University updates trans-inclusive advice to museums as FITA threatens litigation

[IwantToRetire]

The University of Leicester has confirmed it has made updates to its guidance on trans-inclusivity for museums and galleries.

The move emerges amid threatened litigation by a free speech organisation.

The higher education provider, home to the Research Centre for Museums and Galleries (RCMG), told Arts Professional the 44-page document was “regularly reviewed and kept up to date” after a series of changes made last month.

But campaign group Freedom in the Arts (FITA), which earlier this year issued a legal letter challenging the guidance, has expressed continued concerns despite what FITA co-founder Denise Fahmy termed “caveats” added to the advice.

FITA has subsequently urged “all organisations to reject this guidance”, and claimed it could lead them astray in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act.

Article continues at https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/university-updates-trans-inclusive-advice-to-museums-as-fita-threatens-litigation and at https://archive.is/s58eM

Good news.

Freedom in the Arts issues third legal letter on trans-inclusive guide

Campaign group Freedom in the Arts (FITA) has issued a third legal letter accusing the University of Leicester of providing “unlawful” advice to museums and galleries.

FITA has requested the university remove its 44-page Trans-Inclusive Culture guide – and said that if Leicester’s Research Centre for Museums and Galleries (RCMG) fails to do so, it is “prepared to proceed with litigation if necessary”.

Article continues at https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/freedom-in-the-arts-issues-third-legal-letter-on-trans-inclusive-guide

Well done FITA and yes of course there is self censorship in the Arts because of the absolute intolerance of anything that isn’t pure TRA dogma.

I suppose as usual that not responding or interacting the powers that be are just hoping women will give up and go away.

3 months and no response.

Just shows the complacency and arrogance of the MRAs who are only too happy to support TRAs.

As both think women should know their place.

Silent and subservient.

I'm genuinely curious what specifically in the guidance concerns you. I've found that "trans inclusive" can mean very different things in practice, from basic courtesy to policies that genuinely raise questions.
The Supreme Court ruling clarified how sex is defined in the Equality Act. It didn't say trans people shouldn't exist in public spaces or that organisations can't choose to be welcoming. Museums deciding how to handle visitor experience and staff training isn't the same as rewriting law. If there are specific recommendations in the guidance you think are problematic, I'd be interested to hear which ones. But a free speech organisation threatening litigation over guidance that museums aren't even required to follow feels less like protecting freedom and more like pressuring institutions not to engage with these questions at all.

It would be this, I expect-
“trans visitors should be free to use the bathroom that they feel most comfortable using”.

That advice means that there is no bathroom available for women who can only access single sex spaces.

Plus staff feeling unable to speak freely.

That's a fair point to raise, and I appreciate you being specific about what concerns you.
On the bathroom question, I think this is where the conversation often gets stuck, because both sides are talking about real needs.
My daughter needs somewhere safe to use the toilet when she's out in public. She's been on hormones, she presents entirely as female, and sending her into the men's would genuinely put her at risk. That's not hypothetical. The harassment and violence trans women face in male spaces is well documented.
But I also hear that some women feel uncomfortable sharing spaces with someone they perceive as male, and that for survivors of male violence, that discomfort can be acute.
So what's the solution? The "use whichever you're comfortable with" approach assumes good faith from everyone, which mostly works but doesn't address the woman who can't tolerate any ambiguity. The "biological sex only" approach forces visibly transitioned people into spaces where they don't belong and may face danger.
I don't think there's a perfect answer. More single occupancy facilities would help. Individual risk assessment rather than blanket policies might work in some contexts. But pretending there's a simple solution that costs no one anything isn't honest.
On staff feeling unable to speak freely, could you say more about what you mean? Unable to say what, specifically? I think there's a difference between "I can't misgender a colleague" and "I can't raise safeguarding concerns," and I'd want to understand which kind of speech feels constrained.

The whole guidance is the problem starting with its claim that anyone has a gender identity

I’m only speaking from reading the articles.
I do know the discomfort of being unable to speak freely. When ‘trans inclusion’ is pushed as the policy rather ‘be respectful’, then it becomes hard to raise concerns about, for example, bathroom use.

I think it’s disingenuous of you to suggest you don’t understand. I find that people who pride themselves on certain ‘right side of history’ beliefs tend to either assume everyone else agrees, or that those who don’t are bigots.

Frankly, I’m sick of hearing sweeping statements about people being bigoted or racist or whatever, just because they don’t align with the political beliefs of the speaker/group. For reasons related to work and friendships, I am often the dissenting voice everywhere I go. Speaking up whichever side is being criticised on any given occasion. Bloody exhausting and actually really demoralising when everyone seems to be so entrenched in their opinions they won’t consider other people’s.

And it isn’t about ‘women who can’t tolerate ambiguity’! It’s about people like your child taking hormones and choosing what single sex spaces to use.

Sex. We don’t get to choose which one we are.

