‘I asked 60 gyms if trans people like me could join – this is what happened’

When Evan Wade emailed a gym in Stoke-on-Trent to enquire about membership, he wasn’t expecting to be asked about his genitals.

But just days after the Supreme Court ruled that the terms “woman” and “man” applied to biological sex only, Evan, 28, contacted the women’s gym to see if he would be welcome – and received a response asking “what genitalia you have”.

Born female, Evan began transitioning five years ago and presents as a man with a deep voice and a beard from testosterone treatment. He has had surgery to form a male chest, but no other surgical procedures.

The gym in Stoke was one of more than 60 venues – mostly women’s gyms – Evan approached explaining his appearance, sex at birth, chromosomes, and gender identity. He has no desire to go into any women’s facilities and doesn’t want to join any gyms. Instead, Evan wanted to know where transgender people like him now fitted.

After the Supreme Court ruling, which declared that under The Equality Act 2010 it is biological sex at birth that prevails – not gender identity – the implications for which services, changing rooms, and gyms trans people can now use has been thrown into question.

The Stoke venue explained to Evan: “We would have to ask you a personal question on what genitalia you have” due to the “comfort of the ladies as certain genitalia cannot go into those changing rooms”.

Evan had never been asked this before. “I was taken aback,” he told The i Paper. “It’s not anyone’s business.”

He asked the gym: “Would you be happy to take my word regarding my genitalia or would you require proof and if so how would I go about proving my genitalia?”

The gym informed him: “If you are born a female you will have to use the female facilities.”

However, this was just one of multiple responses he received, all with contradictory advice. Together with more than 50 gyms contacted by The i Paper, they reveal a fitness industry in a state of confusion and anxiety as it grapples with the implications of the court’s judgment.

Gym owners said they were struggling to navigate a new legal landscape in which they are unsure whether they are supposed to allow trans women – or trans men – into the women’s changing rooms; whether they will be forced to ban trans women from women’s gyms; and where trans men fit into everything.

Some indicated they had already altered policies in response to the ruling, but others said they would defy it, warning of a “massive backlash” by the industry.

Gyms on front line of a new legal landscape

Since 2004, the law has recognised the acquired gender of trans people (under the Gender Recognition Act) “for all purposes”. The Equality Act 2010 outlined allowable exceptions to this, such as women’s refuges, if deemed necessary and proportionate.

Following a legal battle over whether trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) should be treated as a woman under the Equality Act, the Supreme Court said no, that the meaning of “sex” refers to biology only and “woman” means “biological woman”.

Keir Starmer and some campaigners have said the ruling has provided “clarity”. But many LGBT people and human rights groups have criticised it as an attack on the rights of trans people.

The British Medical Association passed a motion declaring the ruling “scientifically illiterate” and “biologically nonsensical”, as even biological sex is not easily divided into two. Intersex, nonbinary, and trans people, for example, can have a mixture of sex organs, chromosomes and hormones.

Gyms are now one of the industries on the front line of the dispute, trying to work out how best to implement the court’s judgment.

Virgin Active, which has 43 gyms in the UK, said it had been forced to seek “external legal counsel on the impact of the ruling”.

Total Fitness, which operates both mixed and women-only gyms, said: “Like many operators, we are currently awaiting further clarification on how the ruling applies to specific circumstances.”

Some independent gyms, meanwhile, are advising trans people to use spaces in line with their birth sex, while others are advising access based on gender identity.

The confusion is highlighted by the variety of responses from gyms contacted by Evan.

“As a female you are welcome to join our women-only gym,” said one in Oxfordshire.

A fitness centre in East Sussex told him: “Our membership policy is based on the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010, which includes individuals who are biologically female. As such, you would be eligible to join.”

However, a women’s gym in Cambridgeshire told him that “our facilities are exclusively for women. Therefore, given that you identify as a man, we are unable to offer [HIM/THEM] training at our facility”.

