Looking for a gym with female-only changing rooms by sex: a journey

[2021x]

I am trying to find a gym in my city (not UK) that excludes males from the female showering and changing rooms.

I was in my gym and there was a man in the changing room- no attempt to be female other than a sports-bra- and since then I was just stressed everytime I went.

I have emailed a gym who say they are trans-inclusive on a case by case basis and said I should use the accessiblity changing room if I am uncomfortable.

I have also put up a post on Reddit in the local page - that got auto-moderated, and then the same post on the national page that is going through normal moderation.

My post says this

I am looking for XXXX gyms that have female‑only changing and shower areas that are restricted by sex, not self‑identified gender.

I’m comfortable sharing these spaces with other females, but I’m not comfortable changing or showering in areas where males may be present.

If you know of any gyms in XXXX please sent me a direct message.

Wish me luck.

Yeah why would 'very elderly' people be more unpleasant to look at than anyone else. I suppose by very elderly she means over 50. 🥴

Another.......Isn't this what most women want from a gym?

"We are a whole new concept in women’s fitness and well-being. We are from another dimension, not just a fitness studio, our small luxurious boutique is tranquil, bright and sophisticated, built for women by women.We welcome you to visit our boutique to fully understand our ethos, see and try our equipment, meet and enjoy the company of like-minded women.

For ladies who prefer to exercise in a women only environment offers a dedicated gym. The gym is fully equipped with a range of user friendly equipment including cardio machines, weights and a stretching area. An induction will show you how to use the equipment according to your fitness goals.

Our gym is run by qualified female gym instructors who are always on hand to answer any questions, carry out a fitness check and offer help and advice. Our boutique gym is supportive and motivating; and a place where women can ensure their fitness experience is enjoyable and rewarding"

Yep. It’s always the same from the “be kind” lot. They really aren’t very kind in their behaviour towards some members of society (“eewwww, who wants to see old women’s fannies”).
What they really mean is, be kind to Men.

Lots of gay men seem to have a very heightened level of disgust for female bodies...certainly more of an 'ick' factor than women tend to have for male bodies.The barely disguised contempt is apparent in many drag acts.

Michael Foran makes a good case that a non-trans man excluded from a 'woman + TIMs' facility but provided with a perfectly acceptable alternative could have a case for discrimination.

The gist of it is that segregation, even if facilities are equal, would be unlawful discrimination. (Obvious if you think about the shameful history of segregation by race.) You need an exemption in the EA(2010) to segregate, and you don't get that exemption if you are providing a 'women + TIMs' facility.

Hopefully I have not mangled the argument too much. It is towards the end of this article:
https://knowingius.org/p/good-law-project-appeals-failed-review

Edit to reduce mangling of argument

The interview referred to here has a few issues.

one is the polarised question about designating males with transgender identities as being rapists. It is hyperbolic and is not representing what women have been saying. I don’t believe anyone has suggested all male people with transgender identities are rapists. Just like no one says all male people are rapists.

Another issue is that the researcher clarified that it was dependant on receiving thorough mental health care. This is not a feature in the Uk for male people with gender dysphoria (she also assumes all male people with transgender identities have gender dysphoria, another isssue with her answer.)

And of course, the study did not show that male people committed sex and violent crimes at the same rate as female people or lower. Therefore, they are still within the general male rates.

And Rat, even if lesbian women were committing sex offences at the highest rate amongst female people, and above a group of male people, they are female and therefore cannot be excluded legitimately from female single sex provisions.

You’re hilarious. And wrong.

I notice you’ve avoided the part about the GLP being told it may constitute discrimination against women to allow TIMs into their changing rooms though.

It is remarkable that a law was in place from 2010, yet… apparently acting in contradiction to the law is perfectly legal…

The disconnection in some of these answers are remarkable.

You really have no clue!

The SC judgment confirmed that GRC doesn't change your sex for the purposes of the EA. The position with respect to people without a GRC being their biological sex was confirmed in earlier legal cases.

The EA has always referred to biological sex.

I just can’t really be bothered with this level of wrong. I always assume that people that confidently wrong are doing it deliberately.

@EmilyinEverton The point is we don't know if they are the same risk or not & given that lesbians commit violent crime at a higher rate than gay men its not so clear

This claim has been made at least twice on this thread and should not be allowed to stand. As PP have said, the data you posted does not show this. The violent crime percentages for gay men are higher than for lesbian women.

The report also states:
In all of these analyses, both male groups have significantly higher crime rates than both female groups.

i just assume it is people repeating sound bites that sound convincing to them.

