're non-binary" - er no!)

Totally not bound by uk law nor would they have excluded transmen, it’s all everyone is welcome to be at peace together here 😁. I know mixed change rooms are legal if designated that way (and cheaper to build) but I don’t go to them, so I’ve never been.

‘The government did it’s

https://inews.co.uk/news/gyms-trans-people-supreme-court-3676459

‘I asked 60 gyms if trans people like me could join – this is what happened’

So little interest in transmen until now. But hey, if they can used as a wedge issue...

I don’t think gyms can exclude transgender people - that would be terribly wrong

they can and should just exclude the from the wrong sex facilities

I think it would be best if rather than just insist on transgender people using the provision for their sex that instead they have provision that is private and self contained that they can use - certainly David Lloyd is big and charges a lot - and many already have family/disabled/private changing rooms in addition to the general open spaces

( this may be out if context I think I wasn’t reading thread in right order )

I'm taking issue with both of iNews' claims before I even get to the link.

It is a right bugger to understand when your salary or social standing depends on you not understanding.