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.

‘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.’

‘Transgender people’ believe this to be true. The rest of us have not observed it to be true. Those who say they believe it are operating from a position of ignorance or wilful faith.

Sex is not assigned at birth, it’s observed and recorded.

Think back to when the midwife had just finished helping you to extract a child from your body; there wasn’t any discussion about which sex to choose, was there? No sifting hat, no looking at a list to decide what sex your child should be assigned.

They had a look, saw what it was, and wrote it down.

There is no “gender” assumed at birth either. There is no evidence that humans have an innate sense of gender.

That’s quite some assertion. What makes you think that there exists an innate gender identity?

We all know people have thoughts. We all know people have more conformist and less conformist thoughts, and thoughts create self-image. All that is fine. It doesn’t make people some sort of protected class of very vulnerable people. People who actually propose physical ‘reassignment’ of their sex or in fact go through with physical ‘reassignment’ of their sex are of course vulnerable. But those are two separate categories of people: the non-conforming, and people who are so unhappy that I would consider them unwell, for whom surgical intervention feels like a realistic option.

But for goodness sake, can we stop pretending every twenty year old who wants to dye her hair green and call herself Sam is ‘marginalised’?

It is also difficult to identify a legitimate aim.

The safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls is a legitimate sin. I thought you said you listened to the speech.

Sexual biology is much more interesting

sexual biology is indeed interesting. I have no idea why you think the most interesting thing about it is the rare cases where something went wrong developmentally. It’s much more interesting when it goes right!

Indeed. If a man wants to shave his legs, tilt his head, and ask people to call him Tiffany that’s fine.

What’s not fine is when they start to act as though they are female, and use female single-sex spaces and facilities, enter their sports and so on.

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.

Indeed.

"It is also difficult to identify a legitimate aim. Is the perceived problem that some women feel uncomfortable if there is a masculine looking person in the ladies toilet."

No. In some circumstances women require a single-sex service to enable them to be able to access services that they otherwise would not have access to if male people were also allowed to access the service (or if men were running the service). The legitimate aim for such a service might be to offer women privacy / dignity, and the way to achieve that (the proportionate means) is to discriminate against all male people (including trans women) so that the service can be a single-sex service.

"A trans woman who does not look masculine would therefore not cause any discomfort. Should they be excluded?"

The service would not be intended for a female passing TW. But the practicalities around exclusion would be tricky if a female passing TW attempted to access the service. This is because if this person actually "passes" as female and has changed their birth certificate to "female" there is no way that the service provider can tell that they are in fact male. This is where it comes down to the integrity of the individual. We have to rely on people not attempting to access a service that clearly states it is not for them. I imagine most trans women would not attempt to use such a service.

"And similarly, a biological woman with masculine features could cause the same discomfort as a masculine looking trans woman. Should they also be excluded?"

No they shouldn't be excluded. Women with masculine features are female so they would be eligible to access the service. I've never heard a woman say they are uncomfortable around masculine looking women. This has never been a problem in female spaces until trans activists started pushing it as a narrative about 5 years ago. A "masculine looking trans woman" would be perceived by most people to be a man. A "woman with masculine features" does not look like a man in my experience.

"It seems there is no legitimate aim in a blanket exclusion of transgender people from single sex spaces."

There is no blanket ban of transgender people from single-sex spaces. There is a blanket ban of male people (including trans women) from female single-sex services. The legitimate aim would be to provide a service that women will use and feel comfortable in that they may not otherwise use if male people were using or running it.

"The law rightly provides for case by case exceptions."
Case by case = service by service not individual by individual.

When I was at infant school 50 years ago, the boys did woodwork and the girls did sewing. So we were separated by sex. However it is clear there was really no 'legitimate aim' there (it was continuance of stereotypes). That is to me the kind of thing where people can challenge, but not just for trans people for all people of the other sex. However there are fewer of these cases still in existence in this country these days and they do get challenged (eg men only golf clubs).

My DC's school brought in a more 'gender neutral' uniform a few years back. So now boys and girls wear the same colour blazer, and the skirt option is a kilt.

Either things have a legitimate reason for being single sex, in which case all other sex should be excluded including the trans subset, or they don't, in which case it should be opened to all the other sex, not just the trans subset.

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.

Qq: why was it linked to LGB then?

Sounds v homophobic to imply that LGB is a sexual health condition 🤔

This is where it comes down to the integrity of the individual. We have to rely on people not attempting to access a service that clearly states it is not for them. I imagine most trans women would not attempt to use such a service.

The people who ask what would stop a transwoman from using a women-only service, when they know that they shouldn't, have a very low opinion of transwomen. They seem to assume that transwomen have no integrity or empathy and would attempt to muscle in on a service that they know is not for them, regardless of the effect their presence would have on the female service users.

