Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

999 replies

ConcernedMum100 · 04/02/2021 14:02

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
ScreamingBeans · 06/02/2021 22:20

I don't think one incident is a proportionate reason to prevent tens of thousands of people from living safely and with dignity.

How many incidents would be a proportionate reason?

What about the safety and dignity of millions of women, half the human race? Does that come second place to the safety and dignity of transwomen?

What evidence do you have that transwomen have a different pattern of offending than other males?

OldCrone · 06/02/2021 22:20

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.

We have sex segregation in certain situations to reduce the risk of male violence against women and girls. Males commit over 98% of sexual crimes and 90% of violent crimes. Most victims of sexual crimes are women. Keeping males out of female-only spaces helps to reduce these crimes.

Transwomen are male, therefore they have no reason to be in female only spaces.

jj1968 · 06/02/2021 22:21

@OldCrone

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.

But that's not what's happening is it. Women's toilets are not full of men pretending to be trans. What's happening, as has been happening for years, is that the tiny percentage of people who are trans are using toilets inline with their gender identity.

I prefer reality - that is what is actually happening rather than speculation about what might one day possibly happen

Wotapolava · 06/02/2021 22:22

@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.

Same.

I only dress up for special occasions. Otherwise I'll look the same wherever I go.

Rags to riches? Not quite.
Depending on how much I've had to drink, I probably won't make that carriage before midnight.

Will I ever?

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 06/02/2021 22:23

When I was a teenage girl I suspect we would have giggled a boy who invaded our lavatories into blushing retreat. Not allowed now, of course, because that would be Unkind.... Where did the idea that teenage girls knew about being kind come from? They certainly never were in the fifties and sixties, they were ruthless.

OldCrone · 06/02/2021 22:23

What about the safety and dignity of millions of women, half the human race? Does that come second place to the safety and dignity of transwomen?

I don't think jj thinks that women are worthy of safety and dignity. All that matters to jj is the validation of transwomen as women. Yet jj seems to hate women. I really don't understand why people who hate women so much declare that they want to be (or that they are) women.

jj1968 · 06/02/2021 22:24

Males commit over 98% of sexual crimes and 90% of violent crimes.

75% of violent crimes according to the ONS not that its particularly important other than it's another example of facts being skewed to support the gender critical position.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018#what-do-we-know-about-perpetrators-of-violent-crimes

IWillSqueakAgain · 06/02/2021 22:24

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Wotapolava · 06/02/2021 22:25

@OldCrone

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.

Not sure. Maybe keeping the toilet seat up?

Does anyone have the stats on that?

Much obliged.

CorvusPurpureus · 06/02/2021 22:26

Katie Dolatowski is indeed a clearly dangerous individual. Who is male.

& was under supervision, because KD is deeply troubled, when KD committed the offences which happened because KD accessed female toilets, despite being male, & assaulted female children.

jj1968 · 06/02/2021 22:27

@Whatwouldscullydo

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?

Well a figure that was statistically significant would be a good start - you'd have to get a statician to work that out though Im afraid - not my strong suit but I know it's more than one incident compared to the hundreds of millions of times women must have used a toilet in that year.
BrumBoo · 06/02/2021 22:28

I'm not sure banning trans women from women's toilets would have prevented those attacks.

Banning male bodied people from female areas is always safer than choosing the gender over sex option.

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.

The deterrent of making a space sex based is safer than removing it and opening it up to more chance of women and children being attacked.

I don't think one incident is a proportionate reason to prevent tens of thousands of people from living safely and with dignity.

You're willing for there to be even one incident of women and children to be put at harm, have a lifetime of consequences from that, just so gender can trump sex? What about the millions of women who are put at more risk because you're willing not to let them have the same safety and dignity they had before people demanded they share with male-born people?

We don't organise any other area of society like that,

Other areas of society don't demand to be accepted places they shouldn't be.

As awful as those events were it is impossible to create a society which has absolutely zero risk.

We can create a society that minimises every single possible risk to women and children. That means sex segregation. That is true fairness, that is safeguarding.

IWillSqueakAgain · 06/02/2021 22:28

Risk assessments literally involve assessing what might happen jj.

You clearly have zero knowledge of how safe guarding works or how risk assessments dictate decision making to keep those vulnerable safe.

OldCrone · 06/02/2021 22:29

[quote jj1968]Males commit over 98% of sexual crimes and 90% of violent crimes.

