Sarah Vine in the DM nailing it for the second week running

[tiredandweary]

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6084937/SARAH-VINE-rights-one-transgender-pupil-trump-rest-schools-students.html

Another very good thoughtful article from her.

As schools must have sex segregated toilets then this school is evidently prioritising one protected characteristic, gender reassignment, over two others, sex and religious belief. How can they get away with that? Wonder what equality impact assessments they conducted (the answer will be none).

I wish more papers were allowing GC perspectives.

Just the sort of MSM coverage that is needed.

She's also agrees with #stickerwoman

twitter.com/WestminsterWAG/status/1031304655492579328

I recall that there was a meeting between a media trans group with the DM where TRAs were complaining about honest biased articles with the DM being 'educated' about 'wokespeak'. Good to see that the DM still has their critical faculties.

"Quite simply, no teenage girl in Britain should be forced to undress in front of someone who is biologically a boy."

That nails it, really. Also glad to see her mentioning the rights of Muslim girls in this, who are a minority whose feelings generally get ignored. (Though I imagine this is the first time Vine has ever given consideration to the needs of Muslims in her column...)

I'd love to know what school this is happening at. It seems like a particularly foolish thing for a girls' school to do.

If it's not happening now, it might only be a matter of time. From another thread:

My dd goes to a very good state girls school. There is a waiting list a mile long. Our friends dd didn't get in this year spaces are extremely highly valued. Dd had the job of showing around the new year 7s. She was surprised as some of them "were boys mummy".

this school is evidently prioritising one protected characteristic, gender reassignment, over two others, sex and religious belief.

Surely you can only have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment once you have a

(Oops)

Surely you can only have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment once you have a Gender Reassignment Certificate? You have to be over 18 to get a GRC, so a school-age child cannot have that characteristic.

And that dear JellySlice is where self ID comes in.
Schools are accepting that the 4 year old, the 12 year old and the 15 year old are competent to self ID and lo: the doors of the girl's showers, toilets and changing rooms are opened to those with the penis.

Excellent article in a newspaper I have a newly found respect for.

Problem with that article: lazy journalism. Third-hand information, no evidence of checking sources, no independent confirmation. Dangerous, potentially untrue scaremongering. Totally undermines itself.

tiredandweary, I agree - if self ID is extended to under 18s. And another example of organisations getting ahead of the law.

I would withdraw a child out of school over this. I went to a girls school and it was wonderful purely because we were all the same sex. Gender was and remains irrelevant to womens issues and women being routinely shamed and systematically excluded in our society. At school nobody gives a shit if you wear a skirt for your uniform but if you happen to have a bra strap showing or dare to talk about your period you are set upon by a pack of jeering teenaged boys. As boys turn into men and grow out of such childishness women's bodies start working against them, husbands see wives as default parents, employers see female job candidates as potential maternity leaves. Having a period in my life when I was free of this judgement because everyone arou nd me was going through the same thus was hugely beneficial to my self confidence because it was incredibly liberating.

JellySlice

It is an example of organisations getting ahead of the law. And why did they suddenly decide to do this? Who's been in their ears?

The disappointing thing is that this is only an opinion column. It should have been investigated and revealed as a front page expose, while preserving the location in the interests of the trans girl. The trans girl clearly believes or has been led to believe that single sex schools are segregated on the basis of a nebulous feeling of femininity.

Fortunately, I know of several school which are handling this issue much more sensibly

What a shit photo to put with that article though.

JellySlice

It is an example of organisations getting ahead of the law. And why did they suddenly decide to do this? Who's been in their ears?

Exactly the point. The lobby groups have worked hard to persuade councils/LAs and schools that they 'must' do things that they really, really shouldn't do. And they've fallen for it - schools, because they often take as 'the law' the "guidance" that LAs send out to them and councils because they're full of fools who don't know any better.

That photo made me very uncomfortable. The sexualised way that the girls are posing. Inappropriate.

NotMe - I agree. We only have Vine's word for it that this school exists - most journalists on receiving an email like that would ring the school and get a story out of it. It's disappointing she didn't do that. Having written this new column, maybe she'll receive more emails and do something better with it.

I would also like to see some proper investigative journalism on this

My dd goes to a very good state girls school. There is a waiting list a mile long. Our friends dd didn't get in this year spaces are extremely highly valued. Dd had the job of showing around the new year 7s. She was surprised as some of them "were boys mummy".

I didn't see that post on the other thread, but I do hope the parent/s of the girl who posted it will be in the head's and governing body's ears urgently asking questions about safeguarding and privacy.

Problem with that article: lazy journalism. Third-hand information, no evidence of checking sources, no independent confirmation. Dangerous, potentially untrue scaremongering. Totally undermines itself

Not lazy at all. Your critique was lazy though because it relied on general accusations. Vine wasn't 'fact-finding' on a specific case, she was providing commentary on an email sent to her by a parent and contextualising this in terms of a broader debate. In other words, she was focussing on the issue at hand and not on the specifics of the given case (which are likely confidential for a whole host of reasons). We all know that cases such as the one at the focus of the article exist. Enough have been reported here and there has been at least one high profile one in the US. It is also the job of journalists to discuss general problems, issues and cases and this is what Vine was doing.

The DM does not care about women, especially Muslim women. They only care about those groups when they can use them to attack another vulnerable group.

Has anyone sent this to Janice Turner or anyone at The Times? I feel that they would report the story with more accuracy.

The accompanying photo for article is from J'amie Private School Girl - for anyone who doesn't know, the central character is played by Chris Lilley, a male Aussie comedian. I thought it was quite apt!
I find the contradiction between this and the whole #metoo movement the worst issue. On one hand, women&girls are being encouraged to be more assertive about their boundaries, rights to their own bodily dignity, speaking out about harassment etc while on the other hand being told that it's ok, some penises can belong to women and if you're not happy about that then according to Mermaids, a school should move you to a another changing room.