Traverse Doubles Down on Culture of Abuse

Urinating is not a philosophy or a political act. It's a necessary biological function which public venues are required to provide for, it's not rocket science.

In June a parent wrote to me expressing concern that the Traverse Theatre in Edinburgh did not have single sex toilet provision (which is illegal). She joined a list of parents who had contacted me off the back of the Rein scandal when it came to light that the Traverse had funded and supported “porn” director Ms. Gasson to make a show with minors in which the children made sex toys for an adult audience.

It might be worth pointing out that in the midst of the public backlash Ms. Gasson failed to see where spending tax monies might leave her answerable to… well the tax payer and instead doubled down on her commitment to sex workers and making porn with the tax pot.

“widely misunderstood”….I agree there is a lot of misunderstanding - namely that artists & arts bodies need accountability for the work they create with public monies. That Ms. Gasson and the Traverse (as seen in below response) fail to understand the impact of their actions on ‘regular’ people (which is most of us) shows the utter disconnect of the sector (and contempt towards the ‘uneducated’). And in my mind, if you cannot be accountable then you do not deserve public funding. Find a private sponsor.

Special thanks to my current subscribers, if you are a free subscriber maybe you could consider becoming a paid subscriber? A yearly subscription is just £25 per year, £3.50 per month or founding membership £250. Every penny makes a difference & allows me to continue advocating for children & childhood. This stuff takes lots of time!! Or buy me a coffee? Needed and Appreciated! Thank you!

This is not my first run in regarding toilets in a public arts venue. I was responsible for bringing Tramway (Glasgow Publicly Funded Arts and Performance venue which is in my area) ‘gender neutral’ toilets to light in 2019. As a local community councillor at the time residents had approached me with concerns that the Tramway had changed signage indicating that ‘all genders’ could access their toilets. I proceeded to escalate a complaint to the ombudsmen which was subsequently…. lost.

In the time I was pursuing this I discovered that the Tramway had only consulted with the ‘Equality Network’ which is linked to the Scottish Trans Alliance.

And there you have it, on the landing page of the Scottish Trans Alliance (one of TWO organisations the Tramway consulted with in order to ‘TRANSform” their toilets ha ha, ie. put new signs up) is NONE other than Edinburgh Rape Crisis director Mridul Wadhwa. Wadhwa is a male who ‘plays female’ (trans woman). He was recently ‘put on leave’ after it came to light that he had created a ‘heresy hunt’ towards staff member Roz Adams who had challenged the policies which eroded single sex protections for vulnerable women. Mridul was on record “as labelling rape victims bigots and transphobes if they doubted whether a man identifying as a woman should run a centre helping women recover from male violence. As for any members of staff who harboured such notions, Wadhwa is on record as saying ‘Fire them’”

It further emerged that under Mridul’s watch serial sex offender and SNP Equalities Lead Cameron Downing had been able to ‘self identify’ into the service where he had access to vulnerable women. Downing has just been found guilty and sentenced to six years in jail on 10 charges of assault, sexual assault and domestic abuse against six young people. (when they say ‘young people’ do they mean minors? This is where language is important.)

Hardly a paragon on safeguarding STA.

In the case of the Tramway they had failed to consult local residents in the change. This includes the largest Muslim population in Scotland, the disabled charity in residence, or any local women’s groups. AND the current provision remains….illegal.

I will be following up on that in due course (It is worth noting that Tramway is also host to Take Me Somewhere and The Work Room who are largely responsible for the promotion of Rein).

On the companies house website we can see the latest directors report with their tax filing. Which includes this nugget.

Let’s keep that in mind, shall we?

My original letter to the Traverse can be seen here:

And their response in full (I break it down below):

My current response to latest letter here:

30 July 2024

To:

Linda Crooks, CEO & Executive Producer

Gareth Nicholls, Artistic Director
Traverse Theatre, 10 Cambridge St, Edinburgh, EH1 2ED

From:

Kate E. Deeming

Former Dance Artist, Parent & Supporters Coordinator The Scottish Union for Education, Advocate on behalf of children and childhood

Dear Ms. Crooks and Mr. Nicholls

I refer to the response provided by your colleague, Customer Experience Manager, Marcin Dobrowolski to my letter dated 25 June 2024 regarding safeguarding concerns at The Traverse.  As in my previous inquiry note I will be making this correspondence public both on social media and copying in Scottish Government legislators including local Edinburgh Councillor Valerie Walker who chairs the Culture and Communities Committee.

The response letter states:

The toilets at bar level along the Traverse 2 corridor, the photos of which you included in your letter, are gendered toilets. As such they are signposted with internationally recognizable symbols for men and women on the doors, accompanied by wording explicitly encouraging our patrons to use toilets that match their gender.

• ‘Gendered’ toilets do not exist in law.  As stated in previous letter toilets are demarcated by sex as one pees not with their ‘idea’ of urination but with the physical sexed body part. Toilets have not been designed to validate someone’s feelings.

