Club hut toilets (split from Caving Memes)

[anticrawling]

Various things:
1. All the toilets at the Wessex can be made unisex by virtue of replacing signs on the toilets with 'unisex with urinals' (for what is currently the mens bathroom) and 'unisex without urinals' (for what is currently the women's bathroom). Then people can choose to use the bathroom they're comfortable with. This is not a difficult change to make.
2. The idea that single-sex spaces are enforceable in any capacity in a caving hut is laughable. We're all asked to change and remove muddy clothing before entering the main part of pretty much all huts - the changing room at the Wessex is unisex and therefore women visiting the Wessex already have to be somewhat comfortable with sharing more 'intimate' spaces with people of different sexes. Cubicle toilets in the 'womens' bathroom provide no more opportunity for 'perverts' than the changing room or bunk room does.
As 2xw says, if the rule is unenforceable, what was the point of the email? To make our trans and gender non-conforming community members feel outed and excluded?

 

[2xw]

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.

You wouldn't allow our club members to use the facilities with the other men? Or are the men in the wessex also unsafe?

i saw no mention of men only safe spaces in your above post, but I presume you think the Wessex will also be providing these?

 

[Karstic]

the point we’re making is why do you need government guidance for a caving club toilet. It’s so unimportant and there’s literally no problem with people going where they want to. If, for example I needed to run into the gents cause i was desperate for a piss who actually cares. If someone’s actually worried about their safety that is a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger problem.
Live and let live. And don’t use some obscure ruling on a specific clause of a human rights regulation as an excuse for intolerance.

 

[JessT]

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.

"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.”

Really? I thought the whole reason there has been a battle for centuries for women’s rights is because cis white men have systemically oppressed us, excluded us from power, denied our autonomy, sexualised and objectified us, raped and killed us, and treated us as less than equal. Framing it that way shifts the blame away from men who are upholding a system of oppression and violence towards women, and instead naturalises women’s subjugation as inevitable.

Don’t think you can speak for women on this one Pete, it’s cis white men like you who view women as “inherently vulnerable” that make us feel unsafe, not trans women. I think I speak for most women when I say that the Wessex feels like a much less safe space for us now than it ever did before.

 

[MediumCharlie]

The EHRC interim guidance has already been determined to be unenforceable (and it’s been left up to individual organisations how they segregate their facilities).

The ECtHR have also taken a very keen interest in the situation - saying that they are conducting an investigation as to whether the new findings violate previous ECHR findings (like Goodwin vs UK).

Any club attempting to enforce these ‘rules’ are not just specifically choosing to alienate members, but are also opening themselves up to all sorts of liability in the (reasonably likely) event that the ECtHR find the SC ruling unlawful. I think the question to ask is, why would a club choose to do this, given the lack of obligation and huge potential risks?

 

[Shapatti]

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!




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.



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?

My guess would be is because it is in response to a specific issue, possibly people complaining about Trans people using facilities in opposition to the supreme court ruling, that would now have valid reasons to complain because of said ruling.

I can easily imagine some more bigoted members of the public in general using the ruling to further their agenda, I've certainly seen the mentality in play, at work among older colleagues.
Unfortunately the ruling gives them the right to be heard on the matter if you can't prove that their concerns are coming from a point of discrimination or bullying.

There will be those with genuine concerns of course and they should be heard.

 

[Babyhagrid]

The belfry seems to manage really well with no gendered spaces at all. The same in the TSG and the Farm.

 

[2xw]

My guess would be is because it is in response to a specific issue, possibly people complaining about Trans people using facilities in opposition to the supreme court ruling, that would now have valid reasons to complain because of said ruling.

Perhaps this could be dealt with within the club via their disciplinary processes rather than via emails targeted at strangers. I agree with the rest of what you've said which is very reasonable.

 

[Shapatti]

Perhaps this could be dealt with within the club via their disciplinary processes rather than via emails targeted at strangers. I agree with the rest of what you've said which is very reasonable.

It's hard to combat complaints if they are least appear genuine, you have to prove they are coming from grounds of discrimination or bullying. Which is near Impossible without clear evidence of such.

I agree with the disciplinary procedures, but the first thing I personally would seek to do give people a chance to show if something was a genuine mistake Vs a deliberate action.
Then follow suit with suitable disciplinary procedures if required.
The email was sent out privately to just the Wessex membership after all, so by that definition should be within the club.

I do think the tone of the message was a lot stronger than I would have written, but knowing how generally blunt some people can be, it doesn't surprise me.

 

[hannahb]

The belfry seems to manage really well with no gendered spaces at all. The same in the TSG and the Farm.

