Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

567 replies

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/02/2026 11:48

https://goodlaw.social/a8mo

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Helleofabore · 05/02/2026 10:04

I wonder SafeSchools if this is also something that really needs to be highlighted with a beacon. The intention of some male people to simply continue to access female single sex provisions by stealth.

That no matter what the law states, there is a group of male people who have set up their personal belief that they are female and 'always were female' as some flawed twist to still do what they want to and access female single sex spaces. I can see how they are going to then apply this in future court or tribunal cases.

I wonder if we are being used as the test bed for how to formulate an argument that can withstand points of material reality. Because a group realise that emotional manipulation and emotional conditioning is no longer working. Therefore, they are back to the philosophising angle to destabilise material reality.

I see the theme happening now concurrently on several threads. The philosophising to achieve the outcome that society accepts some male people are female people in policy, law and generally.

Shedmistress · 05/02/2026 11:01

What even is a TRA?

Is quite breathtaking.

Datun · 05/02/2026 11:28

Shedmistress · 05/02/2026 11:01

What even is a TRA?

Is quite breathtaking.

Other words are available

AnSolas · 05/02/2026 11:31

Datun · 05/02/2026 11:28

Other words are available

🤐

Bad girl 🙊

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/02/2026 11:40

KnottyAuty · 05/02/2026 09:14

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?

One of them said he was a “transmedicalist” which I’ve seen other men be monstered for.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/02/2026 11:44

Helleofabore · 05/02/2026 10:04

I wonder SafeSchools if this is also something that really needs to be highlighted with a beacon. The intention of some male people to simply continue to access female single sex provisions by stealth.

That no matter what the law states, there is a group of male people who have set up their personal belief that they are female and 'always were female' as some flawed twist to still do what they want to and access female single sex spaces. I can see how they are going to then apply this in future court or tribunal cases.

I wonder if we are being used as the test bed for how to formulate an argument that can withstand points of material reality. Because a group realise that emotional manipulation and emotional conditioning is no longer working. Therefore, they are back to the philosophising angle to destabilise material reality.

I see the theme happening now concurrently on several threads. The philosophising to achieve the outcome that society accepts some male people are female people in policy, law and generally.

Thing is, I don’t personally believe anything most of these men say. They lie about being women, they lie about “passing”, they lie about what people say, they lie in their tedious anecdotes about their lives. Lies all the way down. If ever there is something marginally true in any of it, no one would be expected to tell which bit that was.

Helleofabore · 05/02/2026 11:54

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/02/2026 11:44

Thing is, I don’t personally believe anything most of these men say. They lie about being women, they lie about “passing”, they lie about what people say, they lie in their tedious anecdotes about their lives. Lies all the way down. If ever there is something marginally true in any of it, no one would be expected to tell which bit that was.

Edited

While I agree wholeheartedly with you, it is because there is so much constructed subjective reality being posted that I wonder if it is a group testing a strategy. Because there is nothing material and no sense of trying to find a solution.

Instead it is like a script of fuckwittery with language adding to the distortions of reality. Of like trying to make society believe in something that is just not true but about something so important and basic.

And underneath it all is the simple message, female people have no power to stop a group of men who have demands and also believe the law is powerless to stop them.

It is a direct consent issue and a direct boundary violation.

I also think it is interesting that over the different threads not one poster has supported them. There are none of the usual supporting them. I think that these posts may have made even those people stop and pause and think there is something very wrong here.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 05/02/2026 11:56

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/02/2026 11:44

Thing is, I don’t personally believe anything most of these men say. They lie about being women, they lie about “passing”, they lie about what people say, they lie in their tedious anecdotes about their lives. Lies all the way down. If ever there is something marginally true in any of it, no one would be expected to tell which bit that was.

Edited

Agreed. We see this repeatedly with these posters who arrive and dominate threads - often for many months. They drown threads with endless tales about their transition, childhood, friends etc. Everything is about themselves and framed to "persuade" women in here that women and our daughters must accept the presence of men when undressing.

However they often keep important threads bumped. It's rare to have a child safeguarding thread bumped so often - they usually keep well away from threads exposing risks to children. Presumably the GLP focus is the attraction here?

1984Now · 05/02/2026 12:00

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/02/2026 11:44

Thing is, I don’t personally believe anything most of these men say. They lie about being women, they lie about “passing”, they lie about what people say, they lie in their tedious anecdotes about their lives. Lies all the way down. If ever there is something marginally true in any of it, no one would be expected to tell which bit that was.

