EXCLUSIVE Trendy Brighton beach spa is embroiled in woke row as organisers apologise for banning transgender women from all-female sauna event
Beach Box Spa organised a female-only steam room session last Thursday and told instagram followers that trans-women were excluded.
The session was to allow female customers in swimwear to relax in a hot sauna without men present.
But following a pile-on by trans activists, the south coast company has changed its mind and said banning transgender women had been 'wrong' and 'goes against everything we believe in'.
The spa also has a note to its website declaring: 'At Beach Box we believe trans women are women and trans men are men' - despite the Supreme Court ruling otherwise for the purposes of the Equality Act in April.
It has outraged many customers who claim it makes them feel unsafe and accused them of flouting women's rights.
Some campaigners have even threatened legal action given because just six weeks ago the Supreme Court ruled trans women are legally male and trans men are legally female.
One critic said: 'This self-flagellation over supporting women's right to safety, privacy and dignity is sickening'.
Another follower was outraged for their 'trans siblings' and said it was 'disappointing' for a spa operating in Brighton, calling it a 'queer city'
Another wrote that the sauna business had decided to 'alienate and offend women' rather than stand up to transgender women in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on gender.
A third critic said: 'Beach Box is nothing but a woman hating team! They don't think women should be afforded privacy or dignity! You make me sick'.
A fourth said their claim to be 'fully inclusive' now 'simply excluded women who would wish to visit a single sex event. Their apology shows how little they care for women'.
MailOnline has asked Beach Box Sauna Spa to comment.
Its bosses have said they had been wrong to exclude trans-women from their all-women event last week.
Staff may require further ' LGBTQ + inclusion training', the business has admitted, and they are launching a new 'queer sauna session', starting on Thursday this week.
The row began when Beach Box advertised and women-only session on Instagram.
In the comments a follower asked if transgender women could attend and the business said no, adding: 'This is for cis women'.
It sparked a social media pile-on. Transgender news reader India Willoughby, a vocal critic of JK Rowling, shared the post and accused Beach Box Spa of 'excluding trans women from women's spaces'.
Another critic said: 'I absolutely loved your saunas but your decision to exclude trans women is incredibly disappointing.
'Your business operates in a queer city. I won't be using a space that excludes my trans siblings. Please do better than this'.
Beach Box Spa then issued a humbling apology.
It said: 'We got it wrong and we are so incredibly sorry.
'At Beach Box, we've always aimed to create an inclusive, welcoming space for everyone-regardless of gender, identity, background or lived experience.
'But this week, we made a mistake that caused hurt and disappointment, particularly within our trans communities.
'We want to say, with sincerity - we are truly sorry.
'We now understand that promoting or hosting a cis-only event goes against everything we believe in.
'It was wrong, and we take full responsibility for the harm this has caused. One of our comments on Instagram added to that harm, and we deeply regret it.
'While we have undertaken LGBTQ+ inclusion training with the brilliant team, it's clear that we still have work to do. We are listening and learning and we know that being inclusive in intention isn't enough when the impact tells a different story.
'To those who have spoken up and shared how this made you feel, thank you. Your voices matter deeply to us, and we're committed to doing better, both now and in the long term.
'We want Beach Box to continue to be a space where everyone feels welcome and we'll keep doing the work to make sure it feels that way'.
MailOnline revealed last week that LGBTQ acts have threatened to boycott the Download Festival after organisers followed the Supreme Court 's ruling and said trans men and women should use toilets according to their biological sex - not the gender they identify as.
Trans pop-punk artist Noahfinnce says the decision will be put people 'in danger', declaring the decision means: 'My trans sisters have to risk outing themselves in the men's [toilets] '.
The row has come to the attention of Harry Potter author and women's rights campaigner JK Rowling, who said of the complaints by trans artists and campaigners: 'Nothing short of women's total capitulation will be good enough for them'.
The rock and metal festival held in Donington Park, Leicestershire, between June 13 and 15 will be attended by up to 130,000 people and will feature performances from Green Day, McFly, Korn and Weezer.
The vast majority of the portaloos on site will still be gender neutral.
Yet Noahfinnce threatened to quit claiming the decision is 'unsafe' - with some trans men and women vowing to defy the rules and use whatever toilet they want.
'I had a great time playing last year but will not be attending again if I have to queue up for the ladies' and my trans sisters have to risk outing themselves in the men's. All this does is put trans people in danger', the singer said.
