Row over female-only compartments being used by transgender people on Caledonian sleeper service

[thenorthern]

Just out of curiosity, have they reported how these stunts have been received? Were the men outraged, or (as I suspect) did they just shrug and get on with things?

One of the organisers appeared on Good Morning Britain about it, here is a link to the interview.

 

[KingJ]

My god this story is silly, just MumsNet stirring the pot to aggravate people. This situation is really no different to single-sex hostel rooms where you self-identify on the website when you book - it can be abused, and if you have concerns that it is, you should speak to a member of staff.

The concern isn't, and shouldn't be, about transgender people - the concern is males who aren't transgender who select female to prey on others. Alternatively, used by males when all the other berths have sold out!

Hear hear, the problem isn't with a certain demographic, sexual orientation, gender etc - it's with people who wish to carry out criminal acts. And as a bonus, there's already a well-established system in place for segregating people who are convicted of criminal acts - prison!

There is a lot of hysteria in general thinking that a certain demographic is going to do a certain thing, and therefore we need to segregate ourselves from them to be safe - see any hysteria over bathroom sharing, "Someone who is X moved in next door to me" etc. In reality though, the perpetrators of crimes call from all demographics, possibly abusing a certain other demographic by masquerading as them to achieve their objective. That doesn't mean that we need to put in onerous restrictions against certain demographics (who may already be struggling with other things in the first place!), that means that when someone commits a criminal act, they are put through the criminal justice system. It doesn't matter what demographic they might be from - a crime is a crime.

Just as someone might try and commit a crime by masquerading as another gender, there's still plenty of ways they can carry out that same crime without needing to do that. Sticking specifically to the sleeper, they could steal the key/keycard, break the lock, force entry, use date rape drugs in the lounge car and so on... none of those methods are going to be prevented by asking transgender people to provide 'proof' of their transitional status - which as many other posters have explained is not often an easy thing to outright prove. Something that i've not seen touched on either is just how upsetting and insulting it can be to be required to constantly prove you who are. You've lived your whole life feeling like a stranger in your own body, and finally you're getting the help and support you need to address that - but you're having instead to put up of a constant barrage of people saying "I don't believe you, you're not really that, you're really this. Prove it! Prove it! Prove it!". That can be incredibly distressing.

But anyway, let's keep this simple - let's segregate those who commit crimes and pose an ongoing risk to society from those who are law-abiding and don't post an ongoing risk to society. No need for any of this faff of every organisation having to segregate by arbitrary gender/race/nationality/whatever characteristics.

 

[TUC]

I do think there needs to be a reality check on this issue. Bear in mind that many people who describe thrmselves as trans havr not gone down the surgery route and so have male genitals. Also bear in mind that some would say that the fact that they consider themsleves trans does not mean they are gay and are bisexual or, in so,e cases, hetrosexual. None of that in itself means that someone would behave at all inappropriately when sharimg a cabin with a woman.

However, in any other situation, a woman would be regarded as acting perfectly understandably if she said, no matter how safe and trustworthy the person was, they did not feel relaxed and comfortable sharing a cabin with someone who was physically male. Many women would also consider it improper more generally to share a cabin with someone who was physically male and not their partner. Faced with that, why should the fact that a person is trans trump a woman's right to feel safe and secure in a bedroom, no matter how properly the other person is behaving in reality?

 

[robbeech]

Well all genders are together this morning on the down highlander towards Inverness as they’re bussing them from Perth.

 

[JamboCommuter]

I miss the days when a cis man was someone who sold insurance.

 

[Holly]

I miss the days when a cis man was someone who sold insurance.

Thank you, you made my day! lol

Really, the solution is couchettes for solitary travellers and cabins only for families or groups travelling and booking together. And if a solitary traveller really needs a private cabin then a hefty fee for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couchette

 

[backontrack]

Thank you, you made my day! lol

Really, the solution is couchettes for solitary travellers and cabins only for families or groups travelling and booking together. And if a solitary traveller really needs a private cabin then a hefty fee for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couchette

That seems like a sensible suggestion.

 

[AlterEgo]

That seems like a sensible suggestion.

Charging people who want privacy the earth? But why? You can get much higher yields in the way CS does at the moment, without designating cabins as only for groups.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Charging people who want privacy the earth? But why? You can get much higher yields in the way CS does at the moment, without designating cabins as only for groups.

Charging per room like hotels do makes most sense, then a single passenger causes no revenue loss. But yes, have couchettes or similar. I genuinely don't believe they couldn't have done something along those lines even if the actual pods were unworkable. I think they didn't try hard enough.

 

[AlterEgo]

Charging per room like hotels do makes most sense, then a single passenger causes no revenue loss. But yes, have couchettes or similar. I genuinely don't believe they couldn't have done something along those lines even if the actual pods were unworkable. I think they didn't try hard enough.

The pods would have been an ideal solution. I would have been totally happy to travel in one - the only thing that matters to me is security and privacy.

 

[backontrack]

Charging people who want privacy the earth? But why? You can get much higher yields in the way CS does at the moment, without designating cabins as only for groups.

The couchette suggestion was what I was referring to.

Charging per room like hotels do makes most sense, then a single passenger causes no revenue loss. But yes, have couchettes or similar. I genuinely don't believe they couldn't have done something along those lines even if the actual pods were unworkable. I think they didn't try hard enough.