75% of violent crimes according to the ONS not that its particularly important other than it's another example of facts being skewed to support the gender critical position.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018#what-do-we-know-about-perpetrators-of-violent-crimes[/quote]
That 90% was from memory, but I'm sure it came from ONS data. I'll have another look. But 75% still indicates that males are much more violent than females.

jj1968 · 06/02/2021 22:30

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

The living as a woman trope is ridiculous and comes from the requirement to live in your aquired gender for two years in order to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. You know the requirement trans people were hoping to get rid of but you all wanted to keep.

Whatwouldscullydo · 06/02/2021 22:30

A rape a day at schools not significant enough to keep kids segregated when they are at their most vulnerable? Ie half dressed ?

Mixing sexes wouldn't increase that figure even more?

CorvusPurpureus · 06/02/2021 22:32

Who wants to keep the 'living as a woman' trope?

Most GC feminists agree it's utterly meaningless because there is no such thing.

Seriously, take that up with your fellow genderists - it's not a feminist position.

jj1968 · 06/02/2021 22:33

You're willing for there to be even one incident of women and children to be put at harm, have a lifetime of consequences from that, just so gender can trump sex? What about the millions of women who are put at more risk because you're willing not to let them have the same safety and dignity they had before people demanded they share with male-born people?

I've just posted evidence that trans women are around 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted then men in men's prisons. That's how trans women are treated in male only spaces. That's why trans women shouldn't be forced to use them.

BrumBoo · 06/02/2021 22:35

You know the requirement trans people were hoping to get rid of but you all wanted to keep.

Yes, it's almost like there is a huge issue with people being able to say they're a woman with zero evidence for it. I mean, to be honest I still have no explanation as to how one proves they're a woman beyond biology no matter how many years they 'act' like one, but still better than 'I think therefore I am' self ID.

ArabellaScott · 06/02/2021 22:35

YANBU.

Let children be children, let them play with whatever toys they wish, let them wear whatever clothes they want to wear. When they are adolescent young people, let them be attracted to males or females as they please.

Keep lobbyists with highly questionable, politicised agendas out of schools.

And keep 'queer theory' well away from children.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 06/02/2021 22:37

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.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't there someone with Dolotowski to stop the danger to others, who had Dolotowski not identified as female would have prevented Dolotowski from going into the women's lavatories, where Dolotowski sexually abused two children, one at knife-point?

"In the first incident on 8 February 2018, Dolatowski had been to the toilets with a carer and was walking towards the exit" (emphasis mine) but I can't find out whether Dolatowski was alone on the second occasion.

Dolatowski was seventeen at the time of these offences so presumably might still have been at school, and using the girls' lavatories and changing rooms there, if Dolatowski had not been in care for the protection of the innocent. Mind you, since a ten-year-old was able to hit Dolatowski in the face and groin and get away, maybe Dolatowski isn't as big a threat as Dolatowski would like to think Dolatowski is...

Wotapolava · 06/02/2021 22:37

[quote MaudTheInvincible]**@Wotapolava
Parents should be having this debate on a private school website ( do they have one?) or at least the private county discussion board.

Should they? Why?

Why shouldn't parents be discussing an issue pertinent to parenting on a website specifically created to host discussions about parenting?[/quote]
Because only kids who attend schools and parents should see certain things? Like some aspects of it already require sign in because of children's photos etc...
Do you want to see in the crappers too?
As a parent I dont look at other school websites neither apart from my child's so why should anyone who doesn't have a child at that school?
Would you stand outside a jobcentre, tax office, GP surgery or hospital?

CorvusPurpureus · 06/02/2021 22:37

I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that transwomen are likely to be at risk from other males in jail.

A separate wing/space seems like the best solution, without involving female prisoners.

BrumBoo · 06/02/2021 22:37

I've just posted evidence that trans women are around 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted then men in men's prisons. That's how trans women are treated in male only spaces. That's why trans women shouldn't be forced to use them.

Men are the issue in this case, and women shouldn't be forced to give trans women sanctuary just because society won't sort out the issue of male violence. This isn't a women's problem.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 06/02/2021 22:38

That's why trans women shouldn't be forced to use them.

They're not the only males who get assaulted in male spaces. Males shouldn't be forced on women in the female estate.

So there needs to be a different solution, without using women as human shields for male/male violence.