“A school faces a threat of legal action over policies that protect all children – so we’re fighting back.”

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://goodlaw.social/a8mo

the GLP are sort of the curse of bad luck so let’s see what happens…

Summed the whole damned thing up better than I have ever managed. Thanks.

Girls and women are not shields for boys and men!!

So you’re saying males can be a danger?

you don’t see the idiocy of your statements that males should be in with females?

Irritating and depressing as it is, there's a grim satisfaction in watching 'operation: let them speak' reach a whole new set of eyes.

Women and girls are not there for you to use. We're not your resource.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you using women's spaces is, and has always been, unlawful.

Keep out of women's spaces. We now have highly publicised, unequivocal, recourse to the law.

Is this going to be another thread filled out like this?

I'm not sure I see the point. OP has a live, real life, current problem and will just continue to a new thread if necessary.

I suppose the merail is a good example of exactly the kind of deep misogyny that OP is dealing with in his daughter's school:

It is acknowledged that boys do pose a threat. But girls are not fully safeguarded from this threat, because to do so upsets some boys. Girls are instead used as shields and to validate. The same misogynist lack of recognition of girls' humanity that has Pelicot and Epstein at the other end of the scale.

Any man who can read the news and still not understand why women and girls need some space of their own, is a problem themselves.

It is an illustration of exactly the problem and that this small group of extremely selfish men won't accept women and girls saying 'no' - not even when it's the law too. You wonder what other laws they break and in what other circumstances they won't accept other people saying no.

Seemingly no capacity to consider that their actions hurt other people not only women and girls but men too. OP is a man, who is just trying to protect his daughter and stand up for her rights. You wouldn't think that would be THIS difficult in the UK in 2026.

I agree the derailing is tedious. But the sheer arrogance of some men which has led to the OP's daughter's situation isn't always obvious.

The OP has had to deal with so many people in authority who have been deliberately blind to his issues, that his disbelief has sometimes been palpable.

Seeing the sort of men who are right behind it, and who promoted it in the first place, won't necessarily help with his disbelief, but firstly it does explain some of it, and secondly, it really makes you understand how it's all built on a house of cards.

It's watching male entitlement at its zenith.

edited to add that my post was in reply to InconvenientlyMaterial

Yes, the argument should be for ‘privacy preferred facilities’. And, following on the excellent work by a MNer on keeping toilets safe, I now appreciate that these private facilities must be of a very safe design.

Good luck, @SingleSexSpacesInSchools - I told my own dearest child back in April/May last year that the GLP is a grift and can’t win cases on fake law.

ETA: Thank you to @Keeptoiletssafe.

I have felt that I have been dragged back to about 2020 with the discussions I have been part of or seen in recent days. We have been told by many posters that their male friends with transgender identities fully respect female people and never use female single sex provisions. We have also heard from some of those male people with transgender identities where they have assured us of this.

Since about 2020, we have been told over and over again by transgender people, their support groups, their allies that not one of them believes they have changed sex and that no one is saying that they have. We were told this because women pointed out that there were some people who used that as a tool to prevent any discussion from moving forward.

Because how can solutions be found if a group simply ignored any law or guidance that used scientifically established language because they believed it applied to them when it materially did not.

That is what we have seen over the past few days. A resurgence of male people refusing to have any discussion about finding a solution that allows female people to have strong safeguarding and political recognition for their unique needs, by their use of female language for themselves.

Maybe this is a sign of the re-establishment of this purist style of extremism as the dominant discussion. It will not work as a movement though. Far too much has happened and publicly so.

Whereas pre-2020/21 there was still this erroneous belief that there were no issues at all, nothing to see here, no one who has read widely and seen the polling, court cases and the statistics can claim there are no issues. Women en masse are pointing out the issues now across numerous countries.

Perhaps these last few days have been the vanguard of the extremist group’s attempt to take over the discussion again?

There is no logic, it's a coercive control mind game. It's abuse.

If you realise the obvious and logical truth that it is not the space or the 'safety' for male people that is required, but the use of unconsenting women and girls in the space then it all makes sense.

This use of unconsenting girls - in schools, where the power imbalance is stark and girls can't reasonably be expected to stand up against the adults foisting this upon them - is what OP is fighting.

Obviously if it was really about safety for trans identified males then a third space would be the answer. They don't want that, it's not the space they want.

In schools this approach doesn't even make sense from the point of view of wellbeing of and safeguarding of the trans identified child. It's purely about adult wants.

What is worse than blindness.

The schools head and board have effectively committed to writing

We as the people who are accountable for the safekeeping of this set of girls know we are not capable of safekeeping girls but we decided to pretend that we will be able to spot the sex offender 100% of the time.

That is what its complex and case by case means.

Tbh at this stage I hope girls who come of age sue and go after pensions.

Indeed.

Since the beginning of this issue many people have decided they can tell the good ones from the bad ones.

And while that's errant nonsense, it's also infuriating, because it's yet again making women's rights conditional.

