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.

As for toilets and spaces, trans people have been using the facilities that match their lived gender for decades without a single issue. The reality is that the vast majority of women in the real world don't care, aren't checking people's birth certificates at the door, and just want to wash their hands in peace. This is an online obsession, not a real-world problem.

You have zero idea or evidence what women in the real world think.
It's just you assuming what they think.

Well, as you and the rest of the TRA’s know, we aren’t doing that. We are treating trans identified males the same way we are treating all males. It’s called safeguarding.

As ever, it comes back to toilets with the TRAs.

Obsessed.

I said many bad actors not full. No not every trans person is a bad actor but enough are. Not all men are bad actors we are still allowed single sex spaces for privacy, dignity and safety.

Laughter is also a sign of finding something funny.

Oh dear,I meant to quote something from up thread about laughter being a defensive response to bring “called out”.

But didn’t manage it!

This is not about 'weaponising the actions' of one person to create hostility.

This is about safeguarding.

Women have had single sex spaces for their safety (among other things) because men commit an overwhelming number of assaults.

IF there was any justification for letting one group of men into women's single sex spaces (I mean, there isn't, because men and men, they have no place in women's single SEX provision, but if there was) ...

You'd have to prove beyond all doubt that this group of men do not commit assaults.

Isla Bryson is a glaring contradiction therefore. And he's not the only offender.

So he's brought up to illustrate that this is a foolhardy and irresponsible approach to women's safety. It is totally out of order to treat women as acceptable collateral damage.

There are a lot of replies here, but most of them seem to come back to the same flawed arguments.

First, it’s pretty ironic to accuse me of being “obsessed with toilets” when I was responding to a comment that specifically argued trans people should have to use separate facilities. I didn’t introduce the topic — you did.

Second, polling consistently shows that most women in the real world support trans rights and are not living in constant fear about public bathrooms. That isn’t just an assumption; it’s something reflected in actual research, not just online debates and outrage cycles.

Finally, the argument about safeguarding gets things backwards. Genuine safeguarding is about assessing individual circumstances and real risks, not using a small number of extreme cases to justify excluding an entire group of people. Trans people have become a convenient political scapegoat, while many of the real issues affecting women — including inequality, violence, and discrimination — continue to be ignored.

As a woman who has experienced sexism and the effects of patriarchy, I understand how deeply these issues still affect women. But supporting trans people does not undermine women’s rights, and disagreement with this argument does not mean someone hates women. Turning a harmless teen romance or ordinary people wanting to use public facilities into some kind of threat narrative only creates more division.

People who have never had to navigate the world as a trans person may not understand that experience firsthand, but that doesn’t mean their voices should outweigh the people who live it. Feminism should be about challenging systems of oppression, not targeting another vulnerable
minority.

No, your position is totally flawed.

Polling, when consumers are asked more specific questions that are less open to misinterpretation, are overwhelmingly in favour of women's spaces being upheld.

Safeguarding is absolutely about taking blanket positions. How on earth could safeguarding be managed on a case by case basis? That's completely unworkable. People have to have clear and reasonable rules/boundaries to work within.

And let me ask you this. If women have single sex spaces for their own safety and dignity, why on earth would an exception be made for one group of males? What's the justification for that?

And why not other groups of males who you could genuinely show are less of a threat to women? Like elderly men for example?

Isla Bryson isn’t going to be “rightfully imprisoned” forever, is he? He’ll be out in a few years. Do you think he should go into a women’s hostel after like convicted trans paedophile, who tried to rape a little girl in supermarket toilets, Katie Dolatowski did?

Also, before “Isla” went into prison, he used the magic power of “trans identity” to coerce a class of young women on the beautician course he was on into getting naked for spray tanning, even though they expressed that they were uncomfortable with it.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-beauty-students-asked-strip-29059044

Exactly. Silly argument based on the logic that you should never have any safeguarding at all because it’s morally wrong.

@OneUniquePearlFish

Genuine safeguarding is about assessing individual circumstances and real risks, not using a small number of extreme cases to justify excluding an entire group of people.

Actually, it is. All men are excluded from female single-sex spaces because of the actions of a few. That's exactly how safeguarding works.

Feminism should be about challenging systems of oppression, not targeting another vulnerable minority.

Then let's unite in targetting male oppression, by asking for additional spaces for trans people, away from both men (whom they fear) and women (who deserve to keep their own spaces). Would that be all right with you?

Polling shows that most women prefer single sex toilets, without any men in. They are quite definite when the question is asked about men who identify as women who have not had full physical gender reassignment.

