Heartstopper Forever film TRA propaganda: "People don't want me using public bathrooms", "Government is taking away my rights"

[HelenaRavenclaw]

The final instalment of Netflix's Heartstopper is here, and it's a film. The TRA propaganda is hardly unsurprising given that it's written by Alice Oseman the arch-TRA...but it's disgusting how these people are using a teen film to twist the truth and sensationalize things to get pity from the masses. "People don't want [trans people] to use public bathrooms": how convenient indeed to leave out the "intended for the opposite sex"! (Like saying "People don't want me to use money", leaving out the "stolen from others" part.) "Government is taking away my rights": what rights don't trans people have? (Does being poor give someone the right to simply grab other people's money without their consent? Doesn't the fact that laws exist and are enforced in society mean that the government is taking away rights from everyone, such as the right to break into one's neighbour's house, or the right to take home things from a store without paying?)

I hope that every sane adult whose children watch this film (and previous seasons of the show) will sit down with the kids and explain how deliberately deceptive and illogical the TRA propaganda is.

Deceptive & illogical propaganda is indeed.

It's not illegal yet for trans people to use their preferred toilet. It's only possibly illegal for service providers to allow them which won't even be known for certain until case law clarifies this. If you have a single-sex space a trans person can still go into that single-sex space, but if someone complains, they can bring out a sex discrimination claim or the organisation can exclude that person, but that doesn’t happen automatically. Even if you do have a single-sex space, the exclusion must be proportionate, which means that the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person. Those rights still exist. The law hasn’t changed on that.

No, you have misunderstood. The “proportionality” requirement applies to the facility being single sex in the first place. It doesn’t apply on a person-by-person basis.

i think its great that the lgbt+ community can get this level of representation. on the other hand, hearstopper is a cringefest that isnt worth watching. my dd watched it last night at a sleepover and said it was rubbish but i definitely dont think it is deceptive at all, just bad cinema

The rules for excluding a transwoman from a women-only space are exactly the same as for any other man. Users can ask him to leave. The service provider can ask him to leave, have security remove him from the space, or from the establishment altogether, refuse him service at the establishment on this or future occasions, or rescind his membership where applicable.

There is no relevant proportionality test.

Service providers who fail to police women-only services can be sued for indirect sex-discrimination against women. Or at least get a reputation for running an establishment where women have no safety or privacy.

Men who go into the women's toilets and refuse to leave can be guilty of a public order offence.

At work, a male employee entering the women's toilets or changing rooms would be a disciplinary matter, unless the employer wants to fall foul of H&SE rules.

Thank you Monster and FFS Heartstopper. No wonder it’s bad if it just spews out propaganda. I honestly think that the first creative team to tell the story of what really happens with children and young people - the grooming online (cracking an egg), the conversion of LGB, the pressure on young lesbians to have sex with men to validate those men, the lies doctors tell about pause buttons and suicide risk, the many side effects, the cult, the breakdowns caused by so forcibly pushing lies, the detransitioning and the desistance - will have a blockbuster on their hands. There are so many harrowing and dramatic stories here (real people I know). Instead the fourth raters simply repeat the same storyline (I’m sad, I became myself, someone bullied me, my friends stepped in, I’m happy).

Even if you do have a single-sex space, the exclusion must be proportionate, which means that the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person.

This is nonsense. There is no requirement for exclusion of the other sex to be proportionate. It's always permissible to have a single sex space just because you want to. Privacy & propriety are the obvious reason to exclude on the basis of sex.

There is no requirement for counterbalancing between the protected characteristic of sex & the PC of gender reassignment as they are different PCs. Likewise there is no counterbalancing between the PCs of disability & sex or race & sex etc.

”Just because you want to” isn’t enough. You couldn’t say “my shop doesn’t serve women” for example.

But once a single-sex space is established as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim (privacy and dignity being a legitimate aim, for example) that’s it - you don’t have to justify the exclusion of each man individually.

Careful, now I think you're both wrong! Though IANAL and it would be good if one of ours would comment. Whisperingwaters's suggestion that there's something to be done on a person-by-person basis is wrong, but also, I think PrettyDamnCosmic exaggerates here:

This is nonsense. There is no requirement for exclusion of the other sex to be proportionate. It's always permissible to have a single sex space just because you want to. Privacy & propriety are the obvious reason to exclude on the basis of sex.

Single sex "space" is not really a concept in the law for obvious reasons, and we usually use the term in a space-time sense - somewhere men are not allowed to be at a particular time, such as a room where a meeting is taking place or a service is being provided. You can indeed have a single sex association just because you want to, but you can't have a single sex service (provided to the public or a section of the public - e.g., not just to members of an association - for payment or not) just because you want to. You have to satisfy this part of the EA:

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

“It's not illegal yet for trans people to use their preferred toilet. It's only possibly illegal for service providers to allow them which won't even be known for certain until case law clarifies this.”

Really? Well then, I guess it won’t be long and the test cases will be flooding in! Or… will it be more that the this line will be rolled out for years but no one will bring a case because those pushing this line don’t actually want it tested at all. They want to continue to attempt to make the law seem unclear so that a group of male people can continue to act in a way that harms female people

Even if you do have a single-sex space, the exclusion must be proportionate, which means that the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person.

This is only true if the 'complainer' and the trans person are both the same sex, for example if the presence of a passing transman is likely to be frightening to female service users (in which case the transman must be provided with an alternative, so as not to be treated unfavourably overall relative to non-trans persons, by being left without useable provision).

If the trans person is not the right sex for the single-sex service, there is no proportionality issue.

For anyone lurking here, this ⬆is complete BS from start to finish. A completely false reinterpretation of the law. All of it.

