Club hut toilets (split from Caving Memes)

[anticrawling]

View attachment 23104

Just because something's the law, doesn't make it moral or right. Perhaps time to consider our own history of civil disobedience - I'm sure we've all partaken in trespass or other small misdemeanors because we can see that it isn't right. CRoW is based upon our foreparents breaking the law, Kinder Trespass being a notable example. Choosing to comply with the law with no thoughts for those in our community is a dangerous path. We should be welcoming those who make our community the vibrant and active place it currently is, instead of seeking to make people feel excluded.

 

[mikem]

Trespass wasn't a civil offence, until the creation of aggravated, and most cases still aren't.

 

[Billy Evans]

Just because something's the law, doesn't make it moral or right. Perhaps time to consider our own history of civil disobedience - I'm sure we've all partaken in trespass or other small misdemeanors because we can see that it isn't right. CRoW is based upon our foreparents breaking the law, Kinder Trespass being a notable example. Choosing to comply with the law with no thoughts for those in our community is a dangerous path. We should be welcoming those who make our community the vibrant and active place it currently is, instead of seeking to make people feel excluded.

It should also be noted that the ruling of the Supreme Court merely serves to allow for gendered toilets to not be legally challenged on the grounds of discrimination BUT it does not, in any way, say that an organisation MUST follow this law. Lady Hale herself broke silence to say that the ruling had been over-interpreted. Just because one can, doesn't mean one should. With the number of trans/non-binary cavers in the UK this is a tone-deaf, unprompted and unwarranted assault on the freedoms of trans folk to be who they want to be. It is incredibly regretful that this poxy and phoney culture war has made it to caving.

 

[mikem]

In the past disagreements have been sorted out within the community rather than posted in public.

 

[Leoo]

In the past disagreements have been sorted out within the community rather than posted in public.

This website is called "UK caving"
This is the community.

 

[mikem]

That might be what you think, but it really isn't, it's a public forum, where 20 people provide most of the posts (although 1/4 of them are from Mendip, they aren't representative of the rest - and on a separate note, how has Pete Burgess remained a new member and Tony Oldham an active, when everyone else is well known!)

 

[hartfield_estate]

UKCaving is of course not necessarily representative of the wider caving community but I hope that the overwhelming voices of support (and producers of silly memes about it) might be a comfort to those people that are most affected by this harmful message implying their unsafety at a beloved club, to know they are not alone. It is our responsibility as a community to bring this issue to light and make sure this isn't just accepted as the thing to do. I do not believe that the message from the Wessex is representative of the view of the whole club, and I also do not hold mikem's apparent belief that the majority of Mendip cavers hold these backwards opinions, but the last thing the people that do see it that way need is for everyone with a different view to stop visiting their club as then all hope is lost for them to grow some empathy.

 

[Leoo]

In the past disagreements have been sorted out within the community rather than posted in public.

If the Wessex committee didn't want this discussing on a public forum, perhaps the best approach would not have been broadcasting it via email to their entire members mailing list, or indeed, not unnecessarily weighing in on a controversial court ruling in a way that feels targeted and threatening towards specific groups of participants within the sport.

Given caving's generally accepting nature, it's hardly surprising that the email that was sent out has made it further than it's immediate recipients, and has rightfully caused widespread outrage. As this is a policy that will affect all caving clubs who might consider staying at the Wessex while visiting the region, I think it is more than just a "disagreement" and therefore is valid for public debate.

 

[Shapatti]

If the Wessex committee didn't want this discussing on a public forum, perhaps the best approach would not have been broadcasting it via email to their entire members mailing list, or indeed, not unnecessarily weighing in on a controversial court ruling in a way that feels targeted and threatening towards specific groups of participants within the sport.

Given caving's generally accepting nature, it's hardly surprising that the email that was sent out has made it further than it's immediate recipients, and has rightfully caused widespread outrage. As this is a policy that will affect all caving clubs who might consider staying at the Wessex while visiting the region, I think it is more than just a "disagreement" and therefore is valid for public debate.

Maybe perhaps it wasn't unnecessary, it's hard for anyone to judge without all of the facts of the situation available, which I would guess we aren't getting here as the Wessex haven't yet stated any reasoning as to why.
Personally I sincerely doubt that the Wessex Committee has made any statement or decision without there being a reason.
My guess would be that the Wessex might simply be trying to balance complaints it had received from it's membership, complaints that would unfortunately be quite valid in the aftermath of the supreme court ruling.
People are bigoted after all, and they might not be great opinions from a modern dei point of view, but they are still views held by a large portion of the population, which unfortunately is now reinforced by the supreme court's ruling.

Having stayed at Upper Pitts though, I would note that nothing has actually changed with the use of the facilities available, there was always the two main single-sex toilet areas and then the two seperate universal toilets, the Wessex seems to have simply just reiterated what has always been the case. It's only the supreme court ruling that changes the definitions in play.

