Do Trans-Inclusive Changing Rooms Put Women in Danger?
On September 2nd, 2018, The Sunday Times published an article titled Unisex changing rooms put women in danger. Citing “figures released under Freedom of Information (FoI) laws,” it alleges that “almost 90% of reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities.” Since its publication, opponents of trans-inclusion in female public accommodations (that is, permitting access by transfeminine individuals) have cited it as proof of the dangers such policies pose to cisfeminine individuals — even half a decade later. The article, however, is insufficient to substantiate these concerns.
The article lacks transparency regarding its investigation. However, information gleaned therefrom indicates flawed research methods and findings that may not be applicable to trans-inclusion policies. Further, the author has a history of publishing misinformation on the subject, and he along with The Sunday Times itself may be biased.
Meanwhile, scientific literature on the subject contradicts the concerns the article allegedly corroborates. Further, research suggests trans-exclusion may lead to increased incidence of sexual assault.
Bias & Credibility
A conservative British publication, The Sunday Times may reasonably be suspected of bias on trans-related matters. Hostility towards the LGBTQ community and especially the trans community is a common conservative attitude — especially as of the past few years. Further, as noted by CNN, OpenDemocracy, and several others, British media is inordinately transphobic. In line with both trends, CNN notes The Sunday Times has published hundreds of trans-related articles over the few years preceding its article.
Coverage by the author in particular is suspect. Andrew Gilligan, in addition to his prominence in the British Conservative Party and history of criticizing the transgender community, published misinformation on a similar matter two months prior to the article in question.
Transparency
The above in mind, transparency is vital to assure readers of objectivity and honesty. However, the author fails to sufficiently explain his research methods, and the article withholds its data from the reader, instead offering summaries thereof.
The investigation appears to have consisted solely of an FoI request. However, The Sunday Times did not publish the request nor specify the information requested. Coupled with the article’s unclear reporting, this information’s absence obscures the investigation and its findings.
Further, the article does not specify the request’s recipient. Consequently, readers may not contact the recipient to verify the information obtained or request additional information.
Little may be presumed of the recipient beyond being a public authority as defined by the 2000 act. One might suspect the recipient was a law enforcement agency, but the respondent’s knowledge of incidents that “[weren’t reported] to police or [didn’t result] in prosecutions” suggests otherwise.
This in turn calls into question the means by which the incidents were recorded. The article defines its data as “reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities.” One might presume that, by “reported,” the article means “reported to law enforcement,” but the above suggests this isn’t necessarily the case.
Generalizability
The article lacks details regarding the investigation’s statistical sample. However, information gleaned from the article raises concerns regarding generalizability.
The investigation’s data consists of “134 complaints of sexual misconduct in sports centre and swimming pool changing rooms” reported during 2017. However, the article doesn’t specify how many establishments were investigated nor their locations. Without knowing the sample’s size or geographic distribution, readers cannot assess the generalizability of the investigation’s findings.
However, the article’s discussion of its findings implies the data comes from a single town (namely, Wolverhampton). The discussion further implies all complaints come from a single establishment. If this is the case, the findings do indeed lack generalizability.
Applicability
The investigation’s findings may not be applicable to trans-inclusive facilities. Although it discusses legislation regarding trans-inclusive facilities, it only uses the terms “unisex” and “gender-neutral” when discussing its data.
Presumably, the investigation dealt with unisex or gender-neutral facilities, but the author considers its findings applicable to trans-inclusive facilities. The reasoning (attributed to “feminists”) seems to be that policies of trans-inclusion would “[allow] any man to identify as a woman and enter [a female facility].” However, a study dealing directly with trans-inclusive facilities found contrary results to The Sunday Times’ investigation, casting doubt on this line of reasoning.
Alternatively, the investigation itself may have conflated unisex/gender-neutral and trans-inclusive facilities. If this is the case, then the data lacks coherence.
Alternative Studies
Hasenbush et al.
Two months prior to The Sunday Times’ article, Hasenbush et al. published Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms.
The article discusses a study similar to that of The Sunday Times. However, the authors are far more forthcoming about their data and research methods, the investigation focuses exclusively on “gender identity inclusive public accommodations” (or, alternatively, trans-inclusive facilities), the data consists explicitly and exclusively of “criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms,” and the sample consists of “localities in Massachusetts with and without gender identity inclusive public accommodation nondiscrimination ordinances.”
The study found no correlation between laws requiring trans-inclusive facilities and “the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces,” suggesting that fears regarding trans-inclusive facilities — such as those supposedly backed by The Sunday Times article — are “not empirically grounded.” This entirely contradicts The Sunday Times’ claims.
Not only does the study contradict The Sunday Times’ findings, but it also predates them — meaning the author either neglected research of pre-existing studies or consciously chose not to mention a similar yet far more compelling study whose findings contradicted his own.
Murchison et al.
June 2019, Murchison et al. published School Restroom/Locker Rooms Restrictions and Sexual Assault Risk Among Transgender Youth. The study analyzed survey responses from transgender and nonbinary US adolescents in grades 7 through 12. It found that policies preventing such youth from accessing gender identity-congruent facilities increased the risk of sexual assault.
This suggests that, in addition to posing no risk to cisfeminine individuals, policies of trans-inclusion reduce instances of sexual assault.
Conclusion
The article comes from a biased publication. The author, in addition to being similarly biased, lacks credibility due to a history of publishing misinformation on the matter.
That in mind, transparency should have been a priority. However, the author failed to sufficiently detail his research methods and findings, preventing readers from scrutinizing the former and verifying the latter. Instead, he prioritizes drawing conclusions therefrom and indicating their relevance via mention of questionably related legislation and a recent criminal incident.
Despite these failings, information gleaned from the article suggest the investigation’s findings lack generalizability and may not even be applicable to the legislation it discusses.
Meanwhile, a similar yet far more compelling study — one the author failed to mention due to either negligence or dishonesty — came to the opposite conclusion of The Sunday Times article. Further research suggests the policies criticized by the article actually reduce instances of sexual assault.
In short, Andrew Gilligan was wrong. Trans-inclusive facilities don’t put cisfeminine individuals in danger. To the contrary, they keep transgender individuals safe.
Given the above, one might assume Andrew Gilligan was a rookie journalist. At the time of the article’s publication, however, he had over twenty years of experience and was a senior corresponded of The Sunday Times. One would expect journalistic integrity of Gilligan. Instead, he — once again — published misinformation demonizing a vulnerable minority. Further, he advocated for a policy that puts children at increased risk of sexual assault.