There's zero evidence of men with a trans identity being at any greater risk of violence in male single sex spaces than any other group of men.
Your son is a man and belongs in the male facilities not the women's. He doesn't pass as no man can and we can always tell in real life.
As for the use whatever facilities you feel comfortable with that puts women at risk from all men and removed access to women. The biological sex only is the only correct option as men like your son belong in the men's and have facilities whilst protecting women from male violence and give us access to facilities we need.
If your son doesn't want to use the men's then he should campaign for a 3rd space or do what TRAs told women to do, ie if you don't like it stay at home.
Case by case can never work hence the law says a blanket ban of no men regardless of what cross sex hormones or mutilating surgeries they have had ot how they claim to feel or identify belong in the women's even if hes your "nice" son.
You should be telling your son that if he enters the women's facilities he is committing the crimes of trespass, and harassment by just entering them, if its changing facilities then hes also committing the crimes of voyeurism and sexual harassment and if he undresses that would be indecent exposure. So if he wants to stay out of jail and off the sex offenders register he should get used to using the mens

Your child needs to, according to the law, use the single sex facility that they are. If your child was born male then they need to use the male facilities or the mixed sex facilities. That's it.

The harassment and violence trans women face in male spaces is well documented.
Please link.

The "use whichever you're comfortable with" approach assumes good faith from everyone, which mostly works but doesn't address the woman who can't tolerate any ambiguity.

I assume you feel that you are posting in good faith and doing your best to see both sides, and yet you are completely ignoring the fact that the problem isn’t simply women unable to tolerate ambiguity (how patronising are you?) it’s that there are men who use trans identity as a shield for taking their sexual perversions into women’s spaces.
I am not talking about your child. I am sure they are lovely. I am talking about all the cases of voyeurism, sexual assault and exhibitionism in women’s spaces by men using women’s identity as a shield and the fact that it is perfectly reasonable that women will want to avoid that.

The "use whichever you're comfortable with" approach assumes good faith from everyone..”

It really doesn’t. It merely assumes everyone else will put up with individuals ignoring the law and abusing single sex spaces.

I don’t care whether your child is acting out of good faith. I do care that women’s spaces only contain women- for my sake and for the sake of all the other women who are disadvantaged by the incredibly privileged people who think they can go wherever they want and trample over the law and the needs of others.

I’m logging off for a while. I’m getting a tight jaw and stabby fingers.

Here's what the evidence actually shows:
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law published research this year finding that transgender people face increased risks of harassment and violence when required to use bathrooms matching their birth sex. This isn't advocacy, it's peer-reviewed research.
Some documented cases: In Oregon, Lauren Jackson had her jaw broken by a man who crossed an entire park to attack her for using the women's toilet. He was convicted of a hate crime. In Minnesota, a 17-year-old trans girl named Cobalt Sovereign was hospitalised with a broken jaw after being attacked in the men's bathroom at her school. She'd been using the men's room specifically to avoid making anyone uncomfortable. In Maryland, Chrissy Lee Polis was beaten until she had a seizure in a McDonald's after being identified as transgender.
Meanwhile, a Police Foundation study examining police records across multiple US cities with trans-inclusive policies found no cases of men posing as transgender to access women's facilities and commit assault. None.
I'm not saying there are no legitimate questions about how we balance competing needs. There are. But the claim that trans women face "zero" additional risk in male spaces simply isn't supported by the evidence. The documented pattern shows trans people being attacked, not attacking others.
If we're going to have this conversation, can we at least have it based on what's actually happening rather than what we assume must be happening?

Here's what the evidence actually shows:
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law published research this year finding that transgender people face increased risks of harassment and violence when required to use bathrooms matching their birth sex. This isn't advocacy, it's peer-reviewed research.
Some documented cases: In Oregon, Lauren Jackson had her jaw broken by a man who crossed an entire park to attack her for using the women's toilet. He was convicted of a hate crime. In Minnesota, a 17-year-old trans girl named Cobalt Sovereign was hospitalised with a broken jaw after being attacked in the men's bathroom at her school. She'd been using the men's room specifically to avoid making anyone uncomfortable. In Maryland, Chrissy Lee Polis was beaten until she had a seizure in a McDonald's after being identified as transgender.
Meanwhile, a Police Foundation study examining police records across multiple US cities with trans-inclusive policies found no cases of men posing as transgender to access women's facilities and commit assault. None.
I'm not saying there are no legitimate questions about how we balance competing needs. There are. But the claim that trans women face "zero" additional risk in male spaces simply isn't supported by the evidence. The documented pattern shows trans people being attacked, not attacking others.
If we're going to have this conversation, can we at least have it based on what's actually happening rather than what we assume must be happening?

PS: my child is going to use female bathroom, it is not unlawful

PS: my child is going to use female bathroom, it is not unlawful
If your child was born male then it is unlawful in the UK. All your links are from American States which are not relevant to the UK. Please link to the UK harassments that are well documented please.

Oh dear did you mean to post a discredited us study as evidence of harm to a UK man

discredited by who? Provide the links

PS: my child is going to use female bathroom, it is not unlawful

Not my Nigel

I’m not sure i* can be bothered to find the links while my keyboard is on a go-slow Sarah,*but Google Katie Dolatowski, and the Wi Spa incident (that one was in the US) or just consider watching your 8 year old (female) daughter go into the toilets at a museum, and realise she’s been followed in by a middle aged man (who might be trying ever so hard to look like a woman) Wouldn’t you be a bit concerned? You don’t know who he is or what he might do. How much of a risk are you prepared to take on behalf of your daughter, or on behalf of any of our daughters?
And to reiterate, if your male child is using female single-sex spaces in the UK, that is against the law