Serco were very keen to install sleeping pods like they did on the NorthLink ferries.

 

[backontrack]

The pods would have been an ideal solution. I would have been totally happy to travel in one - the only thing that matters to me is security and privacy.

Perhaps you would, but many people wouldn't - claustrophobia.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps you would, but many people wouldn't - claustrophobia.

You're probably right there, but they could have installed even a half-carriage's worth rather than going all out. You could have tapped a market which found a seat unpalatable but buying a room an extravagance.

 

[backontrack]

You're probably right there, but they could have installed even a half-carriage's worth rather than going all out. You could have tapped a market which found a seat unpalatable but buying a room an extravagance.

That's quite a good suggestion, providing that pods weren't priced to be prohibitively expensive - which, with Serco, can never be guaranteed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps you would, but many people wouldn't - claustrophobia.

They were basically airline business class seats, and those are not claustrophobic. Not enclosed pods.

There was allegedly a safety issue, I'd love to know more about precisely what it was, but I suspect they won't tell us because it will expose that they didn't try hard enough to make *something* work as a "middle class".

 

[backontrack]

They were basically airline business class seats, and those are not claustrophobic. Not enclosed pods.

There was allegedly a safety issue, I'd love to know more about precisely what it was, but I suspect they won't tell us because it will expose that they didn't try hard enough to make *something* work as a "middle class".

I see, thanks. They have them on the ferries so I don't see what the issue would be on a train...

 

[Wychwood93]

I see, thanks. They have them on the ferries so I don't see what the issue would be on a train...

The SNCF used to have similar - dreadful, no real chance of getting a decent sleep - as with the ferries. A good idea, but with a big B in but.

 

[backontrack]

The SNCF used to have similar - dreadful, no real chance of getting a decent sleep - as with the ferries. A good idea, but with a big B in but.

I just don't get why there would be a safety issue...is it about evacuation in case of a fire or any similar hazards occurring?

 

[Wychwood93]

I just don't get why there would be a safety issue...is it about evacuation in case of a fire or any similar hazards occurring?

My post was re. the seats, not the safety. I could see a safety issue due to discomfort - PAX just wandering around all night!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My post was re. the seats, not the safety. I could see a safety issue due to discomfort - PAX just wandering around all night!

There are seats already.

 

[AlterEgo]

I just don't get why there would be a safety issue...is it about evacuation in case of a fire or any similar hazards occurring?

I’d be surprised if that were the case. Those type of seats already exist on airliners.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’d be surprised if that were the case. Those type of seats already exist on airliners.

They actually stated it was a safety issue, it’s on here somewhere.

 

[Wychwood93]

There are seats already.

Your own post #195 refers to the type of seats! Seats of the reclining nature.

 

[backontrack]

They actually stated it was a safety issue, it’s on here somewhere.

But what was the issue, I wonder?

 

[thenorthern]

Its Friday tomorrow, maybe the Sleeper will be the next target of #ManFriday.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Much as I love a bit of hysterical, prurient wishful thinking....

Think of the percentage of the population that catch the sleeper.

Think of the percentage of sleeper passengers that identity as transgender.

Think of the percentage of sleeper who catch the sleeper who identify as transgender and are also rapists.

You’ve probably got more chance of being run over on the way to the station than you have of being molested on a sleeper train.

 

[Holly]

Charging people who want privacy the earth? But why? You can get much higher yields in the way CS does at the moment, without designating cabins as only for groups.

The simple answer is that it costs "the earth" to provide a private cabin. In the case of a family or a group there is some social benefit. So a single traveller who insists on a private cabin should pay more, or at least the same, as a group occupying the same space.

Basically it is fair to charge for seating, middle class (couchette, pod, whatever), or private cabin on a linear measure of coach taken. So for example if couchette bay took up two metres of carriage and provided four berths then the charge would be for 0.5metres. Similarly cabins and seats, different numbers in the arithmetic.

I can tell you, single young women travelling alone on long distance trains in Russia are advised to travel in couchettes. The somewhat public nature of couchettes is safer than cabins in which anti-social types can hide. (Calling them criminals is a bit harsh, usually it is just drunken louts who ought to know better but don't).

There can then be a variety of types of accommodation at various prices for those who book well ahead. Amtrak does something a bit like that on Florida-New York.

 

[AlterEgo]

The simple answer is that it costs "the earth" to provide a private cabin. In the case of a family or a group there is some social benefit. So a single traveller who insists on a private cabin should pay more, or at least the same, as a group occupying the same space.

Basically it is fair to charge for seating, middle class (couchette, pod, whatever), or private cabin on a linear measure of coach taken. So for example if couchette bay took up two metres of carriage and provided four berths then the charge would be for 0.5metres. Similarly cabins and seats, different numbers in the arithmetic.

Doesn’t matter whether it’s “fair” or not by any arbitrary measure, that’s not how the economics of Sleeper trains work. This is particularly the case when the new carriages come into being, which are a more premium product.

 

[Holly]

Doesn’t matter whether it’s “fair” or not by any arbitrary measure, that’s not how the economics of Sleeper trains work. This is particularly the case when the new carriages come into being, which are a more premium product.

Yes. QED. You have correctly identified the problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what was the issue, I wonder?

I don't think it was ever made public, which makes me suspicious.