I do feel this wonderful meme thread has been sufficiently derailed away from the memes at this point though

 

[MarkS]

Moderator note: this has been split from the memes topic. Obviously it is a sensitive topic, so please keep things civil otherwise the topic will just be locked.

 

[Fulk]

Personally I like the set-up at the CPC, where they just have bogs and showers for all and sundry to use – just like you'd have at home.

 

[Shapatti]

Personally I like the set-up at the CPC, where they just have bogs and showers for all and sundry to use – just like you'd have at home.

I think ultimately that's how it's likely to end up in most places. Certainly seems to be the opinion of the company I work for, who are at least majority owned by government, but the real issue for anyone in a position of responsibility is that no-one seems to know what the correct way forward is in keeping with legalities, not even said government.

I guess the modern problem is most (if not all) caving club huts are older buildings and therefore the facilities typically fit older ideals.
The argument then I guess how much should facilities anywhere be adapted to suit everyone sufficiently

But then again, in a perfect world, nobody would care who uses what toilet or what they may or may not have between their legs.

 

[PeteHall]

For those completely bewildered by where this suddenly sprang from, it appears to be in response to a recent email sent to Wessex members, copied below in full for the avoidance of confusion.

Dear Members,

TOILETS AND WASHROOMS
To reflect the Supreme Court Ruling on the 16th April 2025 which states “Ladies and Gents toilets are defined as single sex spaces and a persons sex is defined by their gender at birth”.
Currently the toilets available to members are as follows: -
The Ladies contains 2 WCs and 2 wash-hand basins. The Gents contains 2 WCs, 2 urinals and 2 wash-hand basins. There are 2 unisex WCs, one, the Toilet off the Locker Room, the other in the 4th shower in the Changing Room.
Members are expected to comply with the law using the appropriate toilet according to their birth gender or a unisex toilet.
The Committee
Wessex Cave Club

You will note that the Wessex is providing male, female and unisex facilities, which seems to be accepted best practice in many institutions and they have communicated this to their membership by email much as my employer has communicated a similar message to all employees.

While some may not agree with the club position, it is perfectly reasonable by any standards and it hardly seems fair to call out the club for providing clarity on an issue that members may have been unsure about.

There is no suggestion of genital inspection, banning trans people or any of the other ridiculous claims by agitators on this forum.

 

[PeteHall]

in a perfect world, nobody would care who uses what toilet or what they may or may not have between their legs

We live in an imperfect world and as a result, we need to make compromises for the dignity and safety of those who are vulnerable.

The whole reason that there has been a battle for decades for women's rights, is because women are inherently vulnerable to men, who are on average bigger and stronger.

Allowing women the privacy, dignity and safety of women-only spaces is not a lot to ask. But as soon as you allow males into that single sex environment, based on their word alone, you open the door not only for those with innocent motives, but also for predators and perverts. Since it is impossible to read someone's personal thoughts, it is impossible in law, or in a caving club policy, to distinguish the predators or perverts from anybody else, until their actions betray them, by which time it is too late for the victim.

Maintaining the right to single sex facilities is a simple protection that we owe to women, across our country and in our caving clubs.

Providing unisex facilities alongside single sex facilities ensures that trans people are not excluded, while also protecting women from potential harm.

I really don't understand why this is so controversial and has led to such vicious attacks on a club that is trying to navigate a changing world, in the best interests of all its members.

 

[2xw]

We live in an imperfect world and as a result, we need to make compromises for the dignity and safety of those who are vulnerable.

The whole reason that there has been a battle for decades for women's rights, is because women are inherently vulnerable to men, who are on average bigger and stronger.

Allowing women the privacy, dignity and safety of women-only spaces is not a lot to ask. But as soon as you allow males into that single sex environment, based on their word alone, you open the door not only for those with innocent motives, but also for predators and perverts. Since it is impossible to read someone's personal thoughts, it is impossible in law, or in a caving club policy, to distinguish the predators or perverts from anybody else, until their actions betray them, by which time it is too late for the victim.

Maintaining the right to single sex facilities is a simple protection that we owe to women, across our country and in our caving clubs.

Providing unisex facilities alongside single sex facilities ensures that trans people are not excluded, while also protecting women from potential harm.

I really don't understand why this is so controversial and has led to such vicious attacks on a club that is trying to navigate a changing world, in the best interests of all its members.

What's controversial is that it's a really brain-dead means of achieving that you have said here, because all a "predator" or "pervert" with a beard and a penis has to do is say they were born a woman at birth, and then the Wessex will demand that the person with the beard and the penis uses the women's single sex space. (Hence the memes about the need for a genital inspection)


And obviously, with this policy is the insinuation that all trans people are predators and perverts. It is, in it's most well intentioned form, an act of cowardice that means a committee doesn't have to deal with the predators and perverts in the Wessex and instead can try to manoeuvre round them with ultimately unenforceable rules.

