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.......

@flyingbuttress43 I think I am Sarah is likely to be the first case of suing a service provider.

Good on her.

I will do some digging for this too if I can find the garden.

The Equality Act 2010 has been misapplied or if it hasn't it needs amending.

Otherwise what we have is state sanctioned harassment of women and voyeurism.

The more sunlight on this issue the more service providers will see that if a male doesn't want to be in a male changing room that's on him.

Why are you keen for men to be around naked women and girls who don't want them there @DadJoke ? It sounds a bit creepy (to be mild).

The more sunlight on this issue the more service providers will see that if a male doesn't want to be in a male changing room that's on him.

Yes - and the more that men insist that they are entitled to access the undressed bodies of unconsenting girls and women, the more the general public are alerted to all the red flags flying.

Emma comes across extremely well.

She's made it clear she can't afford to use Lloyd - DadJoke

She specifically addressed the question why should people who can't afford it care. She didn't say she couldn't afford it (not that it really matters here), and had apparently been a member for 7 years prior.

dadjoke has been told this so many times over such a long period that the only reasonable conclusion is that he's not being honest when he claims to believe this has anything to do with what gender anyone feels like.

This whole debate would be over in a day if people could bring themselves to be honest.

Thanks for the case law DadJoke but that case was about anti-trans discrimination (not an issue here because trans-inclusive provision already exists). This case is about discrimination against women.

And the constant conflating of sex and gender.

I used to be a member. They have a policy that male children over 8 are no longer able to use the female changing room. At the time my DS was not confident or mature enough to do this - he also has a problem with the lockers due to a disability. As a result we had to use the family changing rooms for his swimming lessons which wasn’t a problem as they had many. We worked around the issue of women not being in the position of seeing my 8 year old male child getting changed / being naked.

To force women and girls to undress in front of those males and to expose them to naked male bodies.

Because (and I've lost track as to what tack TRA's are taking now - is it special brains instead of magical sex changing?) those men really, really want to.

Creeeeeeepy.

What is interesting is part of her argument appears to be about transparency and honesty. The obfuscation by David Lloyd in not wanting to state exactly what their rules are or how they are being interpreted is the problem. They are presenting their changing rooms as single sex by labelling them mens and women’s but their policy is that your sex is irrelevant the changing rooms are based on the gender you identify with.

If David Lloyd said - we do not have single sex changing rooms we allow people to choose the changing room they use, so all our changing rooms are mixed sex or gender neutral.

This would then allow members to decide if they want to sign up. If the number of women members fell dramatically impacting profitability they may then review their policy.

You can have single-sex spaces. These SSS include people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which is "the person is 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" by default

Crikey, you've misunderstood the law quite spectacularly. The single-sex exemptions do not, absolutely DO NOT, include opposite sex people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. They may in certain circumstances (see Haldane judgement) include opposite sex people with a gender recognition certificate, but most of the time they only include people of the same sex.

Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment protects you against discrimination (eg being sacked because you're trans) but it does NOT give you the right to use spaces designated for the opposite sex.

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding this, dadjoke? I mean, what words do I have to use to enable you to understand it? Should I get it down to words of a single syllable?

There's a decent explanation here:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/guidance-for-service-providers-on-single-sex-services/

He knows that single sex spaces are permitted but not mandatory. He's said so elsewhere.

DLL locker rooms say "male" and "female" on the doors

Obey the sign on the door and all is well.

The document she is angry about is not actually published by DLL

When the law is being constantly framed here over and over and over again to try to compel non consenting, distressed women to just shut up, give up, and take their clothes off in front of men who want to be there, yes. You really have to start wondering wtf the motives are.

Why would any decent person wish to do this to women?

I'm always interested in these cases how many as to how many parents simply don't ever take their kids there but don't tell the company/organisation.
For example; cricket/the ECB, my kids won't play until they sort their policy out to match ICC's and enforce the open/female category. There will be lots like me. I also won't consider a DL membership.

@mcduffy
"Self Exclusion" is a MASSIVE issue that EDI policies tend to ignore.

"everybody is happy with the mixed sauna"
ignores the fact that many, many people will give it a swerve
and only those who ARE happy are noticed by the organisers.

Yes. It's a kind of survivor bias - the sort that says "In my day, no one wore seatbelts, and look, we're all still alive!"

A reminder of why women dont want mixed sex changing rooms https://fairplayforwomen.com/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger/

I think it's effective unless you tell them why.

My daughter is a cricketer at County verging on regional level. I am fully aware of the ECB/ IOC rules on trans inclusion. She plays for girls and women's teams but also in what are now mixed teams (as the only female).

I've yet to come across an issue, there are some non binary females about in the girls game but I've yet to see a male.

None of the parents are pro- the inclusion of males in women's sport and I expect if it ever comes up it will THEN be addressed. In the meantime I don't want to deprive my daughter of an opportunity.

I totally respect that others feel differently but unless it is pointed out to the ECB or the clubs at grass root level. they won't be any the wiser.

Changing facilities for women and girls are mostly non existent in cricket anyway. When she turns up to a mixed match she goes already dressed.

Most of the time there is a separate toilet.

But this is digressing from the point of the post!

Good. DL will not give a shit. There was a poster on here last year in the female changing rooms at a DL who experienced a naked man who walked into the changing rooms and then left. Not a trans person, just a naked man flashing and DL looked at the CCTV in the corridor and said it never happened!

I bet the press run with this, The Telegraph or the daily Mail.

David Lloyd are going to have to tell all their clients, all those families with little kids, that the changing rooms are mixed sex.

David Lloyd will also be told that they can exclude men, however they identify from the women's facilities perfectly legally and acceptably.

So let's see what they do.

And then let's see what every other facility does on the back of it.

Unlikely.
this "case" started nearly two years ago.

There is no DLL policy or document that allows mixed sex.
The doors do not allow mixed sex.
Most of the clubs have properly trained staff.
The others will learn.

The website refers to UK active guidance that is gender based
but that is not a DLL policy document.

Hopefully the policy will be clarified then.