Edited

Do any MNers, GCs in general, go on the insane Reddit TRA boards, or any other left liberal blog replies forums, to put our arguments?
No. Both a waste of time, we'd be shouted off, but also no need to spoil their party.
The few times I've done it, I'm not even argued with, I'm blanked or told I'm a bigot and I can go and fuck off.
Yet the TRAs who come on here are treated with a general level of decorum, not insulted, engaged with (I don't know how you women put up with this), and these spoiler individuals are happy to post over and over again.
Imagine a white person going on a black or brown person's blog, saying they're black or brown, or an adult on a kid's forum saying they're a kid.
Which of these groups should be expected to accept their claims?
And the process is the punishment. Come onto a thread majoring on child safety and the privacy and comfort of girls, just declare you're the female group, talk for everyone in that group as if you are in that group, and post after post rub the noses of women on here in it.
Then inferring the anxiety and discomfort of girls matters less than your selfish desires and whims.
Over and over again.
Of the two sexes, whom most likely is happy to disrupt, be a spoiler, don't care about girls discomfort? I'm pretty sure it's not women.

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/02/2026 12:07

lifeturnsonadime · 05/02/2026 08:59

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. * *

Warning: another long factual post incoming!

This is why I asked the OnePost poster what had happened. On trying to keep toilets safe for everyone, I have looked what happens in designs.

In the vast majority of cases, there is a sexed preference, and OnePost falls in to the male category. Males want to be with the females. Females prefer to be in ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘third spaces’ which are self contained and private. However, and this is where it is more interesting, once females have the option of gender neutral and females they have a dilemma. The gender-neutral is of completely private design so becomes a location for misuse. Females now have a stressful dilemma - they want to use the gender neutral out of principle but they need to use the female toilets because it’s cleaner and they feel safer. My research shows they are safer in a female space, especially if that design is the traditional design with door gaps leading onto a single sex washroom area.

OnePost indicated that something happened and wouldn’t say what it was so unfortunately we can’t deduce anything from it. I have to research distressing incidents to get data. It takes its toll because it’s not nice to hear any of these stories. I have never come across a verifiable report that supports that girls or boys will be safer in mixed sex toilets. OnePost appears to support this too.

BUT, precisely because of the call for inclusivity, OnePost is advocating for all provision to be mixed sex. Which is the common paradox. I have never come across a regulated mixed sex design that is not completely private.

So, this is what has happened in schools marketing their ‘inclusive’ toilets. The single sex designs change so you get full height cubicles leading out onto a mixed sex space. This is more common in new schools over the last few years where designs have to be for complete privacy rather than gapped designs for health and safety.

What happens when medically vulnerable children collapse behind the doors of these toilets and they are not found in time? It is comparable to home situation where a medically vulnerable child lived on their own. In that space they have no supervision. There will be, in an average secondary school around a dozen children with epilepsy, diabetes, heart conditions that should have a very reasonable adjustment of being able to go to the toilet safely. Disabled toilets aren’t suitable because when a child is hypoglycaemic, having a stroke, cardiac arrest or seizure from a condition or drugs or having a mental health crisis, they have not the awareness to pull a cord. Yet thousands of children are going to school in an unsafe environment for their medical condition.

Next you have the problem of a mixed sex private space. Ofsted said schools have to assume sexual abuse is happening because it is so prevalent and underreported. Males (teachers and pupils) will seek a private place with no witnesses. It’s really upsetting to see the pattern repeated again and again. I have evidence and data but it’s obviously common sense as well.

The fact that I wanted OnePost account is because I genuinely don’t have anything that I can say has happened to people because they are transgender in toilets. That is not to say it hasn’t happened. I have more facts about hospital staff that died from drug overdoses in hospital toilets from 2020-2022, a tragedy particularly because they were in the best environment where the outcome may have been prevented. Likewise all schools have defibrillators.

In the consultation for Document T, most of thousands of (coordinated) replies mentioned the safety of trans people in toilets. Yet when you looked at their evidence source it was actually a report that of ‘verbal abuse’ (being told to get out of the ladies’) and the one account of ‘physical assault’ was being pushed out by two women because the shouting match didn’t work. Contrast this with the very real and verifiable accounts of people dying and women and children being sexually assaulted in toilets.

