Suella Braverman expected to make a speech on Wednesday

[achillestoes]

In which she will say (in advance of DfE guidance to be issued in September - apparently) that schools are not legally obligated to facilitate childhood transition through the use of opposite sex or neo-pronouns (non-binary etc), allowing children to use the toilets of the opposite sex (arrangements should be made for children to use a third space if needed), or the uniform of the opposite sex.

For some reason this has provoked an outpouring of accusations of Suella being ‘as thick as mince’. One charming person wished her dead. Someone else said we ‘don’t get to’ disagree with Suella on other things and then agree with her on this. Erm...

Anyway, this seems like a return to much-needed ordinary safeguarding practices to me.

I don’t care if boys wear skirts particularly. I do care about my daughters being bullied to pretend they are female.

@Hjft
You do realise that you pin your ideology to the mast for all to see as soon as you use the ridiculous phrase sex “assigned at birth”?
It causes all those who understand science, medicine and common sense to either not read further, or to read to see what other catchphrases are cut and pasted….

‘Sexual biology is much more interesting though when you learn more about it. Some people can live their whole lives happily as the sex they were assigned at birth without ever knowing that they would be classified as the opposite sex if their chromosomes were inspected. Other people are born with more obvious differences in sexual development and may be neither male nor female.’

This is both irrelevant to transgenderism, and not actually true (the last part). Disorders of sexual development can make it difficult to identify a person’s sex. They can in some cases lead a small number of people to believe they are one sex when they are the other. Nobody is anything other than male or female. But again, irrelevant to the claims of transgenderism, which are that you have a physical sex and a ‘real’ sex or ‘gender identity’ (where? How?) or that you can physically change sex (you can’t).

hjft differences of sexual development have absolutely nothing to do with trans "identities" (an extremely sexist term) and definitely don't have anything to do with 14 year old males wanting to use the same loos as their female peers.

“Sex assigned at birth” is the way government forms ascertain the difference between gender and sex, and therefore I do not apologise for using that as a widely accepted term. Gender assumed at birth may be a more accurate phrase, but that would be less widely understood, and would probably trigger more aggressive responses.
Sex and gender are more than just genitals, with the brain being a major factor in an individuals comprehension of their gender. Transgender people have an incongruence between the two. Not their fault.

This exception does not allow blanket exclusion of transgender people from single sex spaces that align with their gender identity.

Yes, that's the line that TRAs have been pushing for years. The Attorney General says you are wrong and specifically that female safety, dignity and privacy is a legitimate aim in and of itself. Maybe you can explain why you believe she is mistaken?

The explanatory notes to the Equality Act give an example of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault. In that case, it is clear that an individual with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (e.g. a trans-woman) could be lawfully excluded, if organisers believed that otherwise, women would be unlikely to attend the session. This talks about an individual being excluded at the discretion of the organisers.

The notes also give the example of a job role as rape counsellor being made available for biological female people only (specifically saying even male GRC holders could be ruled out), so that would be a blanket exclusion of all males, meaning such a thing is possible.

Also, "recent studies" show that people support the rights of transgender people to "identify as a different gender", but don't support male people in female spaces unless they have had full gender reassignment surgery.

Gender assumed at birth may be a more accurate phrase, but that would be less widely understood

No, biological sex is the accurate phrase.

If you listened to Suella's speech - that was a repeated point made. If you can justify direct discrimination against men to create a single-sex space, you can also justify indirect discrimination against transwomen to uphold that single-sex space.

This.

What is now in keeping children safe in education, the safeguarding guidance all schools MUST follow, is a lot around sexual abuse and misogynistic attitudes.

Girls have been raped on school premises.

Why were single sex loos created in the first place?

Trans isn't seen as a medical condition now. Anyone can "identify as" (sooo sexist) and it seems claim their imagined "right" to enter anywhere. Increasing mixed sex spaces increases risks for women.

The amount of voyerism a local pool has to contend with due to mixed sex cubicles, with open bottoms to reduce chance of shaggers, is ridiculous. A friend was a victim and it did manage to go to court.

Where you ask? Probably in the brain where most of someone’s personhood is. I agree that you can’t change sex, but not that biology is always binary. And gender can be reassigned if and when appropriate for an individual. British society is generally supportive of this, with some exceptions and media bias.

Sex and gender are more than just genitals, with the brain being a major factor in an individuals comprehension of their gender. Transgender people have an incongruence between the two. Not their fault.

Sexist.

And brain scans show they do have an issue with self perception, showing same results as other people with body dysmorphia.

