..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?

I think it very much depends on the space. As an example I do not think it is proportionate to exclude trans women from women's toilets because there is no evidence that allowing trans women to use toilets inline with their gender places women at risk.

No evidence- so Katie Dolotowski’s two victims (10 and 12 years old), one of which was sexually assaulted at knifepoint in the ladies toilets is no evidence. Ok. And then the women who are distressed by Dolotowski’s behaviour in the ‘women’s’ refuge. No problem eh?

Do you gave any thoughts for those girls? Their attacks were entirely preventable - do you care? I do worry about your zero amount of empathy.

I'm always quite bemused by the 'living as a woman' trope, too.

Pre covid I had this argument with a TRA mate, who could not for a moment define how I might be 'living as a woman'.

On the particular weekend day when we were having this argument, I'd got up, fed my dc, done some work online & then headed to the pool, where I ran into a male colleague/neighbour who'd had basically the same morning. Both of us were wearing ancient band T-shirts & board shorts over our swimmers.

We had a swim with the kids, a chat about work, ordered pizza together for lunch & then rounded up our respective offspring for dinner & bedtime.

We then met with a couple of other friends for a beer in my garden that evening.

I've no idea how I was 'living as a woman' whereas my mate was 'living as a man'. My swimming costume covered my breasts? He presumably stands up to pee whereas I usually sit down?

It's ridiculous & reductive. Absolute tripe.

No cocked little fingers or tea dresses required by anyone.

@Quaagars

I think trans women are women, should be treated socially and legally as women in the vast majority of circumstances

I would also like clarification on this point, @jj1968. Apart from respecting names and pronouns, how do you treat a woman 'socially'

See, I read this as respecting that they might be female, eg pronouns and as a person?
As in for example not constantly calling them he or they (they because can't bring to stay she but think for some reason saying they means you're being nice?
Or poo pooing them behind backs?
Respecting who they are
Etc
Unless you think living socially as a woman means sticking your pinkie out when having a cup of afternoon tea, going to WI meetings and wearing floaty dresses at all times?!

People have names. That is their identifiable tag.

But yes, I agree, let's get back to schools & Stonewall.

Silly of me to bite!

I'm always quite bemused by the 'living as a woman' trope, too.

Me too. How is living as a woman different from living as a man? Perhaps jj or Quaagars could enlighten us.

On the particular weekend day when we were having this argument, I'd got up, fed my dc, done some work online & then headed to the pool, where I ran into a male colleague/neighbour who'd had basically the same morning. Both of us were wearing ancient band T-shirts & board shorts over our swimmers. We had a swim with the kids, a chat about work, ordered pizza together for lunch & then rounded up our respective offspring for dinner & bedtime. We then met with a couple of other friends for a beer in my garden that evening.I've no idea how I was 'living as a woman' whereas my mate was 'living as a man'

I really can't explain, but I frequently dress in blokes tshirts, big boots, never wear any make up, really not ladylike whatever the fuck that meansand I still KNOW that I am a woman.
You know it in your head and it's nothing to do with your personality or what you're wearing.
Presumably he felt the same about being a man,
If you're trans, I can kind of understand how you could have that feeling inside but obviously want to dress more femininely too if it's something you're not used to.

non trans woman

Sheesh! You might as well call us non-men. We’re just not that important, right?

I do not think it is proportionate to exclude trans women from women's toilets because there is no evidence that allowing trans women to use toilets inline with their gender places women at risk.

You choose to ignore everything safeguarding is to push your own wants in life, regardless of how that may cause significant and longterm harm to women and children. There is and always has been reasons why people are separated by sex in society. Stripping away those layers by suggesting that someone's thoughts and beliefs makes them less of a threat, despite still being the same sex that are typically banned from these spaces, society is making women and children sacrificial lambs.

@Quaagars

On the particular weekend day when we were having this argument, I'd got up, fed my dc, done some work online & then headed to the pool, where I ran into a male colleague/neighbour who'd had basically the same morning. Both of us were wearing ancient band T-shirts & board shorts over our swimmers. We had a swim with the kids, a chat about work, ordered pizza together for lunch & then rounded up our respective offspring for dinner & bedtime. We then met with a couple of other friends for a beer in my garden that evening.I've no idea how I was 'living as a woman' whereas my mate was 'living as a man'

I really can't explain, but I frequently dress in blokes tshirts, big boots, never wear any make up, really not ladylike whatever the fuck that meansand I still KNOW that I am a woman.
You know it in your head and it's nothing to do with your personality or what you're wearing.
Presumably he felt the same about being a man,
If you're trans, I can kind of understand how you could have that feeling inside but obviously want to dress more femininely too if it's something you're not used to.