We have seen numerous posts try to discredit the conclusion that male people with transgender identities still commit sex crime in the range of all other male people in the UK by making the illogical claim that it is prison stats and not ‘offending rates’.

Then they cannot explain why prison stats are not a good indication when ‘offending’ stats will never be collected.

They also then ignore that we also now have proof that there are male people with transgender identities that are convicted and yet not imprisoned because the judge was convinced that they were vulnerable. I mean, that was a pretty inconvenient statistic to a poster trying to use a similar set of arguments. It provided evidence the number of prisoners was in fact lighter than they should be for those crimes.

It doesn’t seem to occur to those posters to actually do the investigative work themselves.

Like, no shit Sherlock, many offenses are never reported, let alone going to court and getting convictions. But why is the group they are defending not subject to the exact same observed dynamic considering they are male? If anything, the assumption is that it applies equally across all groups as I have never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

It is all irrelevant anyway.

Because it is not only about sex and violent offences. But that gets ignored while they scrabble to defend this one part of safeguarding decisions. It is just another day, isn’t it Eresh?

@EmilyinEverton So you prefer cubicles to open plan. What does that have to do with the price of fish?

As for your 'data'? I don't care. I don't want to be undressed in an enclosed space with someone with twice my upper body strength. I reckon I'd be in with a chance against a marauding lesbian (🙄)

Anyway, consumers have choice. If OP lives in a country where it is legal to provide both women's changing rooms that admit some men, and ones that are kept exclusively single-sex, then let the market decide. Consumers need to speak up, then providers will know what the demand is each way. Well done, OP.

@Helleofabore i just assume it is people repeating sound bites that sound convincing to them.

It's the technique of authoritarians everywhere. Throw out lots of contradictory data and statements in the hope that everyone just gives up.

Great, you agree that a majority of sexual offences are committed by males towards females in private spaces which includes public toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards

Would you also agree that it is then impossible for a female to be able to tell the difference between a transgender woman and a sexual offender as sexual offenders are males that enter female spaces, therefore causing discomfort and fear for the female that can only be avoided by the exclusion of males from private female spaces?

80% of men over 70 are in prison for sex crimes? I find that difficult to believe. If you mean 80% of men over 70 in prison are there for sex crimes, please say so. A grammar error can change the whole meaning of your claim.

That file is on your hard drive.

I think it is always important to go back to the original source, which says this:

”Criminal activity, particularly violent crime, is much more common among men than women in the general population. A previous study of all applications for sex reassignment in Sweden up to 1992 found that 9.7% of male-to-female and 6.1% of female-to-male applicants had been prosecuted for a crime. Crime after sex reassignment, however, has not previously been studied. In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females. “

Rape was not studied and yet this interviewer asked Dhejne specifically to confirm rape statistics. Of course the fucking answer will be ‘no, we didn’t measure that’. It was also irrelevant because the study shows a general pattern of criminality and specifically ‘violent’ crime.

safeguarding decisions are not based on only rape statistics so this focus on it is not actually proving the point the some male people should be included in female single sex provisions over 8 years old. However, the prisoner statistics show part of the decision making critieria - which is that risk that cannot be ignored.

And again, the Swedish study did not show that group of male people had a rate of committing crime at the same or lower than the general female rate of committing crime. Meaning they should not be considered ‘female’ at all for crime risk assessment.

I suggest you do your own investigations and calculations and stop relying on misrepresented opinion pieces.

On ‘ang ‘? So we cannot access it.

flooding the zone

“Yes but as noted the sub group demographics matter in terms offending.”

Not for safeguarding decisions.

No special treatment for subgroups, no subgroups excluded from safeguarding measures for female people in female single sex provisions (except children needing care).

I don't particularly want to waste my time engaging with TRAs who don't have the courtesy to make any effort at all to understand law, statistics or biology.

However, I will simply say this: it is absolutely clear, looking at all of recorded history and vast amounts of data over time, and over different geographic regions and cultures, that at population level males are more violent and more criminal than females at population level.

The fact that individual males, or certain groups of males, have different offending patterns is irrelevant to this basic point. The fact that some females are violent and/or criminal, or indeed that a very few are more violent and/or more criminal than some males, is also irrelevant to the basic point.

One of the consistent problems with TRA arguments is that there is no basic understanding, so their arguments are built on sand. And now there's Chatgpt mixed in to the word salad. It's like engaging with a toddler. Though not as funny or heartwarming.

You'd think, given how much they moan about being oppressed, that trans women might understand better how the trauma of being victims of male violence affects people. Not wanting to be in vulnerable situations with male-bodied people is a significant symptom.