In a post on Twitter, Noahfinnce wrote: 'Hey @DownloadFest what the f**k are you doing? How have you got the gall to invite trans people like me to play your festival, then ban them from using the toilet? If the only way we can p*ss is by outing ourselves, then you've created an unsafe environment'.
Manchester band Witch Fever said: 'The threat to trans people's safety by forcing them to enter toilets that are assigned to a gender that they don't associate with is a complete f***ing tragedy. We are hoping this decision gets changed'.
American rock band Pinkshift then said on Instagram: 'Playing @downloadfest was fun last year but what f***ing music festival policies gendered bathrooms?
'Thanks Noahfinnce for being the only artist [we've] seen talk about this. If Download is part of your life, speak up. They think they can get away with discrimination in the year of 2025'.
Download then issued a statement declaring that the 'Festival has always been and remains for everyone', adding: 'We want to reassure all of our customers that the majority of the toilets across the site are gender neutral'.
Artist and campaigner Birdy Rose said that Download had done the right thing to offer single sex toilet facilities and gender neutral toilet facilities to be available to those who want to use them.
But she added: 'This should have been a good and reasonable way to make everybody happy whilst also abiding by the law. Instead 'trans' activists seem to be having an absolute meltdown, claiming that this is 'immoral' and men should just ignore the law and enter the female spaces anyway.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Couple hit with £100 parking fine at NHS surgery despite spending just five minutes there after being refused emergency treatment
A couple received a £100 parking fine at an NHS urgent care centre - even though they stayed there for just five minutes after being refused treatment. Rebecca Elmes drove her boyfriend Aaron Rayment-Davis to Harold Wood Polyclinic in Romford, east London, after he developed a crippling pain in his left ear. After walking into the reception on the evening of June 16, they were told the clinic was only open for triage and they would need to try the A&E department at a local hospital instead. The pair, both 26, walked back into the car and drove off - only to receive a £100 parking fine in the post a month later. Parkingeye - a private firm that turns over £57million a year - noted that their car had arrived at the car park just after 6.50pm and spent only five minutes there before leaving. Patients are required to enter their number plate details into a machine at reception to get free parking, but the couple insist they never had the chance to do so. 'When we arrived at the clinic, we went to put our number plate into the machine but you can't do that before you've been booked in and seen,' Mr Rayment-Davis, a quantity surveyor, told the Daily Mail. 'We'd only been there for a few minutes so assumed there would be no issue. We wanted to get to the other hospital as quickly as possible because I was in a lot of pain. I also felt completely disoriented and couldn't hear out of my left ear.' The pair, both 26, left the surgery after just five minutes when they were refused treatment - only to receive a £100 parking fine in the post a month later Ms Elmes and Mr Rayment-Davis appealed Parkingeye's £100 fine but the company turned this down on the basis that 'no parking was purchased' - even though the couple insist they had no chance to do so. However, they reluctantly agreed to pay a reduced fee of £60 to avoid being liable for the full £100 amount. Ms Elmes, who works at a groom at local stables, called the decision 'absolutely ridiculous'. 'We were there for five minutes - they literally turned us away and didn't give us a chance to do anything,' she said. 'They are just milking everyone - and in a medical situation where people are seriously injured or ill it's even worse. 'Parkingeye rejected the appeal saying we didn't have a good enough excuse. 'We were worried that if we didn't pay the £60 and continued appealing we'd be out of pocket.' Mr Rayment-Davis was assessed in the A&E at nearby Queens Hospital Hospital but told the wait time would be four hours and it would be better to go to King George's in Ilford instead. When he was eventually seen to, he was told he had an ear infection and a burst ear drum. 'The doctor explained that it was a good thing I was seen, as leaving it longer would have led to more infection and damage,' he said. Parkingeye is one of the biggest private parking companies in Britain and operates more than 3,500 sites nationwide, including hospitals, supermarkets, hotels and service stations. It uses automatic number plate technology to scan registration plates, and then pays the DVLA to assess the owner's address, which is the only way it can properly enforce fines. As with several other private parking firms, it has repeatedly been criticised for its aggressive tactics. The Government is currently carrying out a consultation on proposals to 'raise standards' in the private parking industry following a barrage of customer complaints. Holly Edwards previously received a £100 fine for parking outside the Harold Wood Polyclinic while she was having a scan. The company director was confident about getting it overturned after she sent Parkingeye a GP appointment note showing she was there legitimately. The company rejected her appeal on the basis that she had failed to input her car registration details. But Ms Edwards insisted she did type in her registration details as requested - and said the claim she hadn't 'angered me even more'. Controversially, drivers are often not given a receipt by Parkingeye's registration machines, meaning they often have no evidence if the company accuses them of inputting it incorrectly when they receive a fine. A Parkingeye spokesperson said: 'The car park at Harold Wood Polyclinic features 12 prominent and highly-visible signs throughout providing information on how to use the car park responsibly. 'This includes guidance that parking is for patients and visitors only and that they must register their vehicle at terminals at reception to receive free parking for the duration of their appointment. 'The terminals on the ground and first floors are both available and accessible to visitors before being booked in by reception staff. The motorist correctly received a parking charge on June 16 for parking and not registering their vehicle. 'Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge. If anyone has mitigating circumstances we would encourage them to appeal. 'The motorist's appeal was rejected due to not providing any evidence for breaking the rules of the car park, payment of the charge was then made.'