Quaagars, the feelings in YOUR head aren't a reason to abandon sex related safeguarding.

I do not think it is proportionate to exclude trans women from women's toilets because there is no evidence that allowing trans women to use toilets inline with their gender places women at risk.

Let's just rewrite this, forgetting about gender ideology and just using sex (scientific fact).

I do not think it is proportionate to exclude men from women's toilets because there is no evidence that allowing men to use whichever toilets they want to places women at risk.

This is what you're actually saying jj.

I really can't explain, but I frequently dress in blokes tshirts, big boots, never wear any make up, really not ladylike whatever the fuck that meansand I still KNOW that I am a woman.
You know it in your head and it's nothing to do with your personality or what you're wearing.

But how on earth do you evidence it to yourself? What does the word ‘woman’ mean to you? I am a woman because I am born female and have the type of human body that is designed to be able to reproduce with large immobile gametes and gestate and feed a baby (whether or not any or all of those functions are successful - I have had the odd failure).

That is it, end of story. I am treated in a certain way by various people because I am female but that is an effect of my sex, not the definition of it.

I really can't explain

Yes, that's very clear.

You're female. You know you're a woman because you are one.

Wait, we went from 'there are no sex based rights' and 'transwomen are woman and should always be able to share facilities with women' to 'in certain circumstances women can exclude all males including the very male transwomen'? That's a turnaround, JJ. Does your neck hurt?

See, I read this as respecting that they might be female, eg pronouns and as a person?

But they aren't female, are they?

@OldCrone

As an example I do not think it is proportionate to exclude trans women from women's toilets because there is no evidence that allowing trans women to use toilets inline with their gender places women at risk. . Let's get this discussion back to schools. Stonewall think that children should be allowed to self identify as the sex of their choice and use the toilets and changing rooms for that sex.

Do you think that this might cause some problems jj? If teenage boys are allowed to self ID as girls and will then be allowed to use the girls' changing rooms and toilets?

As a teacher I've worked with teenage boys. I can see some problems arising with such a policy. Can you jj?

Have any problems arisen in schools due to these policies?

unless there are proportionate and legitimate grounds for preventing it

Like women being undressed, needing counselling or medical examination by a female or sleeping in the same area, for instance.

Sorry for the long post, the bullshit asymmetry principle applies here. Possibly someone else has explained this better in fewer words in which case also sorry for x-posting.

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?

No this is not how the EA works.

It's unlawful to directly discriminate against someone because of a protected characteristic unless you are lawfully using one of the specific exceptions in the EA, including those written into section 13, each of which deal with specific protected characteristics and specific circumstances.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13

Indirect discrimination (same rule for everybody but people with a certain protected characteristic are disproportionately adversely affected by the rule) is only lawful where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Indirect discrimination does not apply to the PC of pregnancy and maternity.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19

There are separate sections that deal with pregnancy and maternity discrimination in work and non-work cases, discrimination arising from a disability and gender reassignment discrimination regarding absence from work.

There are separate sections that deal with the duty to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled people. No other protected characteristic is entitled to reasonable adjustments.

Harassment is prohibited conduct but this section does not apply to the PCs of marriage and civil partnership or pregnancy and maternity. Victimisation is also prohibited conduct and applies to all 9 of the PCs. For both harassment and victimisation you do not have to have the PC yourself.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/27

The rules are again different for different protected characteristics depending on whether the situation is to do with services and public functions, premises, work, education or associations and the particular circumstances that might arise in any of these areas.

The exceptions that permit direct discrimination are each specific to certain protected characteristics and not others, each exception relates to specific circumstances and each has its own legal tests.

So for example there are exceptions that say it is lawful for religious leaders to refuse to solemnise a marriage of a same sex couple or if they believe one of the couple has changed their legal sex. They don't have to show that this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. They can just say no.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/paragraph/24
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/paragraph/25A

There are no similar exceptions for registrars conducting civil marriages and no exceptions that make it lawful for religious leaders to refuse to marry eg. mixed race couples or people with disabilities.

For example there's an exception that permits an employer to only hire someone for a particular role if they have a certain protected characteristic. The rules here are quite convoluted.

Outside of religion, the employer needs to show that not only is this a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim but also that it's a genuine occupational requirement (e.g you can't only hire people of a particular race because they are underrepresented, you also need to show it's necessary for that particular role).

