Telegraph article: ‘We’re not transphobic, we just want privacy’

[RoyalCorgi]

Haven't seen this shared anywhere else. This is a good article about the Darlington nurses who were forced to share changing room space with a person called Rose who, in the words of the article, "was born a man and retains male genitalia".

The women are taking their employer to an employment tribunal for sex discrimination and sexual harassment. I absolutely applaud them for doing this and admire their determination. But I also think: isn't it time to be a bit more blunt about this? In any normal context, if we knew a male person was using a female changing room, we would recognise him as engaging in voyeurism and, possibly, exhibitionism - both criminal offences. Isn't there a case for going straight to the police rather than to an employment tribunal? I am so fed up with the way we all tiptoe round this issue rather than speaking loudly and clearly about what's going on.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/02/darlington-nurses-fighting-for-women-only-spaces/

The police are long since captured. If you went to them you'd be arrested yourself for a hate crime.

That's probably true, sadly, but it would make a point, wouldn't it? The whole situation is so completely outrageous. Everyone knows that Rose is a man. The fact that everyone working for this NHS trust is required to pretend that Rose is a woman is just insane, truly Orwellian.

It would make a point if it was a high-profile woman/group of women who went to the police. These nurses would just have been subjected to a long and painful investigation and they might have lost their jobs as well.
A win in the ET (or EAT if it goes that far) means that the whole of the NHS would have to change policy or risk a series of court cases with a payout on each one and the reputational damage of having been found to be discriminatory. And the NHS is one of the largest employers in the world. A win would set the tone for UK - forcing women to share communal facilities with men is unlawful discrimination and a breach of women's Article 8 human rights.

Sorry - as usual probably shooting off at a tangent. So I'll be quick. I'm 20, afaik I'm not "transphobic", but what sort of a world am I now involved in? People with Vs like me and people with Ps like my "partner(s)" SHOULD NOT be roomed together, and certainly should not use toilets or bathrooms together.
That's me done.

It’s about time someone stood up to this nonsense. You can’t become a woman if you were born a man. That’s it.

They are courageous women. Hopefully it will be a straightforward win in the ET and will have implications throughout the (insane parts) of the NHS. I mean if the medics don't understand biology we are stuffed

Very brave women - and a shocking employer... the NHS.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5172833-female-nurses-have-to-get-changed-with-a-male-they-are-told-to-go-to-another-room-the-man-keeps-the-female-changing-room-to-himself-wtaf-is-going-on

I met with the Chief Superintendent of my local Constabulary. Here is his response to my question regarding this type of scenario:

Finally we discussed a scenario where someone who was male to female transgender entered female public changing rooms and what, if any, offences would take place. Generally in law there needs to be an action which is a constituent element of a crime together with a knowledge or intention of wrongdoing. By way of example Exposure under s66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires the prosecution to prove that there was an intention to cause harassment alarm or distress.

In the scenario provided police (and CPS) would need to be satisfied of this intention. The simple presence of this person in the changing room would not constitute an offence. Perhaps a contrast is in changing rooms generally people expose themselves (in the act of getting changed) this doesn't mean that everyone who uses public changing rooms automatically commits an offence. It is also of note that the person (male to female transgender) also has rights, there are a number of articles under the European Convention on Human Rights which would require careful consideration. What is clear is that societal
changes have not caught up and where some buildings have gender neutral facilities not all do.

This. Never mind the 'born a male' and 'retains male anatomy' - he is a man. 'Respecting his identity' can come when he can manage some respect for women.

the person (male to female transgender) also has rights, there are a number of articles under the European Convention on Human Rights which would require careful consideration.

There is no 'human right' for a male to require non consenting women to take their clothes off in his presence. None.

But in this case they are not being told to. They have been offered an alternative (but unsatisfactory) place to change.

Which means in essence: 'take your clothes off to gratify this man with your body, or lose the space and go and change in an unsuitable place'.

Women excluded from women's facilities in punishment for refusing to serve the man. And it isn't about permitting freedom of choice or self expression for the men, it is about giving men access to women in a state of undress. It's time to stop pussyfooting around this.

Agree, Anastomosisrex.

