Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
Thread gallery
29
KnottyAuty · 26/05/2026 14:53

£1billion for school sport and drama. But no single sex changing rooms so girls can presumably piss off and let the lads have at it?

ETA oops forgot the link:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1298866902456522

Does this government have no sense of irony?

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 26/05/2026 17:05

KnottyAuty · 26/05/2026 14:53

£1billion for school sport and drama. But no single sex changing rooms so girls can presumably piss off and let the lads have at it?

ETA oops forgot the link:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1298866902456522

Does this government have no sense of irony?

Edited

I have no doubt in my mind that individual schools are going to have to be dragged through the legal process to force them to provide toilets and changing rooms that meet the regulations

it's going to take FOIs, people who REALLY know the code well, and coordination between interested parties to make this happen. I despair at how much time and effort we will have to put in, even after all of the big wins in court.

OP posts:
anyolddinosaur · 28/05/2026 15:57

One successful court case would make it much easier to pressurise other schools. Some will need to be dragged kicking and screaming to their lawyers but not all.

TeiTetua · 28/05/2026 16:34

I wondered how a solicitor ought to handle a client who insists on pursuing a case where the solicitor has no belief that the client can win. An AI-based search engine came back with this, when the input was, "what are the ethical obligations for a solicitor whose client insists on pursuing a doomed case?"
--------
When a client insists on pursuing a case with limited merit or no legal basis, a solicitor must interrogate the legal and evidential merits of the action and advise the client accordingly, as failing to do so may breach duties to act in the client's best interests and the proper administration of justice.

If the client persists, the solicitor must not pursue improper, unjustified, or unarguable litigation, as this risks wasting public resources and damaging professional reputation. The solicitor should discuss the futility of the case and the potential for adverse cost orders, ensuring the client understands that duties to the court and public interest take precedence over client instructions.

Ultimately, if the client’s instructions irreconcilably conflict with the solicitor’s professional obligations, the solicitor must consider withdrawing from the representation to avoid facilitating abusive or frivolous claims. Solicitors cannot use client instructions as a justification for advancing arguments they do not consider properly arguable or for engaging in strategic lawsuits aimed at stifling public discourse.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 29/05/2026 12:40

TeiTetua · 28/05/2026 16:34

I wondered how a solicitor ought to handle a client who insists on pursuing a case where the solicitor has no belief that the client can win. An AI-based search engine came back with this, when the input was, "what are the ethical obligations for a solicitor whose client insists on pursuing a doomed case?"
--------
When a client insists on pursuing a case with limited merit or no legal basis, a solicitor must interrogate the legal and evidential merits of the action and advise the client accordingly, as failing to do so may breach duties to act in the client's best interests and the proper administration of justice.

If the client persists, the solicitor must not pursue improper, unjustified, or unarguable litigation, as this risks wasting public resources and damaging professional reputation. The solicitor should discuss the futility of the case and the potential for adverse cost orders, ensuring the client understands that duties to the court and public interest take precedence over client instructions.

Ultimately, if the client’s instructions irreconcilably conflict with the solicitor’s professional obligations, the solicitor must consider withdrawing from the representation to avoid facilitating abusive or frivolous claims. Solicitors cannot use client instructions as a justification for advancing arguments they do not consider properly arguable or for engaging in strategic lawsuits aimed at stifling public discourse.

I don't think men who club foxes to death probably have much interest in ethical considerations. Or are you talking about the school? It's remarkable they're so wedded to something clearly not in line with statutory safeguarding guidance or multiple points of law.

Maybe that's why they need the GLP - no other solicitors will take the case?

Edited to add: to be fair to JM he apologise and did say he only killed the fox in order to save his chickens. In supreme irony he seems to not have considered whether the fox identified as a chicken and therefore posed absolutely no risk to the chickens at all.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 29/05/2026 12:46

Link to news article about saving the chickens. Fox-killing lawyer Jolyon Maugham will not be charged, says RSPCA - BBC News

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 29/05/2026 12:52

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 29/05/2026 13:00

He claimed he had not been sure "what else to do" after finding the fox caught up in netting surrounding his family's chickens at his central London home.

