I got an email from a concerned parent who had come across this toilet signage at the Traverse Theatre in Edinburgh. The Traverse Theatre is an Edinburgh Institution and has led much of the cultural landscape in Scotland for the past 50+ years. It’s adoption of “certain” policies is an indicator of a much bigger cultural disease.
Anymore this obtuse signage is common. I wish I had more hours in the day to challenge these virtue signalling eejits. Not least because it UTTERLY ILLEGAL (and impossible to decode if English is not your first language or you are elderly…). (I will come back to this shortly). What struck me in THIS instance is that I recalled that it was the Traverse Theatre that funded Leonnie Rae Gasson’s show with teenagers where they made sex toys out of adult audience items during her show ‘Love and Machinery’. (I mean WTAF, start being adults and stop trying to be ‘cool with the kids’ Traverse. Ever hear of grooming?).
You will recall Gasson as the “mastermind” behind the Rein Project (scandal).
I believe the juxtaposition of a pornographic show for and with kids PLUS toilets encouraging self id PLUS Traverse pronoun usage on their ‘Team Traverse’ page shows that they are prioritising ideology over safeguarding.
Health and Safety protocols are there for practical reasons not ideological. A GOOD H&S policy will consider problems at the edges, where risks *could* be breached. H&S Policies are NOT political or social manifestos. I think too many institutions are getting it the wrong way around and this is putting the most vulnerable at risk.
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. Or buy me a coffee? Thank you!
Deeming Dreaming is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Following is the letter I wrote in response to the Traverse. I will also be posting the material onto my twitter profile.
I am currently the Parents and Supporters Coordinator for the Scottish Union for Education. My role is to represent and support the voices of parents in education, to advocate for better standards, and to challenge the politicisation in our educational systems at the expense of actual learning.
You are aware that I have advocated on behalf of children, childhood and their access to the arts for decades. Many parents count on me to be their and their child’s voice.
I am writing to you on a matter of utmost importance regarding your policies which are putting children at risk. I ask that you review these matters urgently and respond legally and appropriately. I shall be posting this letter and correspondence online and tagging your organisation in. The arts is facing a critical moment, how organisations move forward will spell their survival or decimation.
I was recently contacted by one of your patrons about your toilet provision.
‘Gender Neutral Toilets’ do not exist in law.
One does not pee with one’s identity but one’s biological physical reality of sex.
The law (as seen below) has been written so as to not impede upon a person’s ability to relieve oneself based on whether they are male or female. It will come as no surprise to you (as there is always a queue at female toilets) that females take longer in toilets as they have no choice but to sit down, they menstruate, and more often are prone to urinary problems requiring more time in toilet facilities. Changing signage put females at physical risk as you allow men to self identify into toilets which females physically need. It is also exceptionally confusing for non-English speakers, children and older members of the public.
I refer to the appropriate law here:
The Technical Handbook which gives guidance for meeting the provisions as set in the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 states
Section 3.12.1
The number of sanitary facilities provided within a building should be calculated from the maximum number of persons the building is likely to accommodate at any time, based upon the normal use of the building.
Separate male and female sanitary accommodation are usually provided. This should be based upon the proportion of males and females that will use a building, where this is known, or provide accommodation for equal numbers of each sex otherwise.
Unisex sanitary accommodation may be provided where each sanitary facility, or a WC and wash hand basin, is located within a separate space, for use by only one person at a time, with a door that can be secured from within for privacy. "
Section 3.12.6 'General provisions in all sanitary accommodation'
States that every toilet should "for personal hygiene, have a wash hand basin within either the toilet itself or in an adjacent space providing the sole means of access to the toilet"
It is my understanding that the Traverse's current provision of Sanitary Facilities no longer meet the general standards as required within the regulations as described above.
Section 3.8
The number of sanitary facilities for the public in entertainment and assembly buildings , like the Traverse , should be provided for on the basis of the expected number of people using the venue. These provisions are split into Male and Female, eg provisions for 100 males require one WC and 2 urinals, provisions for 100 females require 5 WC's.
Unisex WC (*NOT gender neutral, these facilities are still based on the physical reality of sex, ie. how males and females pee) may be installed for use by both male and female customers for up to and including 20 persons.
As quoted above each Unisex facility must be located within a separate space, for use by only one person at a time.
I refer further to The Approved Code of Practice for the Workplace (Health, Safety & welfare) Regulations 1992 stipulates the required minimum number of water closets and urinals in a workplace based upon the number of male and female employees.
Regulation 20 (3) states that 'separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is is a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside'. For clarification, a cubicle is not a room since the walls do not go from floor to ceiling.
Therefore, if a toilet is in a room with a door lockable from the inside then this can be designated as gender neutral. If however there are multiple lockable cubicles, such as within a toilet block, then these all need to be gender (sex) specific since they are not individual rooms. If the toilet block has urinals then these can only be male designated toilets.
Regulation 21 (3) requires that washing facilities are provided separately for men and women unless they are provided 'in a room the door of which is capable of being secured from the inside and the facilities in each such room are intended to be used by only one person at a time'.
This means that a gender neutral toilet will need to be a room that is lockable from the inside, and it must contain suitable hand washing facilities for individual use.
My awareness of your illegal facilities comes off the back of the ‘Rein Scandal’ which I am sure you are well aware of. Leonnie Ray Gasson was funded to make a pornographic film via Creative Scotland. It is only the public backlash that rightfully saw that project funding rescinded. It was noted that artist’s previous project had been working with your youth company and making sex toys in your venue.
Sixteen year olds are minors under Scottish Law. Many, including myself, would suggest that encouraging minors to make sex toys out of adult audience materials is grooming. The presence of this program in your venue which allows self-id in the intimate spaces of toilets suggests your organisation’s safeguarding policies are well subpar, and dangerous as predators can take advantage of this loop hole to access young girls.
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?
Lastly I am wondering if your organisation is aware of the recently released WPATH Files and Cass Report? 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.
I think your adoption of an ideology has clouded the reality not only of what keeps your staff and visitors safe but also detracts from your core purpose as an arts venue and cultural programmer.
(note: a GOOD health and safety policy considers problems at the edges, where failings ‘could’ occur, it is not a moral or ethical manifesto)
We are facing a dire situation in the arts where many organisations will be facing closure in the next couple of years, it would be a good strategy to read the room. The backlash against Rein was just the start. The public are not feeling the warm fuzzies around the arts sector at the minute. And why should they? The arts preaches to and does not serve the public. But the arts done well can build bridges and sustain it’s citizens through the hard times which will be needed, valued and celebrated.
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.
As with Scottish Ballet’s show which elevates gender ideology and activism over ballet to children, the Traverse seems to have become distracted by ideology and lost sight of it’s core purpose. Yet the hens will come to roost. The public will not be loyal to organisations that have viewed them with derision. Who will survive will be those organisations and artists who remember that the arts has sustained itself over many hundreds of years in service to the people it meets. We need good artists, good arts practice - it’s what makes life sweet. Let’s hope a wakening comes soon.
Deeming Dreaming is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
👏👏👏
Well said,all of it !!👋👍❤