It's an offence if he intends to cause alarm and distress. End of.
It's normal to remove some clothing in a changing room for your sex. Not normal to go into the opposite sex changing room and whip your kit off.
The human rights which are in play are the women's human rights to privacy, dignity and safety. Article 8 rights are absolute. The alternative accommodation offer falls short there (IANAL) and besides that it's clearly a punishment.
The facilities are not "gender neutral", they are women's facilities.

Some actual human rights (as in the 30 articles)

• Article 5: Right to not be subjected to degrading treatment, (like being required to dress and undress in the presence of a man who wishes to be there or lose access to the space).
• Article 6: Right to recognition before the law (not some more recognised than others)
• Article 7: Right to equality before the law (not only when men don't mind and it doesn't get in the way of what they want)
• Article 18: freedom of belief. Whatever someone else may believe about themselves, you are free to hold your own beliefs and perceptions.
• Article 19: freedom of expression including to hold opinions without interference

Two of the cardinal principles laid down in the text: universality and indivisibility. Rights cannot be ranked in importance with some mattering more than others, and rights apply equally to everyone. Even women.

If men feel they need separate changing facilities to meet their identity based needs for privacy and dignity that is one thing. Removing privacy, dignity, choice and consent from all women in a workplace to benefit that man or men? Is a whole other bucket of crazy .

Great article but it would have been much more impactful and realistic for the journalist to use correct sex male pronouns for 'Rose'.

I really can’t understand why the arguments in favour of women’s sex-based rights are much further on and well-developed in the public sphere but newspapers still call men 'she/her' in reporting of all kinds.

I'm sick to death of women having to preface everything with "I'm not transphobic". A phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about requiring men to stay the hell out of our places, especially those where we are most vulnerable.

The simple presence of this person in the changing room would not constitute an offence. Perhaps a contrast is in changing rooms generally people expose themselves (in the act of getting changed) this doesn't mean that everyone who uses public changing rooms automatically commits an offence.

There are cases though of mixed sex changing rooms where men have been prosecuted for exposing themself. A man by mere fact of being in a mixed changing room does not constitute an offence but a man who then exposes himself to a woman is comitting a crime https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/620851/Alisdair-John-Wilson-teacher-career-ruins-naked-in-changing-rooms

Its obvious that Rose knows using the womens changing room is causing harm/distress. If it wasn't known when Rose first started using the changing room, its definitely known now

Voyeurism is a crime. Indecent exposure is a crime. This perverted man is committing both. "Rose" is only doing this to prey on women.

Excellent summary

Why does the Chief Superintendent think that we have single sex spaces in the first place? 😒

All this legal wrangling makes me so angry. One man upsets several women, rendering the place set aside for their privacy and safety useless. Police wring their hands and say its not illegal.

And to say that woman aren't being forced to change in front of him because they've been offered a different place is bs - they were only offered it once they protested, so initially they had no choice!

I think Snowypeaks is right to say, pragmatically, that the employment tribunal route is a good option and, if successful, single-sex spaces will have to be implemented in NHS changing rooms and, indeed, by any employer whose staff use changing rooms as part of their job. I also can't see how the women could possibly lose - they have a cast iron case.

Reporting the matter to the police as a crime would probably be fraught with difficulties, and I suggested it mainly out of frustration at society's unwillingness to recognise what is going on here, namely that a man is committing what in any other context would be seen as the crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure (though I'm not sure about the latter, because I don't know how much Rose is revealing while getting changed).

I'm stunned by what the chief superintendent said when speaking to StripeySuperNova. That seems to me to be a fairly fundamental misreading of the law. Where does the Human Rights Act give men the right to remove their clothes in front of women? More importantly, how can a provision of the Human Rights Act override the criminal law? Surely a crime is a crime is a crime, no matter what the perpetrator's human rights. The idea that a senior police believes a man can be allowed to commit the crime of voyeurism because of his rights under the Human Rights Act is nothing short of alarming.

Their thought processes have been addled by Stonewall law training. And pre-existing misogyny.

Finally got to read the article corgi, it really is alarming how the needs of the women have been dismissed. Thanks for posting it.

Since there is no difference between a man who identifies as transgender and any other man, apart from what is in his head, he appears to be saying that any man is not committing a crime if he enters a female changing room unless there is "an intention to cause harassment alarm or distress".

So according to the police, whether or not a man commits a crime of voyeurism or indecent exposure depends entirely on what he claims to be thinking at the time. Is that really what the law says?