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Sussex families feel 'ignored' over Brighton maternity review
Families calling for an inquiry into maternity care in East Sussex say they feel "ignored, exhausted and dismissed" after meeting the chair of a national group met with Baroness Amos on Wednesday, claiming she was poorly briefed and that no progress was families, who all lost babies under the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Trust, have been campaigning for 18 months for an inquiry and insist that senior midwife Donna Ockenden is appointed to lead Department of Health and Social Care has been approached for comment. In June, Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced a rapid review into maternity services in England and last week appointed Baroness Amos, a former senior diplomat, to lead it. Streeting said he wanted the work to be completed by December and that up to 10 local areas would have their maternity services examined as part of the families in Sussex, who say medical errors led to their babies' deaths, were promised a review by Streeting and the group thought the meeting with Baroness Amos would progress the they said the chair told them that she was not aware of the history or expectations of the families, and that she did not have the power to decide who would lead it. 'Deeply dispiriting' "We have spoken to Wes Streeting directly and to the Department of Health & Social Care again and again about the toll these meetings take on us," the families said in a statement."To set aside an hour of our time for a meeting where appropriate preparation had not taken place was deeply dispiriting, and to feel we have still not made progress on our review, despite many months of presenting a clear case for one, drafting the terms of reference and securing the support of Donna Ockenden, is infuriating."Ms Ockenden is currently leading a review of maternity care in Nottingham having previously examined services at the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust. Shortly before the meeting, the families were told that Kathryn Whitehill, a former inspector with the Care Quality Commission, had been appointed as an investigator on the review, causing anger among several families who had suffered poor maternity care."Bereaved parents had been promised they would be consulted on any appointments and have consistently fed back to the government that this investigation cannot be undertaken by anyone working for the regulators responsible for holding trusts accountable for maternity safety," the statement from the families added."These organisations are part of the system that has continued to deliver unsafe maternity care, and as such should be part of the focus of the investigation rather than leading it."The appointment of Ms Whitehill "raises serious doubts about whether the review can be independent or trusted", the statement added. Bereaved father 'not surprised' by maternity reviewHarm at risk of being normalised in maternity careParents 'destroyed' after baby dies The concerns of the group come in the wake of criticism of the rapid review last week from a wider group of Maternity Safety Alliance, which represents families from areas which have experienced poor maternity care, said Streeting's inquiry was "doomed to fail" before it has begun due to the behaviour of the Department of Health and NHS other families have however expressed a willingness to work with Baroness Amos.
Times
29 minutes ago
- Times
Ministers tell baby food firms to cut salt and sugar
Baby food manufacturers have been given 18 months to cut sugar and salt from their products as the government brings in new guidelines to address 'misleading' labelling. The new guidelines will help parents make informed choices about what they feed their children, the Department of Health has said. Manufacturers will need to change the recipes of their products to reduce levels of salt and sugar without the use of sweeteners, which is not permitted in commercial baby food. The guidelines will also prevent manufacturers from using 'misleading' marketing claims to make products appear healthier than they are, with labels such as 'contains no nasties', when they are actually high in sugar. The announcement comes after data for 2019-23 from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, published in June, found that more than two thirds of children aged 18 months to three years are eating too much sugar.