There's no biological diagnosis as it's a cultural confusion linked to rigid gender stereotypes and often a culture of homophobia.

Sex and gender are more than just genitals, with the brain being a major factor in an individuals comprehension of their gender.

So how is gender defined outside of societal stereotypes. What makes someone a woman?

“Sex assigned at birth” is the way government forms ascertain the difference between gender and sex, and therefore I do not apologise for using that as a widely accepted term.”

It’s Stonewall-mandated language, a recent change and most certainly NOT ‘widely accepted,’ because it is not an accurate reflection of science and biology. It is certainly not ‘accepted’ on these boards as I’m sure you well know. Trying to push it on us will get you precisely nowhere, because we have a grip on reality.

Sex is not ‘assigned’ at birth, it is noted. And your comments on DSDs are wholly inaccurate, as has been pointed out already.

It's not widely accepted in the slightest, and signifies belief in gender identity theory. You don't get to make sweeping statements without any proof on here, and you don't have any.

The exemptions in the Equality Act are NOT based on individuals, whatever Robin Moira White says, but on a blanket exclusion by sex, as confirmed by the Attorney General.

Your arguments have been presented and demolished many times on Mumsnet, and they don't make any more sense coming from you.

The government confirmed our interpretation of the law is correct, not the trans 'ally' lawyers. Of course you, along with these lawyers, now claim the AG is thick and doesn't understand the law. It's laughable.

The Attorney General says you are wrong and specifically that female safety, dignity and privacy is a legitimate aim in and of itself. Maybe you can explain why you believe she is mistaken?

I believe she is categorising trans women as men, and that is where the difficulty rises. If she starts with that assumption then there can be no fair resolution.

Fine to not like people or their politics, fine to point out their mistakes, bit no-one who read law at Cambridge, undertook a master's in European and French law, and was then called to the bar, is as thick as mince.

Sex and gender are more than just genitals, with the brain being a major factor in an individuals comprehension of their gender.

If you stopped there and said that this is about an "individual's comprehension of their gender", we'd have less of an issue. Because then it's a purely internal thing we don't have to worry about.

Clearly though there's no actual real difference in behaviour from men when you look at the things that do statistically differ between sexes.

Transwomen are overwhelmingly attracted to women, like other men, they're as sexually aggressive as other men, they have the same pattern of criminality as other men - basically everything about them follows normal male distribution.

The "female brain" thing fails at the first hurdle of any sort of common sense test. Both their bodies and minds are clearly male, regardless of how they perceive themselves. Hence it's correct that they should be treated like other males.

This would merit more debate if there was any truth in transwomen having female behaviour. (Although you'd still have to actually come up with a coherent definition of "transwoman" that that analysis applied to - self ID would still blow a hole in it).

I believe she is categorising trans women as men, and that is where the difficulty rises. If she starts with that assumption then there can be no fair resolution.

It's not assumption it's fact.

Trans is no longer a mental health condition, but is reclassified as a sexual health condition. Gender reassignment should not mean that anyone can “identify as” but rather that we allow people with a legitimate medical condition to reassign their gender so that they can function more fully in our society.

I believe she is categorising trans women as men, and that is where the difficulty rises. If she starts with that assumption then there can be no fair resolution.

This is very telling. It's obvious that there is a fair resolution with this fact (not an assumption) but it's for females. Keeping Males out of Female provision is the fair resolution.

but rather that we allow people with a legitimate medical condition to reassign their gender so that they can function more fully in our society.

There isn't any issue with people 'reassigning their gender' whatever that rather wooly phrase means.

The problem is their appropriation of same sex spaces and protected sex characteristics.

Gender reassignment should not mean that anyone can “identify as”

But that is what it means, without any gatekeeping.

‘I believe she is categorising trans women as men, and that is where the difficulty rises. If she starts with that assumption then there can be no fair resolution.’

This is an extraordinary idea that has been claimed (with a great deal of aggressive enforcement and official collaboration) but not ONE SCRAP of proof has ever been offered.

This is comparable to saying, ‘This is because you are classing an apple as a fruit’. It’s a fruit. Prove otherwise.

I believe she is categorising trans women as men, and that is where the difficulty rises. If she starts with that assumption then there can be no fair resolution.

But they are. So people shouldn't be pretending otherwise.

I believe she is categorising trans women as men, and that is where the difficulty rises. If she starts with that assumption then there can be no fair resolution.

Shes doing that because it is biological fact. I'm sure you'll agree that basing our assumptions in biological fiction is a hugely problematic starting point.

What is the process that turns a male into a trans woman?