How to tackle school

The Judge decided that AEA’s question about the lawfulness of the EHRC’s guidance should not be put in front of the courts. His job was not to decide what the correct interpretation of the law was at this stage. All he had to do was decide if AEA’s claim was “arguable” – that is, was it arguable that the EHRC’s guidance was so wrong as to be unlawful.

The judge explicitly said AEA's challenge was not arguable because it was "wrong in law". Again, this is a direct quote from the judgement. AEA's interpretation of the law could not have been proved more resoundingly incorrect, and yet mumsnetters continue to assert it as fact.

You might also wish to see the recent High Court verdict on trans women in women's prisons which concluded it is perfectly legal under the EA2010 for the MoJ as a service provider to choose to make their single sex provision trans inclusive.

Ultimately it's up to OP, but the fact is it will weaken her case if she quotes demonstrably false legal advice from organisations with an obvious anti-trans bias.

So, as with most things gender ideology related, there is no clear cut answer, it is open to interpretation

Blueberry, I read it as more about the wording of the EHRC guidance. AEA argued that being written as 'should' (as in 'organisations should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present' was being read and advise as 'must'.

Also, transsexual and transgender are not the same thing, are they?

The below is from legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

The Defendant, EHRC, said that

the COP said “should,” not “must,”
that exceptions were available, and
that the bodies which had adopted the “must” position had not expressly said that they had had regard to the COP. On that basis, the EHRC said that those bodies cannot have been led, or misled, by the COP, as none of them mentioned it.
In fact, the EHRC said, a policy that said a service provider ‘must’ treat people according to the role in which they present would be “directly inconsistent” with the COP.

In other words – other bodies may well be making this unlawful assertion, but it ain’t us guv.

also

The decision

The Judge decided that AEA’s question about the lawfulness of the EHRC’s guidance should not be put in front of the courts. His job was not to decide what the correct interpretation of the law was at this stage. All he had to do was decide if AEA’s claim was “arguable” – that is, was it arguable that the EHRC’s guidance was so wrong as to be unlawful.

He decided it was not, for the following reasons:

On the first argument, he agreed that the COP said “should,” not “must.” He pointed out that the guidance extends to just four paragraphs and is intended to be a brief summary not a detailed legal analysis. After “should” comes the disclaimer “However,” followed by an explanation of where exclusion will be reasonable. Although it is not detailed, it is not intended to be an exhaustive guide.
He also agreed that if there are public bodies which have understood a ‘should’ as a ‘must,’ these are capable of challenge by individual service users to individual service providers, whether inclusive or exclusive. We look at this below.
On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.
It may well be that a service needs to be female only, but the variation in presentations of transwomen from someone who is ‘visually indistinguishable’ to someone who has only just announced an intention to transition, and the variation in needs of the service users from a rape crisis centre to a changing room with partitioned cubicles, mean that there cannot be the certainty advanced by the Claimant.
In respect of the third argument, the judge agreed that physical appearance is relevant. This is unfortunate. Someone who is genuinely visually indistinguishable will be unlikely to cause challenge or consternation on accessing a SSS, even if they should choose to do so. Focus on a person’s physical appearance is likely to be experienced as demeaning by both the subject and the person required to make the assessment.

I was thinking that all the girls queuing to use a single toilet would mean the PE lesson would not happen as it would be over before they’d assembled enough in kit and on the pitch/in the gym to do anything meaningful. And then reverse would ruin whatever lesson came next - chaos ensues and perhaps the school realises the error of its ways.

I mean, why would you actually SUPPORT a 17-year-old male being in the same changing room as 11-year-old girls? I asked my DS for his opinion and he was aghast at the idea and said it was “very weird, why would a boy want to do that?”

Notable that posters saying it's against the law post links and facts and the one who says it's well within just asserts it with no evidence.

Seems to be the theme with all things gender.

No matter how often I see it I am always when I see adults arrive on these threads and insist that girls must be compelled to undress in front of a 17 year old male identifying as the opposite sex.

Despite the hopes of one poster, the EHRC technical guidance for schools does not state that children self identifying as the opposite sex must be allowed access into the opposite single-sex space. It suggests that a suitable alternative might be to allow the pupil to use private changing facilities, such as the staff changing room or another suitable space.

fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

This is an open attack on the rights of girls to have privacy, safety and to establish boundaries. It's a disgrace.

Poor little 11year old, how absolutely grim for them.

Your DD and her friends should remind the trans child to use the toilet if they come into the changing room. The girls should not have to vacate their single sex space.

Or maybe the boys should be educated to accept gender non-conforming boys in their changing room?

Single sex services such as changing rooms are protected by the Equality Act;

(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7/crossheading/singlesex-services

The bottom line is girls and women should be able to say no to males being in their spaces when they are in a state of undress.

The fact that in 2021 Britain there are people too scared to speak up about this is shocking. (Not a criticism of you OP, I just can’t believe it’s got to this point).

Tbh. I wouldn't go all guns blazing either. I would say precisely what your specific concerns are and ask the school why students of different ages and different sexes are changing in the same area. Your DD is uncomfortable with this arrangement. Her dignity and privacy are as important as anyone else's.

So if you go in there all guns blazing saying "This is illegal", you're quite simply wrong and the school will tell you so.

Another who is desperate to allow 16 year old boys to change with 11 year old girls.

What is wrong with these people and why are they so keen on this?

But they still need to show that they have deliberately made that choice and assessed the risks involved to all concerned.

Just so you know OP, the poster of the immediately preceding post is not above spreading misinformation to support their activism.

I'm sure you don't want to hear this, but the people on this thread telling you the law is obliged to provide single sex spaces in the sense of "no trans allowed" are flat out wrong - this is a misreading of the Equality Act, as demonstrated recently by the AEA's failed challenge to the EHRC's guidance. Single sex spaces can legally be trans inclusive, and in fact are obliged to be trans inclusive unless there is a justifiable reason why they shouldn't be (and service providers can still choose to be trans inclusive regardless of what anyone else thinks is justifiable or not). So if you go in there all guns blazing saying "This is illegal", you're quite simply wrong and the school will tell you so.

I don’t understand why you think this is okay for all those girls.

Follow the school’s complaint policy, which must be on their website, and articulate everything that is laid out on this thread. If you don’t follow the complaints policy, the school won’t care, or be obliged to do anything.

Would your husband complain ? Men often have very robust ideas about their young daughters being around teenage boys.