Telegraph reports schools face legal action

Equally, me and teenage DS spoke about this and he said he would want privacy away from girls (although we tend not to hear about transboys pushing to go into the boys changing rooms)

I think it's now beyond all reasonable doubt that the interests of the TRA political lobby starts and finishes with trans people. They are incapable of even acknowledging, never mind considering, the interests or needs or even basic rights of any other group, and their inbuilt prejudice against biological females is staggering.

This is not a group that should be making national policies.

I think I've grasped that RobinMoiraWhite doesn't care about girls' privacy.

I don't grasp why people with a very obvious conflict of interests get to be the ones setting things into law.

Why shouldn't female children have privacy from male children, RobinMoira? I would have wanted that as a teenager, and so would every girl in my school. The proportionate change is to allow use of a separate facility for the transgender child.

Incidentally the smearing, dismissing, belittling and discrediting of female people's religious views that prevent a small group of males getting precisely what they want all the time, will involve slamming into reverse years of expensive community and local authority and national government work, initiatives, policies etc such as community cohesion, tackling radicalisation, reducing domestic violence and abuse, enabling women from minority culture and faith groups to access public places, health care, swim, etc etc.

But fuck that eh? They're only females.

I've seen emerging evidence of the 'trans/religion clash' and how that will be 'discussed'.

Effectively what we're about to see is virtuous racism. Like we now see virtuous misogyny, and virtuous homophobia. It will be about discrediting, smearing and silencing females who have dared to suggest they have a reason for privacy and dignity that should be considered. It will not involve trans people giving the faintest compassion, consideration or intersectionality towards meeting the needs of females with religious reasons, it will legitimise the political trans lobby in furthering action towards suppressing and excluding those women.

Bottom line: this is a male supremacist movement, dressing up truly morally dire attitudes towards females and other class groups as a 'good thing'. It's morally wrong to treat people this way. Other humans have human rights as well as trans people. Equality doesn't mean 'meet the master race'.

Basic human rights?!!! WTAFFFFF.

What actual basic human right are trans people being denied?

bangs head on table. So tired of this shit

Thought so, thanks. It's literally going to be a free for all.

Michelle and the worrying thing is ad it's badged as being from the CPS many people will not connect those dots and so go along obediently.

Ahhh the CPS. Perhaps they could invest some of the energy invested in this (a minority cause) into ensuring processes and procedures for getting more rape cases to court in a way that treats women and girls like human beings. That would be nice.

The use of pseudonyms here - I wonder why that is???!! Free speech based on biology and fact is being hounded out. Stonewall has infiltrated many government departments workplaces with gender ideology.

@RobinMoiraWhite
I will be speaking about the trans / religious clash at a legal conference this very weekend.

Is anyone going to discuss about the trans/ women’s/girls rights clash? Or is this tantamount to t**fdoom and requires #nodebate

In your view, is the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls (EA 2010) an ‘absolutist’ position or is it up for debate/compromise?

Biological sex is immutable - apart from Dr Who.

CPS have just put trans at the top of the protected characteristics list and announced it's the top trump

Yup. Ever think it might be being used as a distractor, while other issues get hustled in by the back door?

Ah, but we will surely be told why we are wrong, shortly. If time can be squeezed from a busy speaking schedule!!

It's infuriating. How does this get through checks before being published without someone saying - actually, the EA clearly states that...

(I know, it's Stonewall. I wish someone would take them to court)

Why is it not direct discrimination against the protected characteristic of sex

And direct discrimination against girls on the grounds of their religion if this is a barrier.

And direct discrimination against girls on the grounds of their disability if they have one presenting a barrier to this, such as the teenager with Aspergers just criminalised.

There is no coherency anywhere within this. But CPS have just put trans at the top of the protected characteristics list and announced it's the top trump. Which is not in keeping with the EQA2010, has never been through parliament, was in no manifesto, and has absolutely no democratic legitimacy of any kind.

Or indeed any male teacher. What could possibly go wrong?

Either they are using the single sex exemption or they are not.

tellme given they are arguing that there is no justifiable or proportionate aim to uphold single sex spaces and therefore transgirls (who are legally Male) must be let it in, it follows that the school are not using the single sex exemption and the toilet is therefore mixed sex so any boy can enter.

'could be seen as indirect discrimination' is something I'm seeing more of in guidelines.

Why is it not direct discrimination against the protected characteristic of sex, to make the required single sex facilities essentially mixed sex?

Female people wanting privacy, dignity and space away from males is not 'legitimate' or 'proportionate'.

This will exclude a proportion of females from access to spaces. That's what it will do. While criminalising them for daring to protest. While ensuring that the male people involved have access to male facilities, third spaces AND female spaces and are absolutely free to choose whatever they want whenever they want and fuck the needs of anyone else in the situation.

What is legitimate, inclusive or even basically moral about that?

Legitimate aim:

Protecting girls' rights to dignity, privacy and respect.

Seems pretty legitimate to me. Who says girls' rights are not legitimate?

Proportionate: offering alternative facilities to those who feel unable to use male facilities, for whatever reason.

Seems eminently proportionate and reasonable to me.

So if I had a son who wasn't comfortable using the boys loo at school however doesn't identify as a girl, why can't he use the girls too? After all, he'd feel more comfortable.

What's the difference between these two individuals which means one is allowed in and not the other?

Women here have been arguing for change for a long time. That's why TRAs are trying to get both this forum and the site as a whole shut down.

Surely letting males into the girls toilets would be indirect discrimination against girls?

Most boys and men aren't either. Mixed sex toilets are the "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist that nobody wants other than a handful of people with very questionable motives.

Self contained toilets cost more and take up more space. They are not the answer to toilet provision for reasons of cost, logistics, and the increased risk of voyeurism.

This is an entirely new and manufactured problem that has only become an issue in recent years. In the past, the biggest problem was anti social behaviour in toilets.
Women and girls are not the ones pushing for mixed sex toilets.