The NSPCC aren't right about this are they?

[Macareaux]

Oh wise and knowledgeable women of Mumsnet I don't think the EA2010 does this at all does it? I'm not 100% certain so don't want to wade in.

No it's wrong. Equality act specifically says grc not gender identity and protects sex.

Stonewall's definition of trans isn't a legal definition

Not an expert. But are they essentially saying it's every person's right to use whatever loo they want? Because you can't exactly check if someone's trans or not.

The NSPCC say there is no law on this but that they believe that children shouldn't share a bedroom over the age of 10.

This is based on sex not gender.

If anyone can use whatever bathroom they want, thenwhats the point of separate bathrooms?!?

Children over the age of 8 should have single sex toilets. This is the legislation for Wales. There is some more recent legislation which applies in England, but it says the same.

If it's every trans person's right to use the toilet they want to, they are applying a self-id rule because no child can have a GRC. So as lionel says, that means everyone can use the toilet they want to.

The NSPCC say there is no law on this but that they believe that children shouldn't share a bedroom over the age of 10

This is based on sex not gender

There is law on this. It is in Housing legislation and it's addressed at landlords ' responsibilities to prevent over crowding and also setting criteria for living in over crowded accommodation for re- housing.

People can of course choose to live in overcrowded conditions.

I don't get how the NSPCC can say this, whilst also advising that children over 10 don't share bedrooms?

Like, what is their definition of a 'trans' person? On what basis does a male, who wouldn't be allowed to share with a girl once he is over the age of 10 if he identied as a male, suddenly become lower risk and therefore fine to share with girls? What makes that male suddenly lower risk?

Loos aren't actually mentioned in the equality act. Same sex loos are a custom and aren't a law.
They're right, in that a woman can actually walk into the loos marked "gents" if she wants. No crime will have been committed because loos aren't covered by law.
Other things are.

If anyone can use whatever bathroom they want, thenwhats the point of separate bathrooms?!?

Exactly, this is the crux of it. We might as well do away with sex segregated facilities, because in a culture where a male can use the females if he says he is female, they are pointless aren't they?

I can't deal with how illogical it all is!

This is negligence...they should be getting real legal advice. It is completely wrong.

Loos aren't actually mentioned in the equality act. Same sex loos are a custom and aren't a law.
They're right, in that a woman can actually walk into the loos marked "gents" if she wants. No crime will have been committed because loos aren't covered by law.
Other things are.

But how does this line up with what Oldcrone says?

Although single sex toilets aren't mandated by law (for the general public I mean) my understanding is that a single sex facility or service can be provided, (and people excluded on the basis of sex) if this is a reasonable way to achieve a legitimate aim. So any service or building can legally provide sex segregated toilets.

This is all so crazy. Nspcc :(

Oldcrone is talking about provision in schools, I think

This would be the same NSPCC who bottled coming on for a webchat on a parenting forum, wouldn't it? Because those naughty mummies kept on asking awkward questions about child safeguarding, which one would (naively, but what do I know, I'm just a mummy) have thought was pretty fucking central to their remit of protecting children.

So I'm not surprised.

But yes, they are totally wrong. The Equalities Act 2010 is crystal clear - sex and the possession of a gender recognition certificate (or being demonstrably in the process of getting one) are the protected characteristics, and where there is a clash, people providing facilities (e.g. single sex changing rooms) or employment (employing HCPs to carry out smear tests or mammograms for instance) are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, even if the person has a GRC, so long as it's proportionate.

Follow-up: someone's just bumped Datun's thread, with her superb opening post which gives references, case-by-case and section, subsection to the relevant legislation:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3175666-Want-to-know-why-women-are-livid-trans-thread?pg=1

Jesus wept. Fucking idiots. How can they be trusted to safeguard children when spurting that nonsense. I stopped my monetary support to them a long time ago, this post reminds me why.

newtlover
Yes. It is legal to provide sex segregated spaces and to direct people to use them.
If people choose not to use them and choose to use the other space (like I have done when the Q for the ladies was insanely long but the gents was free) they aren't breaking any law.
Management would however have the right to tell me to leave the gents if someone had complained about me.
If I complained about a non-woman in the women's management could remove the non-woman if they wanted to.

I don't get how the NSPCC can say this, whilst also advising that children over 10 don't share bedrooms?

This is the same NSPCC that has the PANTS campaign telling children they have the right to say no to anything they're asked to do that makes them uncomfortable, that they should always trust their feelings when embarrassed or anxious or don't feel something is right, and should never have to take their clothes off in front of someone they don't feel comfortable with. While simultaneously sharing guidance that if girls do all the above because a boy classmate has identified as a girl and is now undressing and showering with them, the girls should be reminded to be kind and inclusive and that to share embarrassment/anxiety/refusal to undress because of this is unacceptable behaviour.

It's clanging, clanging contradictions and they know it, which is why they ran away from a webchat.

The NSPCCs current line is that safeguarding is crucial and legal and here's a lot of policies, unless someone trans is involved in the situation. In that case you should abandon all normal practice and follow the preferences of the trans person, and safeguarding and everyone else's rights and needs can go to hell.

#Stonewalllookhowgoodwe'rebeingpleasedon'tdoyourthingatus

#ohgodpleasedontletitbetodaywehaveamassivesafeguardingscandalandthisallcomespubliclycrashingdown

#howthefuckdidwegetpaintedintothiscorner

Well they are getting their arse handed to them on a plate on Twitter, with actual facts about the EA. How much longer can they stick their fingers in their ears about this?

No the NSPCC are talking shit, as they do about a lot of things.

Has this thread been linked to yet?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

Re: school toilets. It is a legal requirement to have single sex toilets over the age of 8. But these can be separate booths (lockable, with floor to ceiling walls or panelling) within a single unisex room. There’s also some bumpf about the ability to view the room ‘passively’ from the corridor or something.

The NSPCC is a bit stuffed on this one, isn’t it...??

Complain to NSPCC here:

www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/about-us/contact-us/supporter-care-team/

As per PPs, this is a complete misrepresentation of the law.

Please note: the NSPCC is the only UK charity with statutory powers under the Children Act 1989. It can apply for care and supervision orders from the courts for children at risk, by itself, with no supervision by state agencies.

This is institutional capture.