Good Law Project commissions legal advice on trans children and schools

Also, the reason daughters of staff could be admitted to Eton, Radley, Winchester etc in the past without compromising the rest of the provision for boys was that they lived at home with their parents, the school didn't have to accommodate them. No sharing of dorms, showers, etc.

Boarding schools with mixed sixth forms have girls' boarding houses.

I think this example shows JM's background. Boys'public schools sometimes admit daughter's of staff, e.g. I met a girl who was the only girl at Radley once.

I highly doubt the girl was using the boys' toilets, changing rooms and dormitories alongside them, nor was everyone required to participate a belief that the girl was in fact a boy whether or not they personally perceived or believed them to be so, and under threat of punishment for not colluding.

I’m going to refer to this as The Shit Cunt Project from now on.

LEAVE (NATAL) WOMEN AND GIRLS ALONE!!!!!

I think this example shows JM's background. Boys'public schools sometimes admit daughter's of staff, e.g. I met a girl who was the only girl at Radley once.

Okay, so that has happened (in the past). But was their single-sex status then ever challenged? (And was that pre-or-post EA2010?)

If there's not been a ruling, the mere fact it's happened doesn't tell you anything about the point in question, which is can a school then legally justify turning away other people of the same sex on the basis of their sex?

There is another way girls are admitted to boys schools and that is sixth forms - sometimes these will be co-ed when the rest of the school is single sex.

Why is the default example boys being admitted to girls schools?

(Rhetorical question)

The selfishness is off the scale. It's purely a desire to remove female facilities from female people.

Why should an entire school of female children and all the female pupils yet to come lose the option of a female only environment and education with all the opportunities it provides, because a male child wants what they want? (Or rather are being facilitated by adults for a political purpose of subordinating females)

There are plenty of mixed sex schools where a child can identify as whatever they want without it affecting the provision of other children.

Now the GLP has announced their wish list and personal interpretation with heavy bias towards TQ+, I will now await FPFW and those wonderful Scots female legal professionals releasing the wish list and personal interpretation centred on female children's interests and needs.

I can't believe Eton will admit girls. It'll be the same as primogeniture; somehow it's clear who is/isn't female when it comes to money, status and power.

His tactic is not to say that girls' schools HAVE to accept transgirls (boys). It's to say that they CAN do so without losing their legal status. If he can get people to believe that, then he just hands over to the TAs to use abuse and threats until the schools cave in under the pressure.

Necessary** this used to happen in some boys' schools - I know a woman who went to Winchester as her father was a housemaster, ditto there was an article in the papers a few years back by a woman who went to Eton. That was decades ago and I know the practice has stopped, certainly at Eton now, daughters of teachers have to go elsewhere for school and at Winchester they now are planning to go co-ed.

The point being that those girls had special status, and their admission didn't change the fact that girls without that status couldn't apply to the school so it remained single sex.

Even though GLP doesn't have authority over EHRC, given the past record of SW bulldozing their law through, it stands to reason GLP are trying to do the same thing but under a different name and using different words - as Morecombe and Wise might say

A recognised example of this is a single-sex school that admits children of members of staff irrespective of sex.

Where does this happen?

Can a girls school refuse to admit a boy who identifies as a female?

Girls schools are not set up for mixed sees - there are only girls changing rooms for example.

It clearly is not in the best interest of girls to admit boys on the understanding that they are the same as girls i.e. genuine trans, when there is no definition for genuine trans... because it's all made up.

I may as well take my cat along to my DDs school, at least she's female.

This is his key argument:
"single-sex schools are able to admit pupils of the opposite legal sex in exceptional circumstances without losing their single-sex status. A recognised example of this is a single-sex school that admits children of members of staff irrespective of sex. There is no obvious reason why this exception could not be used by schools to allow trans children to attend single-sex schools which align with their gender identity rather than their legal sex."

So he is saying that girls' schools can accept transgirls (boys identifying as girls) without jeopardising their charitable status as single sex schools. So the argument will be that they are being transphobic etc in not doing this.

He says that girls' schools are allowed not to admit a trans girl (a boy who identiifies as a girl). But that they have the option of admitting such a child as an exception.

Schools DO discriminate in the grounds of age.
You can’t be 33 and ask to join Year 7.

I read twitter (but am not on it which is probably as well) and someone was posting that because you can't get GRC till 18 so school would be discriminating on basis of age. Someone else pointed out they didn't think age applied in schools and was told it did, was about proportionately, age discrimination applied to everyone and he knew as his job was law. I wish I could have directed this law professional to section 84 of the Equality Act - age discrimination is explicitly excluded as a protected characteristics with regard to schools. (Probably best I can't be drawn into such a game of pigeon chess though).

Is he trying to get this in before the EHRC clarify their advice on single sex facilities?

I really don't think that his authority over how to uphold the equality act is going to trump theirs.

You can discriminate on the grounds of sex, and also gender reassignment. Of course.

It must be both fair to people with the other protected characteristics and justifiable. Which isn't really very hard.

I'm not sure it takes schools much further as it highlights numerous issues which have not been tested by the Courts. Many of the legal principles he addresses also apply to other protected characteristics. So if you insert girls or Black & other ethnic minority or religious groups, you can apply much of the guidance to them. So discrimination via a uniform policy guidance applies (and has already been tested in the courts) to other protected groups and schools have to bear all groups in mind.

The elephant in the room is whether girls and their education are to be relegated to the role of support humans / services for confused boys? Must girls be forced to undress in front of "trans girls" in order to validate their identity in a shower or changing room (which a court believes applies to women prisoners) or not?
He does advise schools to think these things through carefully. If a school considers the rights of all the protected groups (ignoring the trans tops everything demands) then they can plan resources to ensure that girls have privacy and safety from boys (no matter how they identify) while boys self identifying as girls have their own safe spaces. If a school can demonstrate how they've thought and planned for these competing needs, then he does say this can stand up in court.

The threats to the status of single sex schools are depressing. When you look at the long and honourable history of education for girls it's tragic that it's under threat from men. But - here we are in upside down land where so much that women fought for, men are determined to claim for themselves.