And as whatwouldafeministdo points out, it's nothing to do with the space. It's all about the women and girls in the space.

It is they who are the resource, they who provide the validation.

Their presence is crucial.

Without them, the space is useless. Hence third spaces being rejected out of hand. There's no point to the room that's just a room, four walls and ceiling, it has to have women and girls in it.

Girls in schools are subject to these extreme levels of coercive control and intimidation because society has stood by while extreme transactivist groups successfully targeted children. Children of all ages in schools - including early years. Safeguarding guidelines openly undermined and every organisation that's allegedly responsible for children's health and wellbeing pushing the "born in the wrong body / sex change / be kind and remove your boundaries" narratives.

The OP's legal case is hugely important as it throws light on the treatment of girls and boys in the education system where their safety and wellbeing has been abandoned in favour of the demands of this powerful group of adults with dangerous sexually focused beliefs who are intent on breaking down child safeguarding, the social contract and reality itself.

The fact that OnePost rejects the idea that everyone can be kept safe by having third spaces, really does speak volumes.

It is awful that he had to end his schooling because safe provision wasn't provided, but I do wonder if being kept safe would ever have been enough for him? I don't think it would which also speaks volumes it is always about the presence of girls & women.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools i agree with others that the involvement of GLP will act in your favour. * *

The whole POINT of safeguarding law and practice in schools is that you can't 'tell the good ones from the bad ones'.

That's the entire point. Apparently Ian Huntley seemed nice. That's why we now have DBS checks.

The point is you take risk reduction measures to prevent harm, the main thing you can do to prevent male on female abuse is single sex spaces.

And it's KNOWN FACT that there's way too much sexual assault in schools and it's mostly boy on girl. A teenage boy who wants to rape the girls just has to say 'I'm a girl' and there you go - immediate access to spaces that are hidden away from the teachers. This harms girls and it also harms the majority of decent boys. It undermines trust.

It's like they're arguing for just getting rid of goggles in Chemistry class because it'll hurt some people's feelings to wear them or it makes some people's face itch. The answer is for the itchy faced people to find another solution not to stop protecting everyone else. It's bonkers.

How many times has there been serial rapists or pedophiles or murderers etc caught, and people say "but he was such a nice guy?" . Jimmy Saville. Rolf Harris. Just to name a couple.

Yup for those of us who have centred safeguarding in our careers, it has been mind blowing to realise that so many large organisations don't actually understand it after all.

Let’s not forget that we know there are many traumatised female children in schools. Female children subject to male abuse from male adults and male children.

No female child should be put into a position where they are vulnerable and undressed (even half undressed) with any male person. It doesn’t matter how good that male person is, just being male in a place where a male person should not be causes distress.

This is the inconvenient truth about why no ‘case by case’ process works. Because regardless of the intentions of that male person, just the presence of that male person can cause distress.

Apparently no safeguarding is based on sex categories we have been told a few times over the past days. Not even for public provisions.

Upthread there was mention of “'bad faith transition” and on another thread “self ID fuck that” (or similar).

Is this a sign that some of the old timers who campaigned for trans rights are upset to discover that the new young upstarts aren’t have their penises removed? Or change male to female identity on a day-to-day-Pip-Bunce-basis?

Dont they realise that their campaigning means that any male who says he is a woman is considered to be “trans” without any changes to any hair, clothes, or cosmetic surgery etc? That this is literally written into the rules so there’s no option to call out a “bad faith transition”? It’s anyone who says they are trans that day an claim that right?

I’m not sure why these poppers are here on this thread - if they don’t like the rules either then why aren’t they joining in with the criticism of the school? If they want rules that can identify who is good/bad are they going to volunteer as these “genital police” we are often told about?

And to point out an obvious issue of two children choosing to carrying out sex acts on school grounds

The school is providing a public space where two children who may be under age engage in a public sex act.

The school is providing a public space which has other children in it who may be forced to witness the sex act that is involving the other child(ren) in non-contact sex abuse.

The whole POINT of safeguarding law and practice in schools is that you can't 'tell the good ones from the bad ones'.

🎯

Agreed. When you've worked in safeguarding, with traumatised children and with all the agencies dealing with abusers, you learn how abusers successfully silence children in order to abuse them.

It's been a grim experience to see those so caught up in this ideology using the same intimidatory / silencing techniques to impose queer theory beliefs on children in schools that predators use to silence their victims. Techniques attempting to silence debate even on this thread.

The idea that any responsible adult actually argues that girls must be compelled to undress in front of males is unbelievable. But here we are. And if their male teenage peers are allowed then of course the trans identified male teacher is also permitted.

These are predatory beliefs - that unconsenting girls must undress in front of males. This strips girls of their rights to consent, to have boundaries and the ability to maintain their safety. Yet the powerful in politics, education and some schools promote this.

As the current Epstein exposures demonstrate, the powerful in society continue to welcome and fete even convicted paedophiles if they're in the same club, share the same political beliefs, are their mates. And children - especially girls - are their victims.