Legal rights of gender dysphoric yr 8 boy to be placed in a girls dorm

Forstater (which only succeeded in the EAT against a finding that she would respect other workers' identity in the workplace).

Forstater's case did not rule on this. It ruled that a belief that sex us important and immutable was a belief worthy of respect and also one that reflected the law.

[quote Clymene]Here's an excellent review of Robin's book from the reliably excellent Legal Feminist: legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/[/quote]
Thank you for that link. It is very interesting and clear.

8 year old? It's not an issue at this age, surely.

I'm always at any adult who voices the opinion that girls are not allowed boundaries from the opposite sex - especially in relation to activities like undressing, showering and sleeping in a communal area.
What on earth are they thinking?

It’s almost like that person really doesn’t want to acknowledge the enormous difference in experience in this area between a teenage girl and a teenage boy. The differences in physiology, in developmental changes, in societal messages directed to/received by the two sexes.

Astonishing.

Here's an excellent review of Robin's book from the reliably excellent Legal Feminist: legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

Wasn't Robins book factually incorrect so they had to re print some pages? I'd honestly take what they say with a pinch of salt. OF COURSE the yr 8 yr male child should NOT have been allowed to share sleeping accommodation with girls. This leaves the school wide open for complaints from girls and parents. Where is the risk assessment? What if other boys claim they are being discriminated against as they can't also share the girls sleeping accommodation? The law may be unclear in this area but the safety of ALL children is the responsibility of the Head Teacher/Board of governors. Definitely take this further OP-good luck

I used to think that being transgender was simply wanting to be the opposite sex, for whatever reason, to the extent that you change your appearance so that other people believe you to be/ treat you as the opposite sex.

I found out that was wrong a few years ago but now I'm not so sure? It makes way more sense to me than having to have an additional characteristic called gender which is indefinable yet apparently everyone has and you always are that gender from birth and it's completely separate from and more important than physical sex and both is and isn't to do with sex stereotypes or masculinity/ femininity depending on the situation?

Please could someone explain to me what 'hairstyle' has to do with someone's gender?

I recommend a read of Robin's blog about transitioning if you want to get a feel for why Robin thinks things like hairstyles and clothing are so important.

Not so long ago, trans people were very open about the importance to them of stereotypes as a reason for transitioning. When it was pointed out to them how offensive these stereotypes were to women, they gradually moved to the 'inner essence' argument, which is based on precisely nothing, so they tend to slip back into the stereotypes argument, which gets called out again as being sexist and offensive to women. Because even a feeling or inner essence has to be based on something different between the sexes, otherwise why is it called 'trans' rather than just personality?

The child is too young to have had any gender reassignment surgery, therefore does not qualify under that characteristic.

You don't need any surgery for qualifying under gender reassignment, just an intention. Therefore a boy who identifies as a girl does have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and therefore should not be discriminated against compared to other BOYS without the protected characteristic.

Often with a somewhat shaky grasp of, biased interpretation of, any law, guidance or ethical considerations being discussed.

1/ Under the Equality Act, the female sex are allowed to be free from the male sex in vulnerable situations, such as while sleeping and showering.

Why does this signify here?

The child is a member of the male sex.

Being gender dysphoric does not signify sexuality.

A year 8 pupil aged 12-13 is capable of sexual assault and impregnation.

Therefore the Equality Act allows the school to refuse access to the girls' dorm.

2/ The Act does not cover gender, gender identity, self ID, etc. It only covers those who have had GR.

The child is too young to have had any gender reassignment surgery, therefore does not qualify under that characteristic.

The school should looking to what the Act actually says, and what it allows them to do.

What are the professional ethics around a barrister showing up in a forum thread where the OP is asking for advice and delivering their opinion on the relevant laws? Does it matter if the opinion is highly contestable?

Can someone explain, because I was under the impression this behaviour is not allowed.

Test cases remain to be heard, of course, but I know which position I, as a school, would rather be defending from!

In the interim ,unfortunately, most schools will probably just stop all trips , where these problems might arise. Any teacher with a modicum of sense would not put themselves in the position of being responsible for such a trip.