• Whilst the symbols of the ‘people’ on the sign are internationally recognised (to correspond with sex), the alternative symbols on the doors are not internationally recognised symbols.

• Given that these are not recognisable symbols, it takes time for an individuals to decode meaning. The interval of a play does not provide adequate time for the average individual to understand this, putting many at a disadvantage, in particular groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.

• It has been suggested that the symbols for ‘urinals’ and ‘toilets’ are not actually internationally recognised.  Having travelled around the world the only time I have come into contact with such a symbol is in UK arts venues. This would appear to be indirect discrimination against non-UK residents.

• What’s more this reinforces a bias against females as males are able to pee into toilets but females are unable to use a urinal. Therefore increasing provision for males and decreasing provision for females.

• Females statistically, factually, and scientifically are more likely to suffer urinary and other health related problems through not having proper access to toilet facilities.  Traverse are directly discriminating against females.  This is why the legislation is in place, to protect against this harm by providing adequate facilities.

Near these toilets we also have signs notifying customer to the location of our gender-neutral toilets, which are in a different part of the building. While the term ‘gender-neutral’ may not be explicitly stated in the regulations you quoted, unisex facilities are permissible when they are single-occupancy lockable rooms. We have two such facilities in our building, providing privacy and security to users. Furthermore, suitable means for the disposal of sanitary products are provided in all our toilets, adhering to hygiene and cleanliness standards.

• This paragraph acknowledges you do not have single sex toilets?  The previous paragraph states that the toilets are based on concept of self-id and then in this paragraph state that there are additional ‘gender neutral’ toilets.  So what you are iterating is that the Traverse has no single sex provision?  Are you aware that is against the law?

• As you are aware the Equality Act 2010 provides for single sex provision. “Schedule 3, Part 7, Para 27(6) of the Act provides for any service or space to be single-sex where it is used by more than one person at the same time and where people might reasonably object to the presence of members of the opposite sex. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) confirms that protecting women’s and girls’ privacy, dignity and safety are eminently legitimate aims for providing single-sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms, and indeed, paragraph 738 of the Explanatory Notes to the Act gives the example of “separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store”.”

• There is no such thing (in law) as gender neutral toilets.  Unisex and Gender Neutral are NOT interchangeable - one does not pee with an idea but a physical reality.

• Can the Traverse confirm that the unisex toilet you refer to is separate to the disabled toilet?  Or are they the same?  If they are the same can you send me links to how the Traverse is complying with legislation regarding providing adequate facilities for disabled patrons/staff if they are also being offered up to the general public to offset the lack of single sex provision?

• Does the unisex toilet have floor to ceiling doors with wash facilities contained inside?

For your reference, the number of facilities we provide is based on the expected number of users, in accordance with the Building Standards Technical Handbook 2020: Non-domestic (Published 2 December 2020). We provide:

7 cubicles (Women)
2 cubicles (Men)
7 urinals (Men)
2 single-occupant gender-neutral toilets
1 single-occupant gender-neutral toilet with baby changing facilities 1 single-occupant gender-neutral accessible toilet

This exceeds the number of required sanitary facilities for the public in entertainment and assembly buildings, as per section 3.12.5.

• The paragraph earlier states that the cubicles for females and urinals for men are based on a system of self-id therefore are not complying with relevant legislation. As toilet legislation is rooted in physical reality of sex, not a philosophy of peeing.

• Can you confirm whether these are public facing facilities or are some in the dressing room/office spaces?

We are committed to creating an inclusive and safe environment for all our visitors. Our gender-neutral toilets are designed to be safe and private, addressing the needs of individuals who prefer not to use the gender-specific facilities. This is part of our broader commitment to inclusivity and respect for all patrons.

Thank you for your statement of inclusivity.  Can the Traverse please provide the impact assessment report for the following groups who may need to access your toilets and to whom single sex provision is paramount.

• Muslims

• Conservative Christians

• Individuals who have English as a second language

• Dyslexic or Visually Impaired Visitors

• Elderly Women and Men

• Individuals with a language disability

• Detransitioners

• Child Sex Abuse Survivors

• Vulnerable Adults and Adults with Special Needs

• Gender Critical

Regarding your concerns about safeguarding, we want to clarify that we have stringent safeguarding policies in place to protect minors and all vulnerable individuals. These policies are regularly reviewed and updated in line with best practices and legal requirements. Any projects or activities involving minors are carefully supervised and adhere to strict safeguarding protocols to ensure their safety and wellbeing. All our policies are designed to be inclusive and respectful while ensuring compliance with all relevant laws.

• Can the Traverse supply to me your Equality Impact Assessment for the show of Leonnie Rae Gasson.

• Can the Traverse supply to me the child protection policy.

• Can the Traverse provide to me the safeguarding policy that was in place regarding Leonnie Rae Gasson’s show which had minors making sex toys for an adult audience?

