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.

great then we agree on everything, what are you even arguing about? It’s absolutely fucked up that the social norms protecting women and girls have been eroded to this extent. But it can’t be repaired overnight.

But this is how toilets and changing rooms have always operated. There is a social stigma attached to using the wrong one.

Any man could have disguised himself as a woman to try and gain access, at any point. It's always been the case.

Unless we start to implement ID cards, that you have to zap, at every facility in the country, we are going to have to rely on reinstating protocols and customs.

The problem, recently, has been that women have been afraid to challenge men in their spaces, lest they be called transphobic, and found to be in the wrong. That is now going to change.

The problem, recently, has been that women have been afraid to challenge men in their spaces, lest they be called transphobic, and found to be in the wrong. That is now going to change.

Precisely. if everyone knows women will be backed by other women, or management / police if called, then we can go back to how it was with massive increased protection for all women.

I think TheKeatingFive agrees with all of that and there have been crossed wires!

The discussion about “integrity” is a response to a TRA gotcha about TW who pass 100%. Obviously there’s no way to keep such people out of women’s changing rooms other than the basic human decency that they may or may not have.

(Equally obviously, such cases are very rare and not worthy of much consideration.)

The problem, recently, has been that women have been afraid to challenge men in their spaces, lest they be called transphobic, and found to be in the wrong. That is now going to change.

Yes, agreed this is an important step forward

I think TheKeatingFive agrees with all of that and there have been crossed wires!

Sorry yes, I've half my attention on a work thing, so probably not making much sense

Sorry yes, I've half my attention on a work thing, so probably not making much sense

It’s not you, TRAs try to make arguments confusing and convoluted because they are defeated by clarity, sunlight and clear definitions. It’s pretty much the only rhetorical weapon they have, but it’s a really effective tactic!

It’s not surprising that a response to a TRA post is confusing, the post was designed to sow confusion in the first place.

TheKeatingFive

There is a line trotted out by TRAs that they fondly imagine is some kind of gotcha.

Which is something along the lines of how will you even know if a transwoman is there, if they pass as a woman!

Men knowing that they are secretly violating women's boundaries against their will and consent, isn't a gotcha, it's an admission.

Penis News is not happy.

i didn't give them the clicks of cause, but I can imagine the shrieking contained within.

Also most amused at White being described as a "leading barrister" 🤣

The whole point is that the service is not intended for any males (including TW). But in the hypothetical (and probably quite rare) situation where a male person passes as female and also has female on all their ID documents it would not be possible for the service to identify that person as male. So at this point we have to rely on a person's integrity to not access the service. How else do you propose that services prevent access to someone who "passes" as female?

There are other services that rely on people not using the service unless they are eligible for it. I would not use a food bank for instance because I can afford to buy my own food. I would, however, use a food waste prevention scheme because the aim of that scheme is to prevent food waste rather than to meet the needs of people who can't afford to buy food. I could claim poverty and go and get free food from the food bank but that would seem like the wrong thing to do because that service is not for me.

Let’s hope she will help to turn the tide in schools. Don’t forget this which is on the petitions board too:
Remove references to 'gender identity' from relationships education guidance'
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/618970

Also most amused at White being described as a "leading barrister"

Haha I thought they must be talking about Foxy until you said that

There are other services that rely on people not using the service unless they are eligible for it. I would not use a food bank for instance because I can afford to buy my own food.

Don't most food banks work on referrals to prevent them being misused like this?

Maybe. But even this could be abused by a determined person. Also I assume that a referral system won't have access to all your financial accounts to check you are hard up. You would just tell them you can't afford food and they'll believe you. All it'll mean is that it's a two step process so it'll put off most people. But if my memory serves me correctly don't women's refuges also work like this? You contact CAB or women's aid and they put you in touch with the local refuge service?

I'm afraid I did give them clicks, couldn't help it

It is a very amusing article in many ways, but overall impression I get is that someone is a bit sore for not being taken seriously enough:

“I don’t recall getting an invite myself. I am a leading practitioner in this area. If what they wanted was a balanced audience, then there were plenty of people with a variety of views who could have been invited'

So this person self identifies as a leading practitioner, as well as a female, fascinating 🧐

But you know, we should all listen to this 'female leading' practitioner telling us that Suella Braverman got the law wrong, thanks Penis News, great advice

I hope we get to hear head teachers quoting this publication as a reliable source if information at the court case in the future, and it being explained to them that the word of an AG is actually a government legal position, and random self-identified leading practitioners' advice is not actual law.

The arrogance of some 'females' is truly astounding, feels kinda male to me, but I must be wrong.

Maybe. But even this could be abused by a determined person.

Well that's true of most things, the point being that there are not multiple additional examples of situations where we rely on an honesty box approach working and everyone acting with 'integrity'. Because we are wiser than that, given our understanding of human nature.

The woman's refuge point isn't a particularly good comparison point as that's not in any way desirable to those who don't need the provision

“I don’t recall getting an invite myself. I am a leading practitioner in this area. If what they wanted was a balanced audience, then there were plenty of people with a variety of views who could have been invited'

So this person self identifies as a leading practitioner, as well as a female, fascinating 🧐

tbf, when you're co-author of the only book in a niche area—aka "comprehensive volume filling a notable gap in the legal library"—, you get to describe it as 'the leading authoritative text' and, over time and by extension, it seems to get to think of yourself the same way.

Legal Feminist review of the: www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

The woman's refuge point isn't a particularly good comparison point as that's not in any way desirable to those who don't need the provision

I would disagree with this. I think that people exist who don’t need access to a women’s refuge and who are not eligible to access a women’s refuge who would access it all the same if given half a chance. Isn’t that exactly the scenario we are talking about?

The woman's refuge point isn't a particularly good comparison point as that's not in any way desirable to those who don't need the provision

There is a male bodied person who identifies as a woman running a rape refuge in Edinburgh. They think that the female survivors therein need to 'reframe their trauma' if they don't believe that other male bodied people both potentially in their group and in general, are actually women.

The point about accessing female spaces been proven over, and over again that it's largely about validation, as opposed to using the provision.

Take the three outdoor swimming pools in Hampstead. Male only, female only and mixed sex.

Now they are male only, mixed sex, and mixed sex. Men who identify as women had the opportunity of using two pools, but they wanted the female only one, as validation. And, of course, they got it.

And of course, if any male can access a space where women are talking about being raped, you will find a massive pool of them lining up. It's totally naive not to think so.

We've had numerous women on here who staff assault help lines, who say they are inundated with men getting a sexual kick of telling her they have been assaulted/raped.

I just want to add, that I agree that men can victims of assault or rape, of course.

No one is suggesting there is no provision for them.

But that's the whole point, isn't it. There is provision, but certain men don't want it.

They want the female only provision.

The medical diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" was invented by a snake oil sales man.

Notable that many outspoken transexuals who argue for continued protection of women's rights only use the male loos and changing areas.

They've also often had surgery.

I find it odd that many of the ones who don't have surgery really want to be able to access women's spaces.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but just seen the recent post on twitter from Suella......she has uploaded sections from the policy exchange speech about the Equality Act and Single Sex Spaces.

twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1558073192996012033

"In her speech earlier this week, the Attorney General summed up nicely the way in which the Act makes lawful what would otherwise be direct sex discrimination of the most blatant kind."

gordondangerfield.com/2022/08/12/why-single-sex-female-services-are-not-for-biological-males/

That's a very helpful blog. Thank you InThe Canteen.