RobinMoiraWhite

I think that you may have had a hand in creating the document below, in which case you will be well aware that many of your colleagues differ in their interpretation of the EA2010, both in terms of its definitions and, particularly, the correct comparator in cases of discrimination of those with the protected characteristics of gender reassignment.

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17849/html/

Given that paper, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that this is is settled law (at all, but certainly not in the way you might wish).

The implications of that uncertainty for the scenario in the OP are quite striking in that there is most likely no course of action open to the school that could give them an acceptable degree of comfort that they were acting on the right side of the legislation. At some point I expect there to be a high profile case resulting in clear, binding precedent, (most likely, regrettably, based on a serious incident of some kind).

Given it may well be sued either way, if the school's policy decision lay with me, I would be inclined to step back from a black letter legal debate at that point and take such of some wider considerations, including:
a) the weight of the increased risk of (i) sexual activity / assault / rape / pregnancy to which the school was exposing young girls in its care as against (ii) emotional upset of a transgirl being refused access to the sleeping quarters of those girls; and
b) the relative impacts on reputation of the school should one of the 12/13 year old girls in fact engaging in sexual activity or being assaulted/raped/impregnated by a transgirl (assuming - generously - that to be the pupil in question's genuinely felt identity) following the school's decision to allow a transgirl into the single sex sleeping area (and without informing parents) vs being sued by a trans pupil for discrimination in refusing their accommodation request.

Test cases remain to be heard, of course, but I know which position I, as a school, would rather be defending from!

or.... is that what gender is?

I know I won't get an answer. It's just bizarre how often the contradictions spring up and aren't addressed.

And why is 'reassigning sex' to do with gender reassignment? Sex is your physical body - it's the gender that is being discussed in the OP? Yet Robin uses the two interchangeably in the second sentence there?

The point I was more making was that if they ARE going to have sex, you can't really stop them without harming them unnecessarily.

Yes you fucking can.

I find Ignes' nonchalance on the matter of sexual activity for 13 year olds disturbing, especially after I read the interview with Kathleen.

It is clear that Kathleen loves her daughter very deeply, but it is also clear that Kathleen, having been a teenage mother, was desperate for her daughter not to have such a life. She wanted her daughter to enjoy her childhood, finish school, and get qualifications.

The positive recollections of someone who was first sexually active at 15/16 are unpersuasive to me regarding 13 year olds. Especially when - forgive me for being blunt - Ignes would not have been the one whose life was physically and educationally upended by an accidental pregnancy.

maybe Ignes has noted that nobody has called for this young male to be subject to any degradation at all. This male student should have their needs for safety, privacy and dignity respected the SAME as those female students.

However, Ignes seems to be clear in completely disregarding the needs of female children here.

It really is the same old, same old. And very misogynistic when you strip it down to what it really is. Some people really hate females that don't accommodate their needs when directed.

As a general principle allowing some children to dictate adherence to their wants at the expense of others is a poor life lesson for all involved.

For the former in being able to respect the boundaries/rights other others and for the latter that their rights/boundaries have value.

People who grow up unable to grasp these concepts rarely have happy, respectful and fulfilling relationships/attachments.

The importance of safeguarding aside, this insistence on validation of gender over sex at any cost, has the potential to cause significant long term harm to all the children being impacted/indoctrinated/pressured to buy into this ideological concept.

Does Ignes know the difference between responsible parenting, helicopter parenting and dangerously detached parenting?

If Ignes had a child of 12/13 would Ignes be allowing them to have sex?

Does Ignes realise the implications of that decision if that child told someone who had a responsibility to report that?

IgnesFauti

I mean, I wasn't sexually active until 15/16 etc as were most of my peers, but it's not unheard of.

Seeing as you have brought it up, I remember from another thread that you are a transwoman with a wife, i.e. married to a female spouse.

Hugoslavia's post gave me the impression that she thought transwomen were attracted to males, and that she thought those not attracted to men were perhaps not genuinely trans.

Would you like to confirm that transwomen are individuals and they may be attracted to males, females or both sexes?

The Kathleens of this world definitely matter.