..to think Stonewall should not be involved with schools?

[ConcernedMum100]

AIBU to think Stonewall should not be involved with schools...

Historically, Stonewall has done amazing work and led the way for equality. However, over recent years their priority seems to be a different sort of activism, which has caused many of their original supporters to abandon them.

I want to stress that I am very much in favour of primary schools teaching about diversity and different types of families including same sex parents, etc. I believe that's very important. I do however have reservations with Stonewall for various reasons, as follows:

-Its school resources with regards to transgenderism and gender identity, such as An Introduction to Supporting LGBT children, breach the Department of Education’s guidelines in many ways, including the sexist and regressive suggestion that children enjoying clothes or toys typically associated with the opposite sex is a sign they may be transgender. The resources also say that children are given a label at birth (they mean their sex is recorded) and that sometimes this label will have been wrong. They are not referring to the tiny percentage of babies born with a DSD, but children whose gender identity is supposedly different to their sex. Whatever that means. The resources also say that a school should not tell the child’s parents about their gender identity if the child does not want them to. Which means they’re suggesting schools change a child’s name and pronouns without informing the parents. Seeing as they communicate that children with gender dysphoria are often vulnerable and even suicidal, this seems very irresponsible.

-Its stance on child safeguarding. Stonewall have been very clear that they disagree with the High Court’s ruling which concluded that children under the age of 16 are highly unlikely to be able to consent to puberty blockers. They are in favour of medicating children as young as 10 years old, who are experiencing gender dysphoria and say they want to live as the opposite sex. This follows research showing puberty blockers do not have a positive effect on the children’s mental health, but do cause issues with brain development and bone density. Nearly 100% of children who have taken puberty blockers go on to take cross sex hormones which will likely lead to loss of sexual function and infertility. There has been an alarming increase in children identifying as trans over the last few years and the reasons for this is unknown, and there has been no research to understand the apparent strong link between autism and gender dysphoria, nor homosexuality and gender dysphoria.

-Its stance on women’s single sex spaces. Via both Tweeting and their school resources, Stonewall have made clear they believe women and girls do not have the right to single sex spaces at time when they may be vulnerable, because they believe males who identify as women (the prerequisite of which is to declare themselves a woman-no need for any medical treatment or diagnosis) should be treated as females in every aspect of life. This means access to women’s communal changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, toilets, and rape shelters, to name a few examples.

-Its stance on women’s sports. Stonewall disagreed with World Rugby’s decision to prevent transwomen competing in women’s rugby. This decision was reached by World Rugby because they found that to include TW in the women’s teams would be unfair and unsafe (in increased risk to the women on the team by at least 20-30%) Stonewall appear to believe (and say) that inclusion comes above all else, even the safety of women and girls and their right to fair competition.

I don’t feel comfortable that an organisation with these highly controversial and political viewpoints has access to primary school children, whether it’s via face to face sessions, training school staff, or learning resources.

Of course Stonewall are not the only organisation which has these worrying beliefs. However, they are the biggest and most well funded. They are also listed on the Department of Educations “experts” page, despite breaching its own guidelines, which I think is wrong and also makes it very difficult for parents to complain to schools.

What are your thoughts?

But these exemptions apply to all the protected characteristics in the act. So if it could be shown to be a proportionate means of meetings a legitimate aim it would be legal to discriminate against lesbians and gays - and some religious employers do, often quite dubiously under the genuine occupational requirement exemption. Is this a sexuality based right? Is it a 'straight' right?

False equivalence anyway. A much more accurate equivalence, from a social justice perspective, would be permitting gay people to exclude straight people in certain situations, such as a lesbian only support group of any kind, which I think most people would think is reasonable and proportionate for that kind of group.

Or indeed a support group for those who share the pc of gender reassignment. I have seen trans orgs saying they sometimes need specialist services that are trans only, or a support worker position that should be reserved for a trans person, because of the importance of that shared experience, and I wholeheartedly agree. I would never want to take away that kind of provision from gender dysphoric people, or try to invade or dominate it, and agree it should exist.

Likewise, people who share the common experience and reality of being biologically female, in a world that is largely designed to cater for the needs and wishes of those who are biologically male, are and should be perfectly entitled to exclude males from certain settings.

I was thinking of ordering suffragette face mask from Etsy.

The white with purple and green sends the clearest message but the white wouldn’t stay white for 5 seconds in my house.

@gardenbird48

False statements that are agreed with by the Government Equalities Office, The EHRC, The Law Society, the MOJ, the CPS and pretty much every other legal body and government department. And which have been backed by court decisions. But I know lot's of people on the internet think they are all wrong and that a handful of unqualified gender critical bloggers are the best place to go for legal information.

And how many of these are Stonewall Champions?? The EHRC got called out and withdrew their advice. The court case is to force them to actually tell people about it.

No, the EHRC made a mistake in one document and said that someone with a GRC should never be discriminated against. When the mistake was pointed out they withdrew the document. And now someone is trying to take them to court because they didn't contact everyone who might have seen the document (which was publically viewable online - so that means every in the country) and inform them they had made a mistake.

