Woman’s Hour this week

:. . . 3rd spaces for women who don't want to share with TW . . ."? F*K that!

The third spaces are for trans-identified people, but they take any opportunity to divide real women, don't they?

I have my answer:

The space exists to fulfil the proportionate and legitimate aim of ensuring safety and decency, which does not arise with accompanied children.

I am ready to repeat it ad nauseam.

Agree.

And when girls go in with their dads, dads do the same.

I’m listening now. I think Nuala is providing a reasonable degree of challenge. RMW’s arguments are on a shoogly peg. That evasive response to what RMW intends to do in light of the SC judgement speaks volumes. 🙄

And also, those boys are always in the company of their mothers (or some other female carer or family member). Women are chaperoning these young boys.

Oh yes, of course @MrsOvertonsWindow How could I have forgotten those poor vulnerable things, needing help to put their views over? Silly me.

Schools are a mess because there’s lots of documents that seem to contradict each other. In the school specific brief it actually asks if the toilets are unisex or single sex. Schools are excluded from some other legislation.

Safeguarding laws should come into play here like the 1989 Children Act. Also the DfE and law use the phrase ‘prudent parenting’. In "prudent parenting" it means making decisions that are reasonable, responsible, and in the best interests of the child, considering their circumstances and well-being. It is reasonable that you take a male child into the women’s toilets with you as its mother and vice versa. Once the child is older it is reasonable and responsible that they go to the toilet of their sex.

I would argue it isn’t responsible to suggest toilets ought to be mixed sex or we have third spaces because of the above scenario, precisely because that means an adult man taking a young girl to the toilets ends up in a private toilet room. Why should an adult and child of opposite sex have more privacy than an adult and child of the same sex? It doesn’t make sense for keeping a child safe.

For safe toilets, you need single sex toilets with door gaps at least from floor to door.

If the likes of RMW fail to see the difference between little children and adults you're not going to going to get very far with that limited thinking..
Children have been very useful shields for middle aged men. The "trans child " validates the middle aged AGP adult. It's why they're all over schools gaslighting children that their bodies are flawed and sex change is a fantastic cure. It's therefore a small step to arguing that little boys, (maybe even male babies) in women's changing rooms is the perfect excuse for every middle aged man to rock up and claim his place alongside the women getting into their swimming costume.

How very dare you suggest TW pose a safeguarding risk, you bigot?

That does give me an idea for an answer, though.

The space exists to fulfil the proportionate and legitimate aim of ensuring safety and decency, which does not arise with children.

I'm just going to say this every time, thank you.

I think that up until 8 it’s felt that boys are prepubertal. My own feeling is that after that age it’s as much for their own privacy and comfort to keep them out of the Ladies’ as it is for the women.

Women don't need protection from children under the age of 8 (of either sex) because don't pose the same safeguarding risks as older or adult males?

Does anyone have a good legal riposte to RMW's argument that allowing in opposite sex children breaks the Schedule 3 protection so we might as well let RMW in as well?

I don't think the schools regulations help, because they just set the age beyond which toilets cannot be mixed - they don't lead to boys being allowed into a space which is formally girls-only.

IRL single-sex spaces do have a bit of 'give' - allowing in small children or even the occasional opposite sex person in an emergency. What's the legal basis for saying that letting in RMW is a step too far?

Maybe something to do with the willingness of the women in the space to accept the interlopers? If they can gatekeep, it's still essentially single-sex?

(Really scratching around here: I've had this same argument thrown at me last week, so it's doing the rounds with the TRAs.)

I thought the interviewer did quite well continually being it back to the judgement.

Quite, the order is probably

Transwomen
More transwomen
Drag Queens
More drag queens
Men
Women and transmen

Ahem. You're forgetting this is the BBC - there are a lot of drag queens that need to have their voices amplified first .🙄

Do we infer from Ms Jackson Tweet, that the LGB Alliance have NOT been asked @Another2Cats ? That is appalling - and just rude.

The other interveners were Sex Matters and the Lesbian Project. Do you think they might ask Julie Bindel or Kath Stock? Who are great speakers.

For every word he speaks, another TERF is born. Thank you sir for your service.

I don't know about that, but they appear not to have approached LGB Alliance yet.

Bev Jackson has just said:

The radio programme @ BBCWomansHour has announced: “This week we'll be hearing different perspectives on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act, and how it could and should be interpreted on the ground.”

Given the crucial role played in this case by the “Lesbian Interveners” - our arguments featured prominently and the word “lesbian” appears 25 times in the ruling - I would assume the producers are planning to include our perspective in this series.

https://x.com/BevJacksonAuth/status/1921862169324327300

Have to go into a meeting now but will be interested in how this thread goes….

And the mentioning of women bringing children into toilets may well not have been the ‘gotcha’ the Bundler in Chief thinks either, given that it even seemed to jolt the presenter into a shocked reminder that children use the Women’s Loos too.

At first I was annoyed that Woman's Hour were interviewing this man, but having listened to it I changed my mind.

With that deep, booming voice that is so obviously male, and his dismissive and condescending attitude towards women's needs, he's the perfect spokesman for these men who say they're women.

I've no doubt he's changed a few minds today, and not in the way he hoped. Thanks Robin!

I think it is safer for small children to go into single sex toilets with adult because single sex toilets have a door gap. That means they are not acoustically sound and private.

An adult might not be their parent.

Why should a adult of a different sex to the child be given more privacy than an adult of a child of the same sex?

I thought Operation Let Them Speak was doing great things this morning. Anyone know if this was one of the discussions they also videoed? That might be extremely helpful too, especially during the parts when our bundling visitor was claiming the only reason for a cafe assistant to refer to them as ‘that man’ would be to deliberately cause offence, as they are a high profile and ‘out’ trans person, rather than just ordinary speech from a person not versed in policed language around gender, relying on their own judgement (and eyes).

The two ‘solutions’ I spotted over the weekend were:

1. Labelling the separate disabled toilet / baby change room within the ladies toilets ‘gender inclusive’ (motorway services)
2. Labelling the disabled toilet as ‘men, women and disabled’ (National Trust)

It’s certainly 8 in schools