New EHRC guidance for schools

How exactly will the children do their growing up sessions for example?

Who ever wrote this hasn't got a clue about what it's actually like in schools nor how RSE and growing up lessons work.

Yes this is always where it breaks down.

Certainly my son's primary school had a girls who identified as a boy in year 3. Now moved on. I don't know what their policy was. For example, the local swimming pool has sex segregated changing rooms and so they must have had to change in the girls. Or perhaps didn't go swimming.

Are any of the scenarios about a TRANS BOY and the accommodations boys will be expected to make?

Excellent analysis FPFW, thank you once again!

Bang on post and points CharlieParley.

That's an excellent summary from FPFW. I will be writing to my MP - yet again - and asking why guidance in defiance of the equality act that removes so many rights from girls is being foisted on schools.

Fairplay for Women has done a quick briefing on the biggest problems with the draft guidance fairplayforwomen.com/draft_ehrc_schools/

1. SECRETS AND LIES The draft guidance suggests that schools should, if requested, keep a child’s sex secret from teachers and other pupils, and collude in lying about their sex.

“A group of pupils go on a school trip …the school considers the age group, privacy risks from sharing tents and the lack of awareness that the pupil is trans…. The trans pupil is satisfied that her trans status will not be disclosed by the arrangements. “ (page 27)

“School should not give the vaccination to a trans girl but should make suitable arrangements so that, if her birth sex is not widely known, it is not inadvertently revealed.” (page 29).

2. PUSHING GIRLS OUT OF THEIR OWN CHANGING ROOMS The draft guidance says that male children who identify as girls should be allowed to use girls changing rooms and toilets. It suggests that if female children feel uncomfortable in this circumstance, they should be offered the choice of using a separate changing room (such as the disabled facilities).

“trans boys and trans girls can use the single-sex facilities that align with their gender identity if they wish to do so, A trans girl pupil opts to use the girls, changing room, and most of her fellow pupils are happy with this arrangement. However, one pupil is uncomfortable with this arrangement, so chooses to use the private changing room instead.” ( page 15)

3. UNDERMINING FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH The guidance says teachers and other pupils must describe a male child as “she” and a female child as “he” ( or use ‘non-binary’ pronouns like ze, zir). It says that “appropriate steps” should be taken if a person refuses.

“If a pupil has legally changed their name, then the school must use the pupil’s new name and relevant pronoun.” (page 19)

“Concerns about repeated or deliberate use of a previous name or pronoun should be investigated and appropriate steps taken to address the issue” (page 20)

4. NO MORE ALL FEMALE SPORTS The guidance says that schools cannot apply a ‘blanket policy’ of offering female only sports teams or sport competitions.

“If considering excluding a trans pupil as a competitor, schools should consider on a case-by-case basis objective evidence about whether inclusion would result in unfair competition”

“Schools should consider ways of enabling all pupils to participate in sports, including competitive events that align with their gender identity” (p24)

5. PUTTING SINGLE SEX SCHOOLS IN DOUBT The leaked draft guidance says that a single sex school is likely to be discriminating if it does not admit pupils of the opposite sex who identify as transgender (i.e. treat a female child as if they were a boy and allow them into an all boys school on that basis).

“The school is likely to be discriminating against the trans pupil unless it can demonstrate its decision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”(page 33)

“To meet the needs of and avoid disadvantage to trans pupils, schools should take a case-by-case approach to admission requests by trans pupils.”(page 33)

None of this is required by the Equality Act!

And why are they trying to do it?

There are plenty of politicians who have been critical of the EHRC's record to date. It would be great if someone like Maria Miller woke up and saw how underhanded EHRC is being here. Not holding my breath given MM's own track record on women's rights and her gormless approach to anything involving 'trans'.

Why is the ‘Equality Watchdog’ being allowed to try and change the law?

*implication is they agreed with EHRC

It seems to me whatever Women’s group that may have been involved is being used by EHRC so they can say they consulted women’s groups. But by keeping the whole process confidential they don’t need to mention whether said women’s group disagrees with them and once published the implication is that they did. If they were actually prepared to listen to women they would not be doing this in secret.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7411919/Girls-schools-forced-admit-trans-boys-leaked-UK-equality-watchdog-plan-shows.html

Haven't followed this thread closely but the info / leak is in the public domain, eg article in the Telegraph (or is this yet another issue?) - link: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/30/girls-schools-could-admit-trans-boys-proposals-considered-equalities/

If you cant access the full text but are on facebook go to WPUK facebook page where you can read the full text.

What a bizarre thread!

Really not getting why we should keep quiet about this pile of hot shit in case someone somewhere is working secretly against it and we might fuck that up? That’s TRA mindfuck to a level I hadn’t expected!

Like other posters have said public consultation doesn't work like this. Or At least it's not supposed to. The EHRC know this perfectly well.

Every single public consultation I've been involved with has put the information on their own website and that of partners & stakeholders.
Then gone out and met with representative groups and individuals.

It's also good practice to consider groups who are outside the usual information channels. In this situation I would suggest women's religious organisations and representatives for people with Autism as examples of people who should be reached out to.

A secret consultation isn't a consultation.

My only explanation for a women's group not wanting a robust consultation would be if they planned to mount a legal challenge on process at a later date.

But surely it's better to get it right in the first place?

I can no longer see the Tweet from Women and Girls Scotland nor my response to it; has the Twitter thread been deleted or is Twitter playing silly buggers again?