The way I see it with changing rooms, the school either go with:

  1. single sex changing rooms
  2. create individual private cubicles (ripe for hidden cameras btw) with all the associated problems above - remember you’ll need VADs in each and a much longer fire escape time so the fire brigade would have to be consulted. You would need a lot of supervision to keep the children safe and the cubicles misuse and vandalism free. Cleaning will not be as effective as muddy floors can’t be washed and drained as easily and ventilation will be compromised without mechanical ventilation (Lynx Africa was unofficially banned in my classroom as it set off asthma).

3.A free for all communal space with boys and girls changing in the same area. This would require regulation changes and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to be revised.

I have written this post for the school and their lawyers as much as anyone, as I expect they’ll be looking at this thread. I have many thoughts on how you could achieve safety for all but it is not 3 or 2. Please protect all your pupils at their most vulnerable by keeping changing rooms and toilets single sex within a single sex environment.

I would like to end this with a still from a school tv programme. It happened in the girls’ toilets. You can tell it’s a single sex toilet design as there are door gaps. I would quibble it’s not accurate as they’ve taken out the sanitary bin so the girl can be in that position for the camera. Realistically she would be further forward. But the sentiment is there. Btw in the programme she was alright - her friends found her and opened the door with a hairclip in seconds because all toilet cubicles have to open from the outside quickly for health and safety. Well done those (fictional) girls.

Edit: I started with ‘factual’ and ended with ‘fictional’ ! I know the fictional bit was based on real-life though.

Sensitive content
“A school faces a threat of legal action over policies that protect all children – so we’re fighting back.”
Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/02/2026 12:15

Helleofabore · 05/02/2026 11:54

While I agree wholeheartedly with you, it is because there is so much constructed subjective reality being posted that I wonder if it is a group testing a strategy. Because there is nothing material and no sense of trying to find a solution.

Instead it is like a script of fuckwittery with language adding to the distortions of reality. Of like trying to make society believe in something that is just not true but about something so important and basic.

And underneath it all is the simple message, female people have no power to stop a group of men who have demands and also believe the law is powerless to stop them.

It is a direct consent issue and a direct boundary violation.

I also think it is interesting that over the different threads not one poster has supported them. There are none of the usual supporting them. I think that these posts may have made even those people stop and pause and think there is something very wrong here.

Edited

I agree with this, they don’t engage, they monologue.

Helleofabore · 05/02/2026 12:21

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/02/2026 12:15

I agree with this, they don’t engage, they monologue.

Gaslighting reality by monologue?

It is also interesting because I think that there is a sense of us being able to look back and understand that who ever thought this existential experiment was progressive for humanity, they need to understand that they were wrong. There is no kindness in allowing any human to believe that they have changed sex. There really, really isn't.

AnSolas · 05/02/2026 12:30

MrsOvertonsWindow · 05/02/2026 11:56

Agreed. We see this repeatedly with these posters who arrive and dominate threads - often for many months. They drown threads with endless tales about their transition, childhood, friends etc. Everything is about themselves and framed to "persuade" women in here that women and our daughters must accept the presence of men when undressing.

However they often keep important threads bumped. It's rare to have a child safeguarding thread bumped so often - they usually keep well away from threads exposing risks to children. Presumably the GLP focus is the attraction here?

Yes even the usual Rapist Gender Hill defenders are not popping in.

Its hard to explain to a parent why his girl should have to accept that the price of her education includes forced access to her body by any male student who chooses to request access her lawful female only single sex space.

Datun · 05/02/2026 12:31

a script of fuckwittery

Couldn't have said it better myself. It starts and ends with absolute jibber jabber.

And whereas you might have a few wanky TRA's trying to test their arguments on here, I still don't think it will get them anywhere. Because their argument is fucked up. That's yer actual technical term.

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/02/2026 12:37

It’s sad that this discussion is 10 years old and if anything, it’s got worse.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmwomeq/91/9105.htm#_idTextAnchor010

AnSolas · 05/02/2026 12:38

@Keeptoiletssafe
Keeptoiletssafe · Today 12:07
BUT, precisely because of the call for inclusivity, OnePost is advocating for all provision to be mixed sex. Which is the common paradox. I have never come across a regulated mixed sex design that is not completely private.

