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.

Religious reasons should cut it. There are enough misogynistic religions to choose from that segregate men & women.

A good example of a single sex service that doesn’t involve getting undressed would be a taxi service for women only. Another would be a women only hotel.

And as always with the TRAs the focus in on toilets. Because complaining about women only changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, rape crisis centres etc sounds a lot worse.

Thats what the Supreme Court was about - the fact that a MAN was running Edinburgh rape crisis and there was no woman only
raoe support. He told women who wanted a female only service to “reframe their trauma”

fuck off

"People don't want me using public [toilets] bathrooms", "Government is taking away my rights"
is typical fear-mongering hyperbole, it belongs with 'the most marginalised' and 'literal genocide'.

It's a very obvious tactic - fostering a sense of constant existential danger looming over transpeople, resulting in hypervigilance and exaggerated responses to non-existent threats.

I'm sure most transpeople are sussed enough to see it for what it is, but unfortunately there are a lot of vulnerable and suggestible transpeople as well - young people in particular, but not solely them - who buy into the hyperbole.

It could just be dismissed with an eyeroll as immature nonsense, but it has serious consequences:
If you believe the hype that you are the most oppressed, the most marginalised, that you daren't leave your house, that you are not allowed us any public toilet, that people want you dead, etc., every form of 'resistance' to your 'oppression' is justifiable.

That means verbal and physical abuse of women, threatened or actual violence including rape and murder, 'arm the dolls', delight in women's suffering as in HH's response to AW's murder - all 'justified' because of the programme of transphobic annihilation that's going on.... allegedly.

It's a blatant tactic, easy to spot, but it's also a dangerous one.

In reality, as we all know, there are huge sections of the population who need more toilet provision and daren’t go out like the elderly and disabled who rightly have a real distress about not being able to ‘hold on’.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg92nl5w25o

The Hostel I use in London has a female only floor, they always known what a woman is, even before the SC Judgement.
St Christophers if anyone is interested.

Good points. For example, an Islamic bookshop for Muslim women. But that would be based on "religion", as you mentioned, not "bookshop" or "women". Wouldn't it?

And why would any man want to enter such a place, anyway (hmm why, indeed)? But, that would mean they would have the right to not hire a man who wanted to work there. But the exclusion would be based on religious belief, not sex?

So that would not be a proportionate means to achieving this legitimate aim (women's bookshop). It would be a proportionate means to achieving a different legitimate aim (Muslim women's space that just happens to be a bookshop)?

I'm getting confused.

Sorry, OP, I just realized we are no longer talking about the film. Complete derail! Apologies.

That's all right! I just wanted to draw attention to how the film tries to indoctrinate children with TRA ideology. I hope the people will be able to help their children see through the film's fallacious arguments.

He absolutely hasnt misunderstood. It's deliberate.

Heartstopper had this in one of the earlier series too where Elle (main trans character) went on a radio show to talk about art and then the presenters started talking about trans rights.

I have such mixed feelings about Heartstopper.

One the one hand, season 1 in particular, is such a sweet gay love story that I feel like a lot of gay kids would benefit from seeing.

On the other hand, Alice Osman (author) seems fantastically bonkers. She writes about school like she never actually went to one. And all of the queer stuff is cringeworthy.

Reminds me of the BBC’s Doctors, which ran for over two decades and in recent years has been pure TRA propaganda, adding in furries, non binary etc and apparently basing a villain character on Graham Linehan. And to an extent also Hollyoaks, where massive unit of a man “Sally” goes to a women’s prison and is terrorised by terfy female inmates.

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.

But the point is this hasn't been done in a court of law explicitly for toilets yet. Case law is required for that.

???

No it isn’t.

The law is very clearly stated in the equality act, and the clarification from FWS at the Supreme Court.

Services are not allowed to discriminate against any protected characteristic except where discrimination (in a neutral sense of the word) is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

One example of a “legitimate aim” is the use of single sex facilities to protect the privacy, safety and dignity of females from the presence of males when they are dealing with private bodily functions.