Great comment Charlie. The leak is out there now and the guidance is awful. If they are threatening to exclude a group (most likely women and girls according to that tweet), that is despicable. However, other groups and individuals have every right to be furious about the process. Is there any reason to believe they were on point of completely revising it until today? Doubt it.

Just found a tweet from Women and Girls Scotland saying that this leak threatens the process being undertaken and the potential for the groups involved to impact this or any future EHRC guidance

I somehow doubt there is any threat to the likes of Stonewall or STA being involved in future guidance despite the fact we don’t know where the leak came from...

1. According to their reactions, it seems clear that neither the big Uk-wide nor the biggest Scottish group have been asked to comment on the draft, let alone consulted with in producing these guidelines.

1. HannaSkye, ReappearingWomen and KinseyMilhone123 have made their one and only appearance on Mumsnet on this thread to support MereMinion in condemning the leak. This suggests strongly that the latter's group is one, if not the only, grassroots women's rights organisation who were asked to give feedback on the pretty much finished looking draft guidelines.

1. This unequivocal condemnation of the leak also makes clear that it is extremely unlikely that this group is responsible for the leak as they clearly believe it damages both their work and their credibility. The same will hold true for any independent women's rights campaigners who may have been put in the privileged position of commenting on this draft. It's far more likely to have been leaked by a member of an unconnected organisation. My money would be on someone connected to schools.

1. Even if this group has done stellar work on the rights of women and girls, not one group should ever be the only group to be consulted on such important guidelines, regardless of what side they are on. Disability groups, religious and ethnic minority groups, as well as other grassroots women's rights groups can and should add to the creation process.

1. These guidelines as well as the ones they replace represent a massive policy change. That is something which should only ever happen via a thoroughly transparent process that is open to the public.

1. Whether there is anything untoward or not, the secrecy with which the EHRC has first drafted these new guidelines (which need binned and completely rewritten from the ground up) and then only asked an extremely limited number of women's rights campaigners to comment, smacks of backroom deals. That just sows suspicion for no good reason. That's how we got in this mess in the first place, by things getting done behind closed doors.

1. The suggestion that this was leaked to damage the work of this one group is ridiculous. It's far more likely that this was leaked by someone who thinks this whole process should be open and transparent and not limited to a few carefully selected groups.

What isn't clear is whether women's groups were consulted about this awful document or merely sent a copy before publication. Have they been invited to feed back their views / amendments or is it merely a begrudging "here's a copy as you made a fuss before but we have no interest in listening your views".

I've been in receipt of a number of government policy documents in advance of publication - all embargoed but none with any invitation for feedback. That all happens at the consultation stage. (Idly wonders what has happened to the feedback re the biased GRA consultation?)

Maybe a couple of FOIs would elicit which groups were consulted with / met with / invited to feed back - and which groups received no such invitations? (Hint - it will be those groups having rights removed from them who will not have been consulted with).

Why would specifically women's groups be excluded as a result of this leak? We don't know who the leaker is, it could be a man from any number of organisations.

Sounds dodgy.

Also, since women's groups weren't being consulted anyway how can the leak possibly make things worse?

Sounds a bit like they've been trying to silence women by dangling the merest possibility of being treated as equal human beings over their heads (keep quiet and don't make a fuss and maybe we'll let you see this (after everyone else)). Fuck that shit.

Unbelievable. Women's groups need to gain the trust of EHRC? Really?
It's the other way round surely.
EHRC is the UK's national human rights institution, and NHRIs are supposed to be transparent and accountable. If women are excluded from consultation work unless they agree to a shady backroom process, then the EHRC is not fit for purpose as a NHRI. I don't see how it's going to retain its A status if it carries on like this.

Just found a tweet from Women and Girls Scotland saying that this leak threatens the process being undertaken and the potential for the groups involved to impact this or any future EHRC guidance...

Which unless they really are this anti women and women are now so openly excluded from law that it must be a very private, select group and only in extreme private might those women be able to get a bit of women and girl focused impact in if they're lucky and now they won't be trusted or allowed in again (which should be a public scandal) - suggests that it's the TRA political lobby that is to be feared as a result of this leak, and the EHRC have no faith in being able to remain independent/control their influence.

And that's political failure in the extreme, an even greater political scandal and equally needs dragging into the light. So which is it?

Given the TRA line, I am tempted to ask your definition of ‘female’ too.

Do you really not understand why women do not trust these unknown groups to protect our interests? Why we are not prepared to delete a link to a what is now publicly available document from one of the few forums where it can be discussed?

Why do you expect us to have formulated extensive plans since 9:30 last night? What plans do YOU have to support the rights of women and girls??

However these days you also need to ask for a shared meaning on 'female' (and probably adult and human too by now, I haven't checked Twitter for twenty minutes)

I'm really not sure regulatory capture and professional behaviour is so far gone that the EHRC is going to get sniffy at the leak and say that no women can now be consulted on who women are/single sex spaces and it must all be decided for them by men because all women are untrustworthy. On the plus side, if they do, at least we all know where we stand and we can start organising the press releases and the marches now.

Can we put the silliness to one side and talk about how, after it was openly discussed at the Scots parliament that to exclude females from female spaces in order to accommodate males was unacceptable, that this is the 'new' draft? Who's told the women MPs who spoke out at that meeting that this is going on? This needs challenging in the Scots parliament again, because it's open evidence of regulatory/policy capture and of prioritising males and male interests over equality of female interests. And it's promoting a hierarchy of protected characteristics which is not supported in law.

Adult human female. Happy?