I haven't RTFT but just want to thank @ConcernedMum100 for setting out the problem so clearly.

False equivalence anyway. A much more accurate equivalence, from a social justice perspective, would be permitting gay people to exclude straight people in certain situations, such as a lesbian only support group of any kind, which I think most people would think is reasonable and proportionate for that kind of group.

Okay let's stick to sex. Let's say a man who ran a bulding company refused to employ women on the site and argued it was a proportionate means of meetings a legitimate aim because woman are on average less physically strong then men? Would they simply be making use of their sex based rights?

I've heard it said if trans inclusion makes just one woman feel uncomfortable in a single sex space then excluding trans people is proportionate and legitimate. If the courts agreed with such a low threshold that would open the door for women's actual rights - not to be discriminated against in the workplace or in the provision of goods and services - to face obliteration.

I'd happily wear a suffragette ribbon like the ones that are appearing in Scotland.

I agree with every word of Wellbehavedwomans post, I'd happily support an increase in protection for trans people beyond the need for a GRC so long as we can maintain our sex based rights (or protections) if you want to continue along the dubious lines that we don't have sex based rights.

[quote xenomutt]@wellbehavedwomen those were fascinating posts! Via Transgender Trends I found this article: quillette.com/2021/02/04/first-do-no-harm-a-new-model-for-treating-trans-identified-children/.

I think it would not be unreasonable if there were financial and lifestyle audits conducted of the GIDS director Polly Carmichael and other senior management and connected interests. Their blanket refusal to listen to reasonable concerns of their staff, and willingness to act in violation of already lax protocols, looks like the behaviour of corrupt actors. It's easy to imagine them receiving kickbacks from the medical entities profiting from the referrals.[/quote]
Kickbacks from the endocrinology departments of NHS Hospitals? Okay ...

[quote xenomutt]@wellbehavedwomen those were fascinating posts! Via Transgender Trends I found this article: quillette.com/2021/02/04/first-do-no-harm-a-new-model-for-treating-trans-identified-children/.

I think it would not be unreasonable if there were financial and lifestyle audits conducted of the GIDS director Polly Carmichael and other senior management and connected interests. Their blanket refusal to listen to reasonable concerns of their staff, and willingness to act in violation of already lax protocols, looks like the behaviour of corrupt actors. It's easy to imagine them receiving kickbacks from the medical entities profiting from the referrals.[/quote]
First do no harm was part of the Hippocratic Oath as far as I remember

@morningtoncrescent62

I haven't RTFT but just want to thank *@ConcernedMum100* for setting out the problem so clearly.

Me too

I've heard it said if trans inclusion makes just one woman feel uncomfortable in a single sex space then excluding trans people is proportionate and legitimate. If the courts agreed with such a low threshold that would open the door for women's actual rights - not to be discriminated against in the workplace or in the provision of goods and services - to face obliteration.

But it's a single sex place, clue is in the name. Woman have many reasons why they want to keep them so, what right do those who belive their gender is different from their sex have to impose themselves in those places? The main argument is to keep gender and sex separate in terms of spaces/rights/fairness. They are not the same thing and for the safeguarding/rights of women need to be kept that way. Belief systems and ideology have no right trump the hard earned sex based rights of women.

Single sex means single sex.

No one is excluding trans people, they should never have been violating our boundaries in the first place.

Now we are saying no you act like is super unfair on you.

Where have we heard that one before??

Kickbacks from the endocrinology departments of NHS Hospitals? Okay ...

Somewhat ironic this spurious claim of corruption given that the people most like to benefit from the Bell case are private healthcare providers like GenderGP and privately based psychotherapy practices like those run by the authors of that Quilette post.

Personally I don't think Marcus Evans is financially motivated. He's motivated purely by Freudian ideology and his own evidence free pet theories about trans people. I believe he's got a book coming out.

@BrumBoo

I've heard it said if trans inclusion makes just one woman feel uncomfortable in a single sex space then excluding trans people is proportionate and legitimate. If the courts agreed with such a low threshold that would open the door for women's actual rights - not to be discriminated against in the workplace or in the provision of goods and services - to face obliteration.

But it's a single sex place, clue is in the name. Woman have many reasons why they want to keep them so, what right do those who belive their gender is different from their sex have to impose themselves in those places? The main argument is to keep gender and sex separate in terms of spaces/rights/fairness. They are not the same thing and for the safeguarding/rights of women need to be kept that way. Belief systems and ideology have no right trump the hard earned sex based rights of women.

And that's the point. XX-chromosomed humans are being bullied and children brainwashed into trying to get society to forget about this crucial point

@jj1968 a large portion of patients receiving puberty blockers move on to sex hormones and later, surgery. Do a quick survey of the kind of money people are trying to raise to support their transition. You'll be astounded. I agree that the kickbacks are unlikely to come from other NHS departments. Not sure why that's the first source you suggested?

