Women feel threatened by city’s rules allowing ‘trans’ men into their recreational activities, public change rooms
GLASGOW, Scotland, April 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― Women in Glasgow may stop using public sporting and recreational activities after new policies allowing cross-dressing men into their classes and private spaces become widely known.
Glasgow Life, the sporting and recreational department of Scotland’s largest municipal government, has created a new policy entitled “Guidance on Accessing Sports Facilities and Services by Transgender People,” which allows not only people who are deemed to have “transitioned” into the opposite sex but also people who are still “transitioning," those who reject the concept of gender, and cross-dressers into the classes and change rooms of their choice.
This means that women and girls can no longer take part in women-only sports and recreational activities sponsored by Glasgow’s local government (or “council”) confident in the knowledge that only women and girls will be involved and that only women and girls will use their dressing rooms and showers.
The policy will have a significant impact on young girls and female survivors of sexual assault, as well as on Glaswegians whose ethnic cultures and religions particularly value modesty in dress around members of the opposite sex.
According to the Glasgow Herald, the city’s staff must give a “sensitive explanation” of the policy to those who complain after discovering a member of the opposite biological sex in a class or space meant only for a single sex. At the same time, the staff should “use the Hate Crime reporting form for any incidents.”
This, critics point out, makes merely objecting to biological males in spaces meant to provide privacy to biological females tantamount to a hate crime.
Women’s rights activist Susan Sinclair sharply criticized the new policy, saying it violated the Equality Act of 2010, which was supposed to support and encourage women in community life.
"Glasgow Life’s ‘Guidance on Accessing Sports Facilities and Service by Transgender People’ is yet another example of a policy change by our Public Authorities that misinterprets the 2010 Equality Act,” she wrote.
"There would appear to have been no public consultation or Equality Impact Assessment carried out for this change of practice,” she added.
“Single-sex changing rooms and showers are permitted under our Equality law, and this would include the exclusion of trans people of the opposite sex. Yet Glasgow Life wrongly state that the Equality Act 2010 allows trans people to choose their changing and showering facilities.”
Sinclair called the new policy “alarming” and “wide open to abuse” by sexual predators.
“Glasgow Life needs to urgently review their guidance with a view on how this negatively impacts on women and girls who have sex based protections,” she stated.
The blogger also wrote an opinion piece for the Herald in which she stated that women’s rights are being violated and that women who object are dismissed as “rolling back trans rights.”
“We now find ourselves in a country where schools turn a blind eye to the rise of sexual assaults on schoolgirls by installing mixed sex toilets and council sporting venues have policies reminding staff that people can freely choose their changing room ‘no matter if they look as if they are of the opposite sex’,” Sinclair wrote.
“If this blatant discrimination and inequality wasn’t bad enough, representatives of our public bodies then condemn us with accusations of anti-trans bigotry and ‘rolling back the rights of others;’ spoken with a staggering lack of awareness on the part they have played in the obliteration of ‘women only’ spaces and services in Scotland,” she continued.
“This is not progress.”
Now Sinclair is under attack. Yesterday, she took issue with being herself called an “anti-trans activist.”
“It's incredibly insulting to be called 'an active anti-trans campaigner' when all I've ever done is campaign to protect the rights of women and girls,” she tweeted.
“There is a big difference between those two positions, and name-calling women in that way doesn't help us move forward.”
In a tweet addressed to the Glasgow Herald, a writer for LifeSiteNews asked “Why are the interests of women -- real, biological women, women who have been formed by their experiences as biological females -- and girls being dismissed to cater to a very small group of troubled biological males?”
The responses were varied and usually under pseudonyms.
“That’s easy and simple-misogyny,” tweeted “I am Groot.”
“This tweet could get you into big trouble,” warned “Benno44.” “Remember what happened to @CF_Farrow (Caroline Farrow).”
“Because the backers of this are rich pharmaceutical companies, rich transvestites, rich investors who make money out of children becoming patients for life,” suggested “Resister Worried mum3.”