• Who is involved in formulating Traverse safeguarding policies and how are they chosen?

Lastly I would like to draw attention to the fact that you did not acknowledge or address the latter part of my letter which I will cut and paste here to allow for follow up. (Following from letter dates 25 June 2024)

I wonder if your failure to note clear safeguarding red flags is the result of your organisational adoption of gender ideology? I note your entire organisational list has pronouns following names.

I am sure you are aware of the numerous court cases that have been won most notably the Maya Forstater judgement regarding the protection of gender critical beliefs. I would suggest you review your policies and public profile to ensure that you are keeping within the law, and out of the firing line of litigation.

As noted on the Sex Matters website:

• Do your HR and EDI functions understand that gender-critical beliefs align with the definition of man and woman in law, and that the Equality Act provides protection against belief discrimination?

• Are your policies on sex and gender reassignment aligned with the law, or do they create a potential risk of discrimination, bullying and harassment against those with gender-critical beliefs?

• Do your rules and policies on single-sex facilities provide clarity and protect everyone’s rights, or do they create potential flashpoints for conflict?

• Do your rules and policies on trans inclusion comply with our public sector equality duty, and in particular our obligation to have regard to the need to foster good relations between people with different protected characteristics?

• Does your training adequately reflect belief discrimination protection, or does it actively create a hostile environment for those with gender-critical beliefs – calling them “transphobic” for example?

• Have you outsourced training to an external organisation with a radical sex denialist position?

• Have you signed up to a benchmarking scheme (such as the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index or Advance HE) that encourages discrimination against gender-critical people?

• Do you have internal LGBTI+ or “women’s” networks that seek to enforce sex denialism?

• Have you allowed a culture to develop where even asking these questions provokes fear?
  

I would also like to note that you have not acknowledged my references to Cass and WPATH.

“Both of these show epic failures in child protection in relation to ‘gender affirmation’. Both demonstrate that trans healthcare is a medical experiment at best with devastating consequences. It shows that affirmation is not a neutral act and can lead children down devastating pathways wherein co-morbidities such as autism, sexual abuse and psychiatric conditions are ignored.

When children are affirmed they are more likely to pursue medical pathways such as puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries. Healthy children are left infertile, sexually unable to function, with stunted brain development, liver cancer, osteoporosis, dementia and with worse psychiatric conditions then they started with. These medical interventions shorten lifespan with the disruption of healthy endocrine systems. Gender non-conforming children who would otherwise grow up ‘to be gay’ are told they are the opposite sex and not to be happy in their healthy bodies and emerging sexuality. “

• Are you ensuring that your work with children and teens reflects the Cass recommendations wherein affirmation is not seen as a neutral act?
  

I note from The Traverse Directors report on the companies house website the following statement:

“A theatre experience for everyone

We will produce and present work of artistic excellence for and from Scotland, extending our reach, relevance, representation and impact.  We will break down barriers that prevent people from engaging with our work, whether economic, cultural, or physical, and ensure that the people who work for, and with us reflect the diversity of contemporary Scotland”

As you infer, the arts can be a vital source of inspiration that feeds generations, however they can also be destructive political tools that bring down cultures and cause untoward suffering.  Whilst I do not suggest that you are the latter (yet), you are certainly failing in the former in your capacity to serve the general public.  You want to remove barriers?  Serve the public.  Good safeguarding is not a political manifesto.  Laws are there for a reason, it is in your best interest to operate within their boundaries and get back to core purpose.  How will you address the failure in upholding both the law and safeguarding?

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely

Kate E. Deeming

Former dance artist in communities & schools, advocate for childhood. We need to stop pathologising kids experiences. Philly native. Glasgow based. Mum.

Parents and Supporters Coordinator - Scottish Union for Education

Commendation for Contribution to Dance and Peacemaking Scottish Parliament (2011) "Glasgow's Morning Dancer” (2010/11)
“Part of the Civic Architecture of Glasgow” (2019, DIGlasgow Paul English, journalist) “The Pollokshields Dancing Queen/Dancing Xmas Tree" (2020/21/22)

Hear on Radio 4 "My Name Is... Kate"
(e) deemingdreaming@gmail.com
(substack) https://deemingdreaming.substack.com/ (w) deemingdreaming.com

We will see what happens…. wouldn’t it be lovely if they actually showed some responsibility and followed the law? I should not have to argue for the most basic, the MOST BASIC right for a person to be able to access facilities that allow them to pee without someone needing to be validated in the process. We are cultivating a culture of narcissism and fragility with these policies which bring far more harm in their wake. I shall keep you posted…..

Special thanks to my current subscribers, if you are a free subscriber maybe you could consider becoming a paid subscriber? A yearly subscription is just £25 per year, £3.50 per month or founding membership £250. Every penny makes a difference & allows me to continue advocating for children & childhood. This work takes a lot of time! Or buy me a coffee? Thank you!!! So appreciate it.