For 7 of the 9 PCs the requirement is that the person has the PC (e.g. it's lawful to require an employee to have a specific disability but not to require them not to have a disability) but for gender reassignment and marriage and civil partnership the opposite is the case. You can require employees to be single or not trans but you can't require employees to be married/civil partnered or to be trans. Frankly I don't know why TRAs are not focusing on this part of the EA which makes it unlawful to specifically hire trans people e.g. for specialist counselling roles. It's almost as if this isn't about the rights of trans people at all.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9/part/1/crossheading/general

When it comes to organised religion there are a whole other set of rules. It is lawful for organised religions to only hire people of a particular sex, only hire people who are not trans, only people who are not married/civil partnered, only people who are not in a same sex marriage/civil partnership, only people who are not divorced/who have dissolved a civil partnership or only people with a specific sexual orientation. They are not required to show a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Instead, the test is whether it would conflict with the strongly held religious beliefs of a significant number of their congregation. Religious organisations still cannot discriminate on the grounds of age, disability or race.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9/part/1/crossheading/religious-requirements-relating-to-sex-marriage-etc-sexual-orientation

For example there are exceptions that make it lawful to provide separate or different services for males and females, or to only provide services for one sex. All of these require the service provider to be able to show that their use of these exceptions is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

These exceptions are specific to sex and no service provider will get anywhere if they try to extrapolate these exceptions to other protected characteristics. Try segregating on the grounds of race and see how quickly you end up in court.

There is a related exception that makes it also lawful to exclude people with the PC of gender reassignment when using one of these sex based exceptions.

Again, religious organisations have different rules and do not need to meet the test of showing a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. They just need to show it's against their religious doctrines or would piss off a significant number of the congregation.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7

TL;DR: Exceptions in the EA are exceptional and each exception has specific rules around which PCs it applies to and in which circumstances. It's not a fucking pick-and-mix.

@sanluca

Wait, we went from 'there are no sex based rights' and 'transwomen are woman and should always be able to share facilities with women' to 'in certain circumstances women can exclude all males including the very male transwomen'? That's a turnaround, JJ. Does your neck hurt?

I think JJ is reaching for 'some women are nasty rapists & this includes Karen White'

Counting down to Myra Hindley &/or Rose West in 5,4,3,2,1...

Also not forgetting the public sector equality duty, which applies to all the PCs except for marriage and civil partnership and which includes the requirement for public authorities and other orgs exercising public functions (government departments, state funded schools, prisons, NHS, local authorities bla bla) to have due regard, in particular, to the need to 'take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it', provided that the steps taken are not otherwise prohibited by the EA.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149

Which means that any organisation that performs a public function must have due regard as to whether they should be using one or more of the EA exceptions in order to meet their PSED.

@gardenbird48

I think it very much depends on the space. As an example I do not think it is proportionate to exclude trans women from women's toilets because there is no evidence that allowing trans women to use toilets inline with their gender places women at risk.

No evidence- so Katie Dolotowski’s two victims (10 and 12 years old), one of which was sexually assaulted at knifepoint in the ladies toilets is no evidence. Ok. And then the women who are distressed by Dolotowski’s behaviour in the ‘women’s’ refuge. No problem eh?

Do you gave any thoughts for those girls? Their attacks were entirely preventable - do you care? I do worry about your zero amount of empathy.

I'm not sure banning trans women from women's toilets would have prevented those attacks. Dolotowski is clearly very dangerous and very disturbed, I doubt she would have been deterred by a sign saying women born women only on the door.

I don't think one incident is a proportionate reason to prevent tens of thousands of people from living safely and with dignity. We don't organise any other area of society like that, if we did we'd never let sex offenders out of prison, we wouldn't let men work in schools and we certainly wouldn't have any cars on the road. As awful as those events were it is impossible to create a society which has absolutely zero risk.

I can see some problems arising with such a policy. Can you jj?

You didn't answer my question jj.

Which means that any organisation that performs a public function must have due regard as to whether they should be using one or more of the EA exceptions in order to meet their PSED.

Yes, I think this is what many people simply don't grasp.

Dolatowski should not be in women's toilets. Dolatowski is a male sex offender.

Excluding men from women’s toilets decreases risk. It’s not just one episode either. Wake up to what is happening.

How about you jusy go ahead and clarify just how many incidents would be enough.

Because no number of women or girls affected by these "inclusive " policies ever seems to be enough fir you jj

So can you just give us a rough idea?