@redpencil77 yup. Any evidence of financial incentives behind the failure to follow established procedures would be slam-dunk malpractice cases.

@IWillSqueakAgain

Single sex means single sex.

No one is excluding trans people, they should never have been violating our boundaries in the first place.

Now we are saying no you act like is super unfair on you.

Where have we heard that one before??

I find the whole consent rhetoric pretty spurious tbh. I mean as if you should have the right to walk into your local queer bar and declare I didn't consent to this, I demand you segregate your toilets on the basis of genitals possessed at birth. It's breath-takingly entitled.

[quote xenomutt]@jj1968 a large portion of patients receiving puberty blockers move on to sex hormones and later, surgery. Do a quick survey of the kind of money people are trying to raise to support their transition. You'll be astounded. I agree that the kickbacks are unlikely to come from other NHS departments. Not sure why that's the first source you suggested?

@redpencil77 yup. Any evidence of financial incentives behind the failure to follow established procedures would be slam-dunk malpractice cases.[/quote]
Because if they are already at GIDS then their treatment, including any surgery once they reach 18, will be done by the NHS. The reason you see so many crowdfunders is because the waiting times to even getting an appointment with the NHS to discuss gender reassignment treatments are years long.

I think you should probably gather some evidence before you accuse senior named clinicians of committing serious criminal offences based on a hunch.

We can see you find consent spurious jj.

I find the whole consent rhetoric pretty spurious tbh. I mean as if you should have the right to walk into your local queer bar and declare I didn't consent to this, I demand you segregate your toilets on the basis of genitals possessed at birth. It's breath-takingly entitled

Are you being deliberately goady now? Entitled is not accepting that there are huge and serious reasons why we have sex-seperated areas in society. Entitled is appropriating other people's lives, experiences, history, fight for civil liberties, their fight for the right to their own anatomy, their own lives, based on 'feelings in their head'. Then demanding to have have same rights and access to spaces that they did not earn, and are causing problems by just being there, based on these 'feelings'. Nothing in this world is more entitled than that.

This has all come a long way from the OP. I wonder if the misdirection, monotonous derailing and enormous deflection have anything to do with a desire to stop parents discussing the very important point of whether schools should allow this particular lobby group any access to their settings, or influence on the content of their teaching.

Now we see the real reason the vote results look the way they do.

I see the thread's moved on somewhat but...

800+ women have an opinion on a post and it causes puzzlement.

Then it transpires that ONE MAN had an opinion and suddenly it all becomes crystal clear.

What a load of bollocks. At least this sexist shite illustrates the misogyny that women face in their day to day business.

As you were.

@IWillSqueakAgain

We can see you find consent spurious jj.

I find the idea that you have the right to consent over who might use a toilet stall next to you, or what toilet arrangement a cafe might have spurious yes.

[quote xenomutt]@MaudTheInvincible ah that's true - I'll stop contributing to the side show. Take heart though, just today I've introduced two sets of parents of children in the target demographic to this material, who didn't know about it before.[/quote]

jj, I'm a goth. I spent much of my youth in venues where toilets were de facto mixed sex because the girls didn't want to queue & the boys wanted the big mirrors to check their hair & eyeliner were on point.

I am absolutely & completely fine with this. If a bar - queer or otherwise - wants to make its loos officially unisex because majority customer feedback is in favour, that's perfectly ok by me.

If I don't like it (& personally I don't mind), I can go drink elsewhere.

This is completely not the argument.

Girls in schools, or participating in sports, or women in prisons, refuges or healthcare need single sex spaces.

Literally no one cares if your local pub or club has unisex bogs. Because no one is being excluded just because a particular social venue isn't for them.

There are venues I don't bother with because their beer is rank, their PA is shit or they're a bugger to get a taxi home from. Those are commercial issues which they can fix, or not, if they want to attract my custom. The same applies to how they configure their toilets.

This is in no way comparable to forcing 14yo girls in school to use unisex toilets or forcing female prisoners to share their showers with men. These WAG do not have free choice to vote with their feet or their purses.

I find the idea that you have the right to consent over who might use a toilet stall next to you, or what toilet arrangement a cafe might have spurious yes.

Shall we get this discussion back to the topic of Stonewall's involvement in schools?

The OP posted a link from one of Stonewall's guides to 'supporting LGBT young people' in education:

www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/introduction-supporting-lgbt-children-and-young-people

This guide says (p.46):

Under the Equality Act a trans child or young person can use the toilets and changing rooms that match their gender.

Under the Act, a school can only prevent a trans child or young person from using the facilities matching their gender if they can demonstrate that doing so is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, which is a high legal bar to clear.

The Equality Act does not say this. It allows for separate sex facilities using the single sex exemption. It doesn't say that boys should be allowed to use girls' toilets and changing rooms if they think they are girls or if they want to be girls.

What is your opinion on Stonewall lying to schools that they must let children use toilets and changing rooms which 'match their gender'? Why should such an organisation have any influence over school policies?