I'd imagined some sort of a fair fight with JM prevailing through quick reflexes and ninja skills - turns out the fox was trapped, helpless and he just chose to beat it to death. Not much empathy, a lack of Impulse control and violence inhibition deficit

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 29/05/2026 13:02

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 29/05/2026 13:00

He claimed he had not been sure "what else to do" after finding the fox caught up in netting surrounding his family's chickens at his central London home.

I'd imagined some sort of a fair fight with JM prevailing through quick reflexes and ninja skills - turns out the fox was trapped, helpless and he just chose to beat it to death. Not much empathy, a lack of Impulse control and violence inhibition deficit

It's a bit strange also because if the fox was caught up in netting surely it couldn't get at the chickens so not an immediate risk? I'd personally have evacuated the chickens somewhere else and called an animal welfare charity to extract the fox and provide first aid if needed. We have several around here who do this, often (but not exclusively) for foxes.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 29/05/2026 13:04

I really really want to add this bit but can't edit anymore;

In supreme irony he seems to not have considered whether the fox identified as a chicken and therefore posed absolutely no risk to the chickens at all. (despite being still physically a fox with fox-like rather than chicken-like strength)

murasaki · 29/05/2026 13:05

Wait what, he was wearing fishnet tights too? 😂

EyesOpening · 04/06/2026 14:59

https://nitter.com/michaelpforan/status/2062504054152909043

MyAmpleSheep · 04/06/2026 15:20

The judgment considers in great detail whether single-sex handbasins for the washing of hands are required as well as single-sex toilets, and this appears to hinge on the difference in the applicable regulations (in this case the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967) between "sanitary accomodation" (which includes basins) and "sanitary appliances" (which doesn't).

This is something some posters and I disagreed about, whether (prior to Document T) floor to ceiling toilet cubicles but with mixed-sex common handbasins was permitted or not.

In Scottish schools the judge found that "The “accommodation” which must be segregated according to sex includes not only the flush toilets, but also the wash basins which must be situated near them under Regulation 15(3)."

The court also agreed that [51] girls have more and particular need of hand-washing over boys and that "Girls are therefore at a particular disadvantage having to use unisex toilet areas such as those in the main toilet areas. That is so even where there are individual cubicles with flushing toilets in them marked for girls only, because after relieving themselves they have to walk through a communal area where children may be waiting, with the particular hygiene issues relating to their hands already mentioned, and wash them at wash basins shared by boys" and so mixed-sex hand washing facilities were indirectly discriminatory against girls under the EA2010.

The first point really only applies to Scottish schools, but the second point is applicable everywhere the EA2010 applies, even if not a direct precedent in England and Wales.

Keeptoiletssafe · 04/06/2026 16:04

Hello Ample Sheep! We meet again over basins 😅

MyAmpleSheep · 04/06/2026 16:36

Keeptoiletssafe · 04/06/2026 16:04

Hello Ample Sheep! We meet again over basins 😅

Yes, I know! I think you'll find this judgment very helpful.

MarieDeGournay · 04/06/2026 16:50

Great - a judgment that has actually thought through the reality of terms like individual cubicles... mixed sex spaces... shared handwashing facilities.

It's like somebody visualised a 'first person journey' of a girl going to the toilet and washing her hands, and realised that there's not a lot of use having the toilet part single sex, but then the handwashing part mixed sex.

I look forward to reading it in full. It is headed:
OPINION OF LADY POOLE
Smile
2026csoh52-petition-of-de-and-fg-against-west-lothian-council.pdf

Sometimes the law is great at seeing through slogans and talking sense. It looks like this may be one of those times.