Without wishing to derail the discussion, I would really like there to be a sit-down-only toilet at the farm to increase the likelihood that I could sit down for a wee without either sitting in someone else's wee, or having to clear up first, or hovering. I don't know if shared toilets in other huts are like this or whether it's just farm animals who have this problem!

 

[Peregrina]

"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."

Trans women are vulnerable and forcing them into male spaces is unsafe, and trying to make them use their own special toilets based on their medical history (or a stranger's best guess at it) is undignified.

Also, this may well not apply to you so it's not personal, but the men who go on about the 'safety and dignity of women' in this particular context don't often seem to value it very much in any other context. Tend to be the same anti-woke brigade who don't like the existence of those occasional womens' caving weekends (which, incidentally, welcome trans women). Funny that.

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. [emphasis mine]

This has always been the case, will always continue to be the case, and has not changed with the proposed new policy. The only alternative to a trust system is some dystopia where you have to send your birth certificate* in when you make a hut booking, even the much-memed mandatory genital inspections wouldn't actually work because of the miracles of modern medical science.

Sadly, the inevitable result is that any attempt at enforcement is based on outward appearance, and whether the observer perceives someone as 'adequately feminine/masculine'. Queer people, tall women, short men with shit beards all end up at risk of harassment from strangers demanding to know their medical details or what they've got in their pants - hence the memes. I know a cis female caver who's been harassed in a public toilet because someone thought she was too tall and her hands were a bit big - this is an actual, real issue that can and does affect people and we should do what we can to keep it out of the caving community.

(*still not 100% reliable depending on your definition of sex but nvm)

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.

People made grumpy memes in response to an actual real life decision that risks endangering cavers, cis or trans, as explained above.

Also, it may not be obvious but a lot of the criticism comes from people and clubs with at least some degree of fondness for the Wessex, who want their committee to consider revising a poor decision, and who want to be able to stay at their very nice hut again in future, but won't be doing so as it stands.

 

[hannahb]

It would be good if the Wessex committee were able to share why they discussed it at a meeting and sent an email about it. Might help us understand what seems to be an odd thing to do when it's considered in isolation.

I hope it doesn't set a precedent elsewhere.

 

[spelfish]

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?

The major problem with this is that most predators and perverts aren't overt and are only discovered after they have predated.

 

[mikem]

I'm sure they will be aware of this discussion, but whether they choose to comment on the forum is entirely up to them. They are beholden to their members, not the rest of us.

Please also remember that most of the internet divides the world into lots of separate compartments and it's very easy to end up in a reflective sounding board, where you think everyone agrees with you, because those that don't aren't engaged in the same groups (which is great in some ways - finding like minded people - but not so good at dealing with real world issues).

 

[hartfield_estate]

Luckily same-sex predatory behaviour is impossible or we'd be in a truly impossible situation (/sarcasm)

 

[Leoo]

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?

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.

Might I suggest that the woman who feels uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a trans person instead uses the unisex cubicles themselves? In that way they can be in control of their own comfort, rather than forcing someone else to feel alienated in order to preserve it. Or better yet, they could make judgements of people on things other than their birth gender, a fact they have no say over.

The fact that the Wessex committee felt the need to send this email out despite having unisex changing facilities is laughable, and shows that this is born out of a desire to discriminate and exclude, rather than protect people or "obey the law".

 

[mikem]

You have no idea why it was sent out, you are purely speculating on what you expect it to be, which is another reason for so much division within society...

 

[MediumCharlie]

You have no idea why it was sent out, you are purely speculating on what you expect it to be, which is another reason for so much division within society...

Mike, I think there is division because one group of people are using a dubious new piece of legislation to try and exclude another group of people from using facilities essential to participating in caving.

It’s an academic exercise for some and a very real situation for others actually impacted by these proposed changes. You can’t reasonably expect a trans person to participate in caving if they don’t have changing facilities or toilets they feel comfortable using (not to mention similar exclusion for cis people with gender-non conforming appearance) - and these people exist, and currently participate in caving without issue.

 

[flakey]

Mike, I think there is division because one group of people are using a dubious new piece of legislation to try and exclude another group of people from using facilities essential to participating in caving.

And even if that wasn’t the intention of the Wessex’s email, it’s going to be interpreted by a large number of people as highlighting them because of their gender. That group of people includes ones who are being vocal on here about it, but also a large number who won’t speak up and will instead stop going to the Wessex.

The messaging matters almost as much as the policy itself.

 

[PeteHall]

You can’t reasonably expect a trans person to participate in caving if they don’t have changing facilities or toilets they feel comfortable using

The same applies to women!

Might I suggest that the woman who feels uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a trans person instead uses the unisex cubicles themselves?

Given the space available in the hut and the numbers of people involved, that really isn't a practical solution.