Assigned female at birth

Instant acceptance of a child who says they are trans, or says they are the opposite sex, is not safeguarding.

But if you mean do I see the “someones” as facilitators, then yes I do.

I do too.

Opinions don't really matter on this one.

You either follow the training or you risk the mental health of young people and your own job.

Secondary schools are often able to provide gender neutral toilets and changing spaces and most trans young people will choose those but they have the right to use the toilets that align with their gender and saying they don't isn't following safeguarding.

There really isn't any argument there. Unless you are saying that all children should not be safeguarded in favour of a majority. Which is legally discrimination.

they (trans children) have the right to use the toilets that align with their gender and saying they don't isn't following safeguarding.

Why isn't it?
How do you know that a boy who says he's a transgirl won't be a risk to the girls or that a girl who says she's a transboy won't be at risk in the boys toilet?
Bearing in mind that sexual assaults in schools are increasing all the time.
Also bearing in mind that sex & gender are not the same thing.

Safeguarding is complex. It can’t be reduced to the assumption that any boy declaring themselves to be a girl, can’t possibly be a threat to others.

trisher

Mollygo

Doodledog

Whether or not trisher ever intended to go in person, or decides to view the event online has nothing that I can see to do with the accusation that I support violence against transpeople (or anyone else for that matter). I do not, and never have, and I find the accusation offensive.

It is offensive and untrue and they will know it. It’s another lie like TWAW.

I have just taken part in a safeguarding course, which included the dangers of being a facilitator.
In relation to my work, it mentioned facilitating abuse of children by not tackling the possible causes, conditions and opportunities for abuse, by not being aware it may be occurring or if we ignore signs of abuse in the children we teach.

It isn’t sufficient to say that you would never condone harm of a child, mental or physical or just to acknowledge it happens. In order not to be a facilitator you must tackle the opportunities for abuse and identify potential abusers.

I sat there thinking, it isn’t sufficient for “someone” to say they don’t condone violence done by TRA and some TW or the cheating by some tw in female sport, or the harm done to females by allowing TW in female safe spaces.
In order not to be a facilitator, the “someones” must also acknowledge that certain conditions provide opportunities for that violence or harm to occur. e.g. Refusing to give support for safe spaces for women on the grounds that TW can be vulnerable too is being a facilitator for harm to women.

FFS are you now equating women with children? How does that help? It's the infantalising of women that led to a lot of the restrictions put upon them.
I have always supported the law as it stands. The fact that I won't victimise transwomen to suit you just means I recognise people matter and no one should be abused.

How on earth does this equate to infantilising women?

FarNorth

^they (trans children) have the right to use the toilets that align with their gender and saying they don't isn't following safeguarding.^

Why isn't it?
How do you know that a boy who says he's a transgirl won't be a risk to the girls or that a girl who says she's a transboy won't be at risk in the boys toilet?
Bearing in mind that sexual assaults in schools are increasing all the time.
Also bearing in mind that sex & gender are not the same thing.

Because there is already a legal basis to protect single sex spaces which is done on a case by case basis and that must be a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Which means that if it was proven that trans children were causing issues in children's toilets then the provider could legally change that provision.

However the opposite is true and it is more unsafe for a trans person who presents as female to use a male bathroom.

So here we are. That's where we stand, within the law.

Iam64
How on earth does this equate to infantilising women? Well it doesn’t.

If you take something which is delivered as training for dealing with children and translate that, without any sort of differentiation, into policies for women you are effectively equating women with children. You are infantilising them.

I do wish people who spout the law knew what they were talking about. It is gender reassignment that is the protected characteristic not gender identity in the Equality Act. Unfortunately too many accepted Stonewall's deliberate misrepresentation. Sex is also a protected characteristic.

That’s nice trisher.

You are twisting my words again. Naughty girl.
I did differentiate. I pointed out that if you as an adult, facilitate denial of safe spaces for women by saying they should be open to males, rather than supporting provision of safe spaces for AHF, you are a facilitator.
If you make excuses for men (sorry, people assigned male at birth, who cheat by taking places in female sports instead of acknowledging it’s wrong, or producing endless deviations to excuse them, you’re a facilitator.
OK, so it is too difficult for “someone” to understand and for that I’m sorry.

I am atually fascinated by this idea that because a few people are actually abusive in order to keep others safe we need to ban all those people.
The example that came to my mind was priests. There have been quite a few child molesting priests. Does that mean that all priests should be kept away from children? Do we regard all priests as offenders?

Are you saying there should be no sex segregation.

trisher

I am atually fascinated by this idea that because a few people are actually abusive in order to keep others safe we need to ban all those people.
The example that came to my mind was priests. There have been quite a few child molesting priests. Does that mean that all priests should be kept away from children? Do we regard all priests as offenders?

Why do you think there was sex segregation in the first place?

Sex segregation

Is that like race segregation?

And no, I don't see all priests as offenders, but equally, I wouldn't allow them in female changing rooms (assuming that they were male - as in RC priests - in case this is a 'gotcha' moment), or in other places where women prefer to be amongst others of the same sex.

Is that how you view it VS.

I would hope that safeguards have been tightened around priests being alone with a child, just as they have for teachers.

the opposite is true and it is more unsafe for a trans person who presents as female to use a male bathroom.

And how about a person who presents as a boy, and is known to be female, who uses the boys ' toilet?

'case by case' isn't in the legislation.

A 'legitimate aim' could be to protect dignity and privacy, especially for female pupils. So I suggest we need to be providing more privacy instead of less.

I just wouldn't use that word. Negative connotations

'case by case' isn't in the legislation.

IANAL, but it can't be, can it? Laws have to be watertight, or people won't know if they are breaking them. There can be mitigating circumstances that are decided on after the event, but there can't be laws that apply in some cases but not in others.

I agree that safeguarding should be (and probably has been) tightened around priests being alone with children and vulnerable women, too. Which is not to say that most priests are potentially harmful, but is to say that we have seen what happens when those who do have nefarious intent are able to access all areas.

Do we regard all priests as offenders? asks trisher.
I don’t know. I don’t personally, any more than I regard all males including TW as predators and harmful to AHF.
But is trisher using ‘we’ as a blanket term, or referring to herself by the royal “we” or just TTP?
Who knows? Well “someone” probably does and will be along to tell me in a while.

https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202203/medium-251974-screenshot-20220325-213611.jpg%3C/span%3E https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202203/medium-163910-screenshot-20220325-213550.jpg%3C/span%3E

From the government equalities office

FarNorth

I would hope that safeguards have been tightened around priests being alone with a child, just as they have for teachers.

So you would trust the law to protect children but not to protect women?

Doodledog

And no, I don't see all priests as offenders, but equally, I wouldn't allow them in female changing rooms (assuming that they were male - as in RC priests - in case this is a 'gotcha' moment), or in other places where women prefer to be amongst others of the same sex.

But they aren't a danger to women just to children.