Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Good Law Project commissions legal advice on trans children and schools

38 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 16/02/2022 20:34

goodlawproject.org/news/legal-advice-for-trans-children/

"To help parents and schools, Good Law Project has commissioned some expert legal advice which we hope will help schools in England and Wales understand their responsibilities and help families understand their rights."

I've had a quick scan (IANAL) and it all seems pretty sensible as far as I can see? The Fox Killers editorialising doesn't always seem to say quite the same thing as the full opinion IMO which is interesting (but that may just be me).

  • Co-ed schools cant exclude a child because they are trans
  • Schools aren't required to treat children as the gender they identify with in all situations
  • Single sex schools don't have to admit children who only identify as that sex.
OP posts:
PamDenick · 16/02/2022 21:14

I used to be a fan of GLP with them challenging cronyism the Covid contracts. I have donated to them too.
HOWEVER they have lost their way and now seem to be meddling busybodies.
For instance, they recently had a campaign complaining that looked after chikdren coukdnt go to school in their LA. This seems reasonable until you realise that the looked after chikdren in question were 6 foot thugs up for attempted murder in a viscious and unprovoked attack on a father protecting his ten year old son.
And THAT is why the LA we’re keeping this gang of thugs out of county… but GLP had worded it as though Oliver Twist was being kept away from his BFF.
Meddlers.

rogdmum · 16/02/2022 21:12

It’s obviously written for parents who want their child’s social transition supported by the school. It doesn’t cover pronouns and it overstates the position for a nb identity given that the EHRC has made it clear nb and protection under gender reassignment needs to be clarified through the courts or via updated legislation.

Linguini · 16/02/2022 21:12

Ah I apologize.

I couldn't properly understand the text with all the flipping in brackets. So thanks for that!

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 16/02/2022 21:07

Translation for screenshot above:

Q4. Can a girls school exclude girls who identify as male?

A. No.

Q5. Can a girls school refuse to admit a girl who identifies as male?
A. No

Q6. Can a girls school refuse to admit a boy who identifies as male.

A. Yes.

OP posts:
Linguini · 16/02/2022 21:03

FGS the formatting alone..

Girls (boys) boys (girls) girls schools (boys schools) (trans girls) boys (girls who identify as non binary) ET fucking Cetera

By the time you break through what's being written it's just like speak fucking plain English please....

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 16/02/2022 21:02

@Linguini

This part is galling seeing as the UKs most predominant group of girls schools have recently firmly stated they won't enrol students with a penis, which is lawful due to the exemptions in the equality act.
That summary does not quite match what is said in the full opinion IMO. The full opinion says that if the single sex school can justify the exclusion then fine. If refusal cannot be justified unlikely to be lawful. Schools probably have to at least consider the admission.

IMO fairly easy for single sex schools to justify staying single sex?

OP posts:
Itsnotdeep · 16/02/2022 21:00

I get mixed up on all the definitions. Anyway, my dds' (girls) very sought after school does let girls who want to be boys stay in the school, but hasn't yet let boys who want to be girls into the school. It's only a matter of time though I think until this is challenged.

Itsnotdeep · 16/02/2022 20:58

actually, maybe I misread that.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 16/02/2022 20:57

@Linguini

No it's not good. (You must have skim read it. Grin )

Starts of with clear equality act explanation.
Ends with "let people with a penis do what they want otherwise it's unlawful or discriminatory".

I did just skim it Grin There was a lot being able to justify discrimination and balancing needs. This lawyer seemed to think that the disadvantage to one trans child would always outweigh the disadvantage to every other child in the school - I'm really not convinced many people would accept that as correct?
OP posts:
Itsnotdeep · 16/02/2022 20:57

I wonder what the legal argument is for point 5. there @Linguini

He's fucking obsessed. I assume that the GDST is also ok about it's legal position.

Linguini · 16/02/2022 20:52

This part is galling seeing as the UKs most predominant group of girls schools have recently firmly stated they won't enrol students with a penis, which is lawful due to the exemptions in the equality act.

Good Law Project commissions legal advice on trans children and schools
Linguini · 16/02/2022 20:49

No it's not good.
(You must have skim read it. Grin )

Starts of with clear equality act explanation.
Ends with "let people with a penis do what they want otherwise it's unlawful or discriminatory".

oldwomanwhoruns · 16/02/2022 20:47

It would really help if we could get the b**y politicians to make a (minor) amendment to the Equality Act, to define the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment as only applying to the over 18s.

Who would have thought, that a law enacted to protect a very very few, very 'feminine' males, who choose to wear feminine attire, could have been so twisted as to muck up the lives of an entire generation of school children.

I thought that judges were supposed to look at the 'intention' of the law, as well as the wording? Perhaps I'm wrong...