Providing single sex spaces is the proportionate means - female people are half of the population and it is reasonable to assume that the majority of them do not want to come across a male person in such a space.

”Case by case” is situation specific eg. Provision of toilets in shopping centre for example. If the owners of the centre want to provide separate sex spaces alongside other options, the equality act allows this act of discrimination because it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

Once the single sex space is established, there is no “case by case” assessment of each male person who wants to come in.

You seem to be suggesting that we need case law to establish that males do not have the right to access services for females on an individual basis.

This is bollocks.

You are basically saying male people should carry on using the female spaces and services because individual women can’t physically prevent this in moment but will have to complain to the service provider for not enforcing the rules, and then take them to court. This sounds a bit like using male power to make women put up with situations they don’t want. All a bit VAWG.

I don’t know what “case law” you are hoping for? The service provider can refuse service to anyone who is repeatedly making a nuisance of themselves.

RIP Silver Moon bookshop (note the section about the cafe)

It is the next pivot that we are seeing. It is the ‘but wait, the EA2010 has to be challenged for toilet usage before any male person should be expected to respect female people’s needs to single sex spaces!’ after all the rhetoric such as ‘it is not against the law because it is not a ‘crime’’ style statements.

Of course, those statements ignore the lawful actions available to exclude male people such as employment disciplinary action, organisations banning people from using the premises that those organisations control and then a range of charges that police forces can use if needed if a crime has happened.

However, it is the latest pivot to try to dismiss the guidance.

What provisions do you not consider to be covered by sex segregation again?

List them and clearly list the reasons why they are likely to fail a challenge on the basis of proportionality?

Perhaps you should start giving details rather than simply repeating this claim of yours across multiple threads.

Interesting. I'm a total feminist, partic gc last 10 years and no longer a trans-ally in any form or shape, but i really like Heartstopper. It is a little bit 1 person from each category of the letter brigade, so lazy in that way. The characters are really sweet and it does show mid-late teens quite well. I shall be watching the film with DC. Hope its not as bad as your DD said!

So what you're saying is: Trans people can still break the law but if nobody stops them then there will be no consequences for them, despite this having clear effects on women.

I see.

It's like a campaign for drink driving, on the basis that if you are not stopped by the police then you will probably get away with it.

Yep.

Or that you can run all the red lights that you want to if you don’t get caught.

Or that it is not a crime if you park wherever you want. Imagine telling someone when you park them in across their dropped kerb that it isn’t ’illegal’ as you just walk off and leave your car only to come back and not only find your car towed at your expense but a windscreen covered with parking infringement notices.

Apparently, only criminal laws have to be obeyed in some people’s minds. Oh… no hang on… it has pivoted now to ‘the law is not yet challenged’ so therefore male people can still do what they want.

It all amounts to ‘male people do what that want !’

Now… where exactly is McCloud’s ECHR claim? It has been 18 months.

What? You don't believe in asexuality. The feminist board is the most hypocritical echo chamber I have witnessed. Always in for a good laugh 😂

i believe there are people who don't want or need sex

I don't believe they suffer any kind of discrimination except in their own heads abd their cultural appropriation of the genuine discrimination faced by LGB and yes T ppl is ridiculous

given Alice's age I assume she spent a lot of time on tumblr

To claim asexual people are 'appropriating' the 'genuine discrimination' of LGB and T people is wildly naive and uneducated. Asexuality faces systemic erasure, medical pathologization, and corrective violence. The absolute irony is that you are using the exact same cruel, dismissive 'it's all in your head/just a Tumblr trend' talking points against aces that bigots use to invalidate trans people. It is hilarious watching women on this board act like they are the ultimate marginalized group and the arbiters of suffering, all while gatekeeping identity and proving my exact point about what a hypocritical echo chamber this place is.

Could you describe exactly how not wanting to have sex with anyone at all leads to a person being oppressed?

I’m open to hearing about it, because when I’ve read similar claims before they’ve just been trumped up hyperbole. If you can explain, I’m interested.