It's not illegal yet for trans people to use their preferred toilet
"Trans people" are required to use the public toilets that correspond to their biological sex. Legally. Simple.

It's only possibly illegal for service providers to allow them which won't even be known for certain until case law clarifies this. FALSE.

"proportionate "

A single -sex space is based on biological sex. There is no "proportionate." That part of it has already been decided. If there needs to be a space based on sex, it is provided on the basis of biological sex. End of.

If you have a single-sex space a trans person can still go into that single-sex space, but if someone complains, they can bring out a sex discrimination claim or the organisation can exclude that person, but that doesn’t happen automatically.
Disingenuous nonsense. Of course it doesn't happen "automatically" like some kind of magic. If no one else is there, nothing happens. If someone else is there and complains, by law the wrong-sex person must be removed, or the service provider will be breaking the law.

(put another way: if you're driving and not wearing a seatbelt and no one notices, nothing happens to you, but you're still breaking the law!)

THE LAW
If a service provider has a single-sex female space, they must not allow a biological male to use it. They can be sued if they do, doesn't matter who complains or how many complain. The fact that they are breaking the law is enough.

Workplaces must provide single -sex spaces, again based on biological sex only. They should also provide universal/accessible spaces (mixed-sex) and there are regulations about how these should be provided, built and maintained.

the rights of whoever wants to be in a single-sex space, if they’re complaining, have to be counterbalanced against the rights of a trans person. Those rights still exist. FALSE

The "balancing" has already been done before the space was created. That's the "proportionate" bit. If it's deemed necessary to have a single-sex space, then that's the end of the argument. There is no "counterbalancing " to be done. The space is single-sex, based on biological sex. Done.

The law hasn’t changed on that.

CORRECT. The law is the Equality Act 2010, which has not changed since 2010. The Supreme Court ruling in 2025 confirmed that "sex" is biological.

Workplace laws govern single-sex spaces for employers.

Long story short, everything Whisperingwaters has said is twisted, false nonsense.

Hope this helps the lurkers, and, thanks again to Whisperingwaters for prompting me to lay all this out in detail. Now it can be used to debunk future ridiculous posts!

ed sp

Howse! (do I win a prize?)

In fairness, it's a low hurdle. The desire for sex segregation in situations of undress is universal, including amongst TRAs, who demand only that they be made a specific exception to the general rule, like cleaners, emergency workers, or babies. The law does not allow for such an exception, for the reasons set out in FWS.

I see the writers of heartstopper have arrived already

Alice Oseman the actual writer is a they/them who claims to be aromantic and asexual - but of course she is and does

”Just because you want to” isn’t enough. You couldn’t say “my shop doesn’t serve women” for example.

You can actually. You can have a lingerie shop that doesn't serve men.
You could have a bookshop that doesn’t serve women provided you had a parallel bookshop that doesn't serve men. Privacy, dignity & propriety are always a valid reason for separating the sexes.

You can actually. You can have a lingerie shop that doesn't serve men.
Because there's additional justification - for the privacy and dignity of customers who will be in a state of undress. A bakery that doesn't serve men would be a lot harder to justify in terms of proportionate means to legitimate aims. Conceivably if there was an ultra religious community you were trying to serve where women would not feel able to buy bread freely with men there.
Point is though, the proportionality test happens at the point of do we provide a women only service at all. Not at the individual level of we all agreed this is a women only service but should we make an exception for this particular man.

Alice oseman is the arch tra? Come on 🤣🤣🤣

Point is though, the proportionality test happens at the point of do we provide a women only service at all. Not at the individual level of we all agreed this is a women only service but should we make an exception for this particular man.

Good, clear explanation, thanks. Better than all my waffling!

This is not right.

In providing eg q female only space, the legitimate aim is the privacy, dignity and/or safety of women. The proportionate means of achieving that is the exclusion of all males, including those who claim to be “transwomen”. It is not assessed on a case by case basis

I presuming heartstopper means being in love not a cardiac arrest?

If you were having a cardiac arrest, I have academic studies to show how your chances of surviving very much depend in you are seen or heard collapsing. As 11% happen in toilets (the sudden need to defecate can be a sign, people rush to the toilet when they feel ill, the Valsalva maneuver), being in a design that has a door gap to show people nearby that you have collapsed, can save your life. The only design permitted to have door gaps is one in a single sex environment in this country. It can be up to 15cm floor to door.

edit: the logical conclusion (re the thread headline), if you think you are having a cardiac arrest, is not to use a ‘public bathroom’ if only mixed sex designs are available, unless you have someone with you.

It is always a legitimate to have a single sex service for reasons of privacy, dignity, propriety etc where it gets more contentious is if you provide a service for only one sex not two parallel services one for males & another for females. So my previous examples of a lingerie shop for women is OK but a bookshop for men next door to a bookshop for women is OK too.

Separate bookshops for men and women would require some quite specific circumstances to justify, as there isn't in normal circumstances a privacy or dignity reason to have sex segregated book buying.

But agree everyday common sense reasons like people will be partly undressed in the facility are quite adequate to justify separate sex services.

but a bookshop for men next door to a bookshop for women is OK too.

A bookshop exclusively for biological women? Without exception? For all employees, all customers? I'm not sure that would hold up in court, unless the two bookshops carried exactly the same stock, all the time, without exception (which would be nearly impossible). Otherwise, you might be discriminating against one sex or the other.

I think making a case for an exclusive single-sex bookshop would be a hard sell to the courts, although I could be wrong. You'd have to be pretty clear exactly why you were excluding men from the women's bookshop, for one thing. What's the justification? Dignity, perhaps, if you could prove that men were making women feel uncomfortable in a lesbian bookshop?

It would make an interesting court case.

snap!