People who ask this question must be quite transphobic to want to portray transwomen in this way.

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.

So do you believe that a medical diagnosis should be required before someone can claim the protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

And what do you mean by 'reassign their gender'? Is this to do with medical interventions or just clothing and hairstyle choices?

This is where it comes down to the integrity of the individual. We have to rely on people not attempting to access a service that clearly states it is not for them. I imagine most trans women would not attempt to use such a service.

I'm sure it's true that most wouldn't.

But some will and already do. Not everyone has impeccable integrity and quite why we'd expect that from transwomen above any other segment of the population, I don't know.

It's an odd position anyhow. To give people access to something, but ask them to use their 'integrity' and not use it. That's just fucked up.

I had a Lib Dem canvasser at my door the other day. I think he regretted it. He tried to say it was 'complicated' to keep men / transwomen out of single sex spaces. I told him it wasn't and that up until 10 years ago we'd been managing this for years.

I welcome posters who come here to explain gender theory, but my goodness it’s full of holes and contradictions. Gender is a social construct but it’s also in the brain? Even though neuroscience has shown we don’t have sexually dimorphism in the brain and there’s no such thing as lady minds?

As for trans women being assumed to be men, I thought sex and gender were different ? In terms of sex, they are male. The equality act defines women as female and men as male. So by the equality act and by sex, trans women are males and so can be treated like any other male legally speaking. I suppose you could say, within the gender paradigm, that trans women are male women and other males are male men.

I think the big clash between women and trans women is that trans women have forgotten the whole “sex is different from gender”mantra and wish to be treated as female even though they aren’t.

If I understand this correctly, there are women of orthodox faiths who could not use any public facilities where a man is present.

Do orthodox faiths relax guidance for 'passing' transgender people? Is there an agreed definition of passing or is that self-identified? I can think of a number of TW and TM who claim to pass but they're mostly wrong, particularly if this is in 'real life' where frame size is apparent, and this is not a strategically photographed and photoshopped image.

It's an odd position anyhow. To give people access to something, but ask them to use their 'integrity' and not use it. That's just fucked up.

Why is it fucked up to expect people to not use services that are not intended for them?

Why is it fucked up to expect people to not use services that are not intended for them?

Dont give them access in that case. If they aren't intended for them.

It's an odd position anyhow. To give people access to something, but ask them to use their 'integrity' and not use it. That's just fucked up.

Blimey, I hope you’re never alone in the room with an honesty jar.

Blimey, I hope you’re never alone in the room with an honesty jar.

But what are you saying here? That no one has or ever would abuse an honesty jar system?

Dont give them access in that case. If they aren't intended for them.

Are you saying there should be genital checkers at toilet doors? It’s impossible not to give people access to public toilets, it’s social norms, enforced by a combination of fear of social stigma/negative reactions and basic human respect and decency (both of which are being steadily eroded by trans activism) that keep men out of women’s toilets.

I think what will happen in practice once social norms start re-establishing themselves is that TW who think they pass will continue trying to use women’s toilets but will find themselves asked to leave sufficiently often that they’ll eventually revert to using the men’s.

I think you've misunderstood what @Signalbox was saying. This is the whole paragraph that you quoted part of:

The service would not be intended for a female passing TW. But the practicalities around exclusion would be tricky if a female passing TW attempted to access the service. This is because if this person actually "passes" as female and has changed their birth certificate to "female" there is no way that the service provider can tell that they are in fact male. This is where it comes down to the integrity of the individual. We have to rely on people not attempting to access a service that clearly states it is not for them. I imagine most trans women would not attempt to use such a service.

It would be clear to all transwomen (all males, in fact) that the service is not for them. The point is that it would be harder to spot a male who passed as a woman and prevent them from using it. These males who pass as women are therefore expected to have enough integrity to acknowledge that the women-only space is not for them and not to use it. The ones who don't pass (99%+) could be challenged and prevented from doing so.

But what are you saying here? That no one has or ever would abuse an honesty jar system?

no, WTF. I’m saying that most people don’t abuse the system because most people are basically decent and that makes the system work.

Are you saying there should be genital checkers at toilet doors?

No if course not. I'm saying male bodied people attempting to use female sex facilities should be asked to leave

It’s impossible not to give people access to public toilets.

Sure, but breeches can and should be reported and dealt with

TW who think they pass will continue trying to use women’s toilets but will find themselves asked to leave sufficiently often that they’ll eventually revert to using the men’s.

And if that doesn't happen, then what? And what about all the natal women who don't feel able to use their facilities in the meantime?

no, WTF. I’m saying that most people don’t abuse the system because most people are basically decent and that makes the system work.

Even very tiny numbers of people abusing the system will make natal women less safe. Are they just collateral damage then?