It’s just bad telly, if you’re happy for “LGBT+ youth” to be represented by such average quality, good for you.

Personally, it was like watching a dumbed down version of Hollyoaks for over an hour.

There are plenty of barbershops that will quite pointedly state that they don't cut women's hair - even if they only want a crew cut. They may have the fear that a woman who is unhappy with her haircut could lead to far greater kickback and negative repercussions for them than a man who might be more likely to just shrug it off and not be all that bothered...

However, I rather think that their main reasoning is just that they want a male-only space - whether it's the topics of conversation, the content of the magazines on the table or whatever... it's not an issue when there are plenty of equivalent facilities available for women only.

The tired TRA trope of "they want to ban me from using public toilets" is so obviously ludicrous. It's as ridiculous as saying that the government is seeking to deny your secondary-aged child an education, because they are no longer allowed at the primary school and need to move to their place at the correct one; or that my NDN wants to see me homeless and destitute out on the streets because she won't let me move in to her house, when my own identical home is right next door, but I just don't like the number on the door or something.

No, you said "As for toilets and spaces, trans people have been using the facilities that match their lived gender for decades without a single issue. The reality is that the vast majority of women in the real world don't care"

That is a massive assumption on your part.
You are assuming there was not a single issue.
How would you know?
How would any issues have been reported? What were the mechanisms for that in the past, particularly pre-internet?
Do you think women reporting any issues decades ago would have been believed?
How do you know what our mothers and grandmothers thought about men in their spaces? Did anyone consult them?

This is clearly a case of "I haven't heard about any, so none happened".
It is purely your assumption.
A flawed one.

Genuine safeguarding is about assessing individual circumstances and real risks, not using a small number of extreme cases to justify excluding an entire group of people.

No, you are wrong. This is absolutely one of the aspects of effective safeguarding.

To spell it out for you: a male relative of mine coaches a girl's sport team. He had to have all the checks, DBS etc. He wouldn't hurt a fly but he didn't get all indignant about being checked out. He understood it's because some men are not as lovely as he is. And lovely though he is and even though the checks came back with no issues, he doesn't expect to go in the girls' changing rooms with them.

By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman… the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.

That is what a judge wrote. If you honestly believe that a TW using a facility for women has no impact on how women feel then you need to give your head a massive wobble.

OneUniquePearlFish

If you think that it's a tiny number of bad actors, have a look at:

terfisaslur.com

and

transcribe.co.uk

Sorry, can't do links on the phone.

Can you link to these polls showing that women are happy to have men who are trans in their toilets?

Because in this yougov poll 55% said men who are trans should not be allowed in women's toilets and only 25% said they should. It was even higher for changing rooms, 58% against and 25% for.

So I'd say the majority of women definitely do not want men that are trans in their toilets. The percentages would probably be even wider of course if the question used the words 'men who are trans' rather than 'transgender woman'. Many people still think that a transgender woman is a biological woman who is transgender. The language used is not clear to all, I've frequently seen people on MN think that a transgender woman is a woman who is trans.

https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425

Yes. There was widespread misunderstanding in the past that "transwoman" meant a woman who presents as a man. It still confuses people to this day.

That lack of clarity has benefitted a LOT of people.

Returning to the film, there's an example of the damage trans ideology is doing to LGB visibility soon after that continuous... fade out the background music, fade out the other voices, turn up Elle's megaphone leading the chant... "What do we want?" "Trans rights." "When do we want it?" "Now!" during the Pride march. Over half of the Pride scene was taken up by that chanting and I think every one of the main characters was seen joining in.

Elle's long-term boyfriend, Tao, asks on the way to the gay club after the march "Are straight people allowed in? I feel like I'm not going to be allowed in". He gets a reply implying he's 'an ally'. Only he isn't. He's a young man called Tao who has been in a relationship with a young man called Elle since Season 1. These two males have both been at a march supposedly celebrating LGB relationships and visibility. After 24 episodes and a film neither of them and none of their friends has addressed the reality that they are in a gay relationship and have been for a long time. It's the lack of clarity thing again - 'transing the gay away'.

And it's yet one more example of why the LGB needs to be separated from T.

lgbt+ community

I have not seen the film. Is it about lesbian, gay and bisexual people as well as transgender people? And, who would the +++s be?

Thanks for the references, but I can't find the second one - all it seems to bring up (and related searches) are everyday services for office transcriptions?

I think Sinnerboys post is a typo for “transcrime”