Heartstopper Forever film TRA propaganda: "People don't want me using public bathrooms", "Government is taking away my rights"

Even if you do have a single-sex space, the exclusion must be proportionate, which means that the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person.

This is only true if the 'complainer' and the trans person are both the same sex, for example if the presence of a passing transman is likely to be frightening to female service users (in which case the transman must be provided with an alternative, so as not to be treated unfavourably overall relative to non-trans persons, by being left without useable provision).

If the trans person is not the right sex for the single-sex service, there is no proportionality issue.

“It's not illegal yet for trans people to use their preferred toilet. It's only possibly illegal for service providers to allow them which won't even be known for certain until case law clarifies this.”

Really? Well then, I guess it won’t be long and the test cases will be flooding in! Or… will it be more that the this line will be rolled out for years but no one will bring a case because those pushing this line don’t actually want it tested at all. They want to continue to attempt to make the law seem unclear so that a group of male people can continue to act in a way that harms female people

Careful, now I think you're both wrong! Though IANAL and it would be good if one of ours would comment. Whisperingwaters's suggestion that there's something to be done on a person-by-person basis is wrong, but also, I think PrettyDamnCosmic exaggerates here:

This is nonsense. There is no requirement for exclusion of the other sex to be proportionate. It's always permissible to have a single sex space just because you want to. Privacy & propriety are the obvious reason to exclude on the basis of sex.

Single sex "space" is not really a concept in the law for obvious reasons, and we usually use the term in a space-time sense - somewhere men are not allowed to be at a particular time, such as a room where a meeting is taking place or a service is being provided. You can indeed have a single sex association just because you want to, but you can't have a single sex service (provided to the public or a section of the public - e.g., not just to members of an association - for payment or not) just because you want to. You have to satisfy this part of the EA:

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

”Just because you want to” isn’t enough. You couldn’t say “my shop doesn’t serve women” for example.

But once a single-sex space is established as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim (privacy and dignity being a legitimate aim, for example) that’s it - you don’t have to justify the exclusion of each man individually.

Even if you do have a single-sex space, the exclusion must be proportionate, which means that the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person.

This is nonsense. There is no requirement for exclusion of the other sex to be proportionate. It's always permissible to have a single sex space just because you want to. Privacy & propriety are the obvious reason to exclude on the basis of sex.

There is no requirement for counterbalancing between the protected characteristic of sex & the PC of gender reassignment as they are different PCs. Likewise there is no counterbalancing between the PCs of disability & sex or race & sex etc.

Thank you Monster and FFS Heartstopper. No wonder it’s bad if it just spews out propaganda. I honestly think that the first creative team to tell the story of what really happens with children and young people - the grooming online (cracking an egg), the conversion of LGB, the pressure on young lesbians to have sex with men to validate those men, the lies doctors tell about pause buttons and suicide risk, the many side effects, the cult, the breakdowns caused by so forcibly pushing lies, the detransitioning and the desistance - will have a blockbuster on their hands. There are so many harrowing and dramatic stories here (real people I know). Instead the fourth raters simply repeat the same storyline (I’m sad, I became myself, someone bullied me, my friends stepped in, I’m happy).

The rules for excluding a transwoman from a women-only space are exactly the same as for any other man. Users can ask him to leave. The service provider can ask him to leave, have security remove him from the space, or from the establishment altogether, refuse him service at the establishment on this or future occasions, or rescind his membership where applicable.

There is no relevant proportionality test.

Service providers who fail to police women-only services can be sued for indirect sex-discrimination against women. Or at least get a reputation for running an establishment where women have no safety or privacy.

Men who go into the women's toilets and refuse to leave can be guilty of a public order offence.

At work, a male employee entering the women's toilets or changing rooms would be a disciplinary matter, unless the employer wants to fall foul of H&SE rules.

i think its great that the lgbt+ community can get this level of representation. on the other hand, hearstopper is a cringefest that isnt worth watching. my dd watched it last night at a sleepover and said it was rubbish but i definitely dont think it is deceptive at all, just bad cinema

No, you have misunderstood. The “proportionality” requirement applies to the facility being single sex in the first place. It doesn’t apply on a person-by-person basis.

Deceptive & illogical propaganda is indeed.

It's not illegal yet for trans people to use their preferred toilet. It's only possibly illegal for service providers to allow them which won't even be known for certain until case law clarifies this. If you have a single-sex space a trans person can still go into that single-sex space, but if someone complains, they can bring out a sex discrimination claim or the organisation can exclude that person, but that doesn’t happen automatically. Even if you do have a single-sex space, the exclusion must be proportionate, which means that the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person. Those rights still exist. The law hasn’t changed on that.