Keeptoiletssafe · 04/06/2026 16:53

MyAmpleSheep · 04/06/2026 16:36

Yes, I know! I think you'll find this judgment very helpful.

I think LS v NHS England was a game changer but all are going well except Kelly v Leonardo which was bizarre.

Devolution doesn't help and the terminology is so confusing. However it was clear in all the building control rules what woman and men meant (otherwise nothing made sense) so FWS was key.

Londonmummy66 · 04/06/2026 17:28

I think LS v NHS England was a game changer but all are going well except Kelly v Leonardo which was bizarre.

Presumably this will be helpful for the Kelly appeal?

Keeptoiletssafe · 04/06/2026 17:47

Londonmummy66 · 04/06/2026 17:28

I think LS v NHS England was a game changer but all are going well except Kelly v Leonardo which was bizarre.

Presumably this will be helpful for the Kelly appeal?

It can’t hurt.

I think they should stop wasting everyone’s time and money and just say Kelly has won. It could be over in 5 mins.

TheInvisibleWorm · 04/06/2026 18:46

MyAmpleSheep · 04/06/2026 15:20

The judgment considers in great detail whether single-sex handbasins for the washing of hands are required as well as single-sex toilets, and this appears to hinge on the difference in the applicable regulations (in this case the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967) between "sanitary accomodation" (which includes basins) and "sanitary appliances" (which doesn't).

This is something some posters and I disagreed about, whether (prior to Document T) floor to ceiling toilet cubicles but with mixed-sex common handbasins was permitted or not.

In Scottish schools the judge found that "The “accommodation” which must be segregated according to sex includes not only the flush toilets, but also the wash basins which must be situated near them under Regulation 15(3)."

The court also agreed that [51] girls have more and particular need of hand-washing over boys and that "Girls are therefore at a particular disadvantage having to use unisex toilet areas such as those in the main toilet areas. That is so even where there are individual cubicles with flushing toilets in them marked for girls only, because after relieving themselves they have to walk through a communal area where children may be waiting, with the particular hygiene issues relating to their hands already mentioned, and wash them at wash basins shared by boys" and so mixed-sex hand washing facilities were indirectly discriminatory against girls under the EA2010.

The first point really only applies to Scottish schools, but the second point is applicable everywhere the EA2010 applies, even if not a direct precedent in England and Wales.

Edited

That is so even where there are individual cubicles with flushing toilets in them marked for girls only, because after relieving themselves they have to walk through a communal area where children may be waiting, with the particular hygiene issues relating to their hands already mentioned, and wash them at wash basins shared by boys" and so mixed-sex hand washing facilities were indirectly discriminatory against girls under the EA2010.

Memories of being 13 and having an absolute period bloodbath at school, and the state of my hands after dealing with it... It infuriates me that teenage girls now would have to just hope that there were no boys at the sinks. It was bad enough being around other girls.

Very pleased to see this judgement, thanks for sharing ❤️

MrsOvertonsWindow · 04/06/2026 18:53

Pleased to see this - especially in Scottish schools where the messaging to girls about their lack of rights to privacy, boundaries and safety has been particularly wicked.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 07/06/2026 16:57

Small update where nothing has happened just yet, stuck in court backlog limbo still.

Very pleased to see the Scottish position. Very.

Also received another card and small package, very very kind of you to send it thank you, I really will get my daughter to do a picture but she is also wrapped up in mocks revision so have to let her prioritise!

OP posts:
KnottyAuty · 08/06/2026 22:48

I hope our package has arrived. The post seems to take ages at the moment

Garble · 08/06/2026 23:46

The Chief Inspector of Ofsted answered my question about single sex spaces in schools this evening, in case it’s of any interest

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/AMA/5538622-mnhq-here-ama-with-ofsted-chief-inspector-sir-martyn-oliver-8th-june-7-9pm?reply=152803804

edited - spelling

Swipe left for the next trending thread