He was not advocating for mixed sex design in the OPs childs school.

He was advocating that males are given access to the female only single sex provision and that girls who object are removed and given alternative provision.

With that advocy the by special request and vetting male provision has to be in what should be a female only single sex space and include girls.

RedToothBrush · 05/02/2026 12:38

Helleofabore · 05/02/2026 11:54

While I agree wholeheartedly with you, it is because there is so much constructed subjective reality being posted that I wonder if it is a group testing a strategy. Because there is nothing material and no sense of trying to find a solution.

Instead it is like a script of fuckwittery with language adding to the distortions of reality. Of like trying to make society believe in something that is just not true but about something so important and basic.

And underneath it all is the simple message, female people have no power to stop a group of men who have demands and also believe the law is powerless to stop them.

It is a direct consent issue and a direct boundary violation.

I also think it is interesting that over the different threads not one poster has supported them. There are none of the usual supporting them. I think that these posts may have made even those people stop and pause and think there is something very wrong here.

Edited

I noticed that the thread earlier in the week clearly had some jaws dropping...

StellaAndCrow · 05/02/2026 12:40

People talk about "good faith transition" (vs. the rest) but I'm finding it increasingly hard to see any transition as "good faith", particularly if it means using spaces meant for the opposite sex.

The idea of a man "passing" as a woman means that he's successfully disguised his sex - and that doesn't make his entry to these spaces better; it makes it horrifying.

StellaAndCrow · 05/02/2026 12:40

People talk about "good faith transition" (vs. the rest) but I'm finding it increasingly hard to see any transition as "good faith", particularly if it means using spaces meant for the opposite sex.

The idea of a man "passing" as a woman means that he's successfully disguised his sex - and that doesn't make his entry to these spaces better; it makes it horrifying.

StellaAndCrow · 05/02/2026 12:41

People talk about "good faith transition" (vs. the rest) but I'm finding it increasingly hard to see any transition as "good faith", particularly if it means using spaces meant for the opposite sex.

The idea of a man "passing" as a woman means that he's successfully disguised his sex - and that doesn't make his entry to these spaces better; it makes it horrifying. The fact that some men men don't immediately see this just shows that they don't understand women's experiences at all.

StellaAndCrow · 05/02/2026 12:41

People talk about "good faith transition" (vs. the rest) but I'm finding it increasingly hard to see any transition as "good faith", particularly if it means using spaces meant for the opposite sex.

The idea of a man "passing" as a woman means that he's successfully disguised his sex - and that doesn't make his entry to these spaces better; it makes it horrifying. The fact that some men men don't immediately see this just shows that they don't understand women's experiences at all.

StellaAndCrow · 05/02/2026 12:41

People talk about "good faith transition" (vs. the rest) but I'm finding it increasingly hard to see any transition as "good faith", particularly if it means using spaces meant for the opposite sex.

The idea of a man "passing" as a woman means that he's successfully disguised his sex - and that doesn't make his entry to these spaces better; it makes it horrifying. The fact that some men men don't immediately see this just shows that they don't understand women's experiences at all.

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/02/2026 12:42

AnSolas · 05/02/2026 12:38

@Keeptoiletssafe
Keeptoiletssafe · Today 12:07
BUT, precisely because of the call for inclusivity, OnePost is advocating for all provision to be mixed sex. Which is the common paradox. I have never come across a regulated mixed sex design that is not completely private.

He was not advocating for mixed sex design in the OPs childs school.

He was advocating that males are given access to the female only single sex provision and that girls who object are removed and given alternative provision.

With that advocy the by special request and vetting male provision has to be in what should be a female only single sex space and include girls.

Ah a slight nuance. So boys, boys and girls, girls and boys, girls then?

StellaAndCrow · 05/02/2026 12:42

Oops, glitch! Shall I say it again 😆

Datun · 05/02/2026 12:42

StellaAndCrow · 05/02/2026 12:40

People talk about "good faith transition" (vs. the rest) but I'm finding it increasingly hard to see any transition as "good faith", particularly if it means using spaces meant for the opposite sex.

The idea of a man "passing" as a woman means that he's successfully disguised his sex - and that doesn't make his entry to these spaces better; it makes it horrifying.

Exactly.

You think it's a female only intimate space and then you find out that a man in disguise has been there all along.

horrifying is the right word

Swipe left for the next trending thread