A women’s fitness centre in Greater Manchester, called Ladybird, told him that “we are in an unfamiliar situation with your request as we provide a safe space for all women, which includes ethnic groups” and therefore he should look elsewhere.

When contacted by this paper, Sandra McGugan, the manager of Ladybird, said: “It’s really difficult. We have a lot of [Muslim] women who take their headscarf off – they can’t be around men. If someone comes in dressed like a guy and seems like a guy then it’s like, hmmm,” – indicating that it would be a problem.

The burden on small gyms

For small, independent gyms, fears are growing about not only the legal implications of the ruling, but also the effects on their business.

Nancy Best, who runs Ladies Who Crunch, an online fitness club that also holds in-person events, said: “From a small business perspective, these kinds of legislations can cause really unhelpful conversations, disagreements, and upset.

“The industry hasn’t been sleeplessly worrying about this at all. I just don’t think that women have been creeping into changing rooms panicked that there’s going to be a trans woman there. Politely, they don’t give a f**k.”

Ms Best, who said she would not be changing her policies, added: “Imagine being the person that has to go into a changing room and start to remove people.

“These binary guidelines are unhelpful. Groups that are looking for an excuse to be nasty will latch on to this. So it leaves grey areas for the toxicity.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been tasked with providing guidance to interpret the Supreme Court judgement. Its interim advice states that “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities”.

UK Active, the trade body for the leisure industry, said it was currently referring gyms to that advice.

When the full guidance is published later this year, it is not known whether it will encourage businesses to comply – or demand it. The Government did not respond to a request for clarification.

The ruling has prompted disquiet from some lawyers. A former judge, Dr Victoria McCloud, said she would take the Government to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the judgement. And the Good Law Project, a campaigning organisation, is planning to argue in the High Court that “the UK is now in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights”. 

What gym users really think

The ruling could have ramifications for all gym-goers.

Emily Warner, who often attends women-only classes, said she would not want trans men in these spaces. “Even if you believe that a trans man is technically female as the Supreme Court ruling says, I still think it would make a woman feel uncomfortable getting changed if there was a man in the room,” said the 22-year-old.

“I assume this would feel equally uncomfortable for the trans man.”

However, she would be happy to share these spaces with trans women. “If someone who presents as a woman, who looks like a woman, who identifies as a woman, were to use female spaces, I think that’s the only thing that makes sense.”

Melissa Gray, a fitness instructor based in Leeds, said it “wouldn’t faze” her if a trans person attended her class: “Personally I wouldn’t have an issue with it. It’s something I feel should be open and a freedom right. It wouldn’t faze me if I came into a class or changing room and there was a transgender man or woman.”

Evan worries that, if he did join, he would have to “out” himself – reveal he was trans – to everyone because his appearance in a women’s gym could understandably alarm other members.

“I don’t mind being asked respectfully,” he said about revealing his gender identity, “but I wouldn’t want to have to wear a trans pin or anything like that.” He also does not want to upset anyone.

His chief concern is gyms telling him he would have to use the women’s changing rooms because he was born female. “That really shook me,” he said. “I’m definitely not going in there. If I had to use female facilities, I’m going to be challenged. I’m going to have to explain myself.”

The court ruling allows for trans men to be excluded from women’s spaces, “where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance”. If trans men can be excluded from men’s and women’s spaces, Evan and others wonder, where are they supposed to go?

Some women’s gyms told this paper that being woman-centred is the goal, not barring other genders. One gym owner said their main concern following the ruling was transphobia.

Katie Siddle, who opened her women’s gym Studio Soma last year in Bermondsey, south London, said: “I didn’t create this gym to be excluding anyone, it was about being able to include people. We’re not a gym that’s based on biological sex.

“I’d prefer to be welcoming to people who are being excluded from society, rather than to people that have a problem with it.

“The [Government] can’t force us to exclude people from our gym. I think that there’s going to be a massive backlash to this decision.”

​