It's just weak, morally and intellectually. Why doesn't the Wessex just kick out the predators and perverts?

 

[mikem]

... and I also do not hold mikem's apparent belief that the majority of Mendip cavers hold these backwards opinions, but the last thing the people that do see it that way need is for everyone with a different view to stop visiting their club as then all hope is lost for them to grow some empathy.

Great misinterpretation of what I said, which is that they don't support the forum, which has nothing to do with individuals beyond what they post on here.

 

[2xw]

A hypothetical for the people supporting the Wessex policy.
The below individual is a man, lives as a man, and would be pretty physically intimidating alone in a changing room with a stranger.
The below individual was born as a woman at birth (note double mastectomy)

The Wessex policy demands that the below individual use the womens single sex toilets.
Unless of course you want to demand specific individuals use the unisex toilets on the assumption that they're a predator, which I suspect would put the club on pretty shakey discrmination ground.

So what now? (I think the solutions are single person toilets/cublicles/rooms rather than stupid rules - win for the TSG)

 

[Shapatti]

A hypothetical for the people supporting the Wessex policy.
The below individual is a man, lives as a man, and would be pretty physically intimidating alone in a changing room with a stranger.
The below individual was born as a woman at birth (note double mastectomy)

The Wessex policy demands that the below individual use the womens single sex toilets.
Unless of course you want to demand specific individuals use the unisex toilets on the assumption that they're a predator, which I suspect would put the club on pretty shakey discrmination ground.

So what now? (I think the solutions are single person toilets/cublicles/rooms rather than stupid rules - win for the TSG)

View attachment 23120

Then according to how the judgement from the supreme court current exists, and the interim guidance from the EHRC (which the government currently points at as the best fit set of guidance), that person would be expected to use the facilities appropriate for their sex designated at birth, either women's or unisex facilities in this case, in any situation, be it caving club huts, pubs, public toilets etc...
It's not a great place to be from anyone's point of view, but until the laws are changed to actually be reasonably functional or the guidance from government actually becomes reliable, that's the unfortunate bottom line.
As someone that has to navigate the complexity's of conflicting government guidance on several conflicting subjects (COVID guidance). It's really not cut and dried.

I don't envy anyone in the position of having to balance the rights and protections of Trans people with the rights and protections of other groups such as women, whilst trying to not be open to legal challenge due to discrimination or not meeting legal duties.

I agree with the point that the solution is single person facilities, but unfortunately that's not something that's going to change overnight for existing facilities. So all that can be done is try and make it work until then, though I don't know what form that should take.

A question would be what recourse actually is there for someone not is not using the appropriate facilities. Regardless of what their biological sex is. Aka what stops a biological presenting male who says they are male from using the female facilities and vice versa.

 

[PeteHall]

A hypothetical for the people supporting the Wessex policy.

I would hope that the individual in question would respect their fellow club members and choose to use the unisex facilities, which would seem like the obvious thing to do in the circumstances.

Why doesn't the Wessex just kick out the predators and perverts?

It seems that you have deliberately misinterpreted my comments above.
Has it ever occurred to you that many women are uncomfortable sharing toilet facilities with men, whether or not they are a predator or pervert? Should these women be excluded from caving because you think that they are overly sensitive?

ultimately unenforceable rules.

All club rules are ultimately unenforceable and rely on the goodwill of members, but they set a standard of acceptable behaviour so everyone knows what's expected. It's not really that complicated.

 

[2xw]

A question would be what recourse actually is there for someone not is not using the appropriate facilities. Regardless of what their biological sex is. Aka what stops a biological presenting male who says they are male from using the female facilities and vice versa.

And so we circle back to mandatory genital inspection for visitors or the more reasonable course of zero enforcement, recognising the impossibility of it.

And because of the impossibility of enforcement the email from the Wessex seems at best worthless and at worst aggressive or nasty.


Perhaps clubs would also like to advise their visitors about other rules that the club has no hope of enforcing? I await my reminder about video piracy from the BPC, and my reminder not to litter from the RRCPC!

"Has it ever occurred to you that many women are uncomfortable sharing toilet facilities with men, whether or not they are a predator or pervert? Should these women be excluded from caving because you think that they are overly sensitive?"

A small correction Pete - women are uncomfortable sharing toilet facilities with people who look like men - some of whom you've just demanded need to share the facilities with women.

Given the apparent problems with women feeling unsafe in the Wessex one presumes they will dedicate at least half their weekends to women only weekends? Or are the toilets the only place in the Wessex where women might feel safe?

Why is the Wessex seeking to set the standard of behaviour now? And why to the rest of the community? Seems like projection - none of the rest of us have had this problem.

All club rules are ultimately unenforceable and rely on the goodwill of members, but they set a standard of acceptable behaviour so everyone knows what's expected. It's not really that complicated.

Why didn't the Wessex send an email about all its club rules rather than just this one, if it isn't a response to a specific issue?