Single sex schools will be able to refuse trans pupils - Daily Telegraph

I'm struggling to understand the argument about indirect discrimination re gender reassignment in single sex schools.

I thought the Equality Act allows for discrimination on protected characteristics where its a proportionate means to a legitimate aim- that's how we can have single sex spaces at all, isn't it?The usual argument tends to be around who counts as a woman for the purposes of the Act, not whether the Act allows this at all - I thought that was clearly established? (Hence the petition to clarify that sex means natal sex not self identified / GRC 'sex').

Surely keeping an established single sex school as single sex is a legitimate aim? If not, then there is no basis in law for single sex spaces ?

The example of 'indirect discrimination' of a MtoF child not being admitted to a girls school doesn't hold up, because a natal girl who has undergone gender reassignment would be allowed to attend, therefore it's not discrimination due to gender assignment but to sex?

Wouldn't it be the same if a, for example, Jewish boy was excluded then tried to claim it was discrimination on the PC of belief/ religion, because of being Jewish? Clearly, that is not the reason, because Jewish girls would be admitted.

I agree. It makes no sense at all.

It is. I just really really want to expose the hypocrisy of all this. The positions of power in this country are largely occupied by men who attended the great public schools. Those schools are allowed to discriminate against girls with impunity. And yet girls and women are constantly being told to budge up and make room for men identifying as women - in sport, in changing rooms, in refuges, in women-only shortlists etc. Just once it would have been satisfying to see the people who sanctimoniously argue that TWAW explain why, actually, girls who identify as boys shouldn't be allowed in boys' schools. Because this entire fucking movement is about men hanging on to male power and privilege and excluding women.

I'm pretty sure pulling at the clusterfuck that was the gender woo census question census thread won't end well, but crack on! 😆

One penis in a biologically female changing room is one too many. @RoyalCorgi Wouldn't you you rather your daughter was the Governor of the Bank of England? Surely that's the way to put old Etonian noses out.

The latest census said that trans people were 0.5% of the population. And I'd be very surprised if any single sex schools currently have a trans population of more that a couple of people, max. Sounds pretty exceptional to me.

You'd need to look at the percentage of SCHOOL age population. And prepare to be surprised - loads of trans identifying kids in single sex schools - loads!

I'm a teeny-weeny disappointed at this decision because I harboured a hope that one day a girl would claim to identify as a boy and apply for Eton, Harrow, Winchester or other top public school. It was always unlikely, but I'd have enjoyed seeing that play out in the courts. Now it never will.

In practice, of course, most parents of girls, even those identifying as trans boys, would be horrified at the thought of sending them to an all-boys school and using the boys' facilities - toilets, dorms and changing rooms. The risk to the girl (sorry, trans boy) would be huge.

If there is any demand from trans-identifying children to be admitted to single-sex schools, I imagine it's all coming from the other direction - male children wanting to be admitted to girls' schools.

but the school is already protected by a PC, that of sex. For the child to bring a claim, he would have to,argue that his desire for access to that school would be of more import that that of the girls desire for single sex education. Your argument only stands if you ignore the PC of sex. He would also have to prove that the school discriminated against him by dint of his gender identity and not his sex….

That's quite an extrapolation from "0.5% is small".

So an indirect discrimination claim needs to show a few different things - there needs to be a policy, that policy must disadvantage people with a particular protected characteristic, and the policy must not be objectively justifiable. The balancing of the girls' needs against the trans pupil's needs would be part of assessing if it is objectively justifiable. Up to the court to decide.

But circling back to my original point - if we get to a place where the government removes the trans child's ability to bring an indirect discrimination claim, then there is a related risk that women like Sarah Summer will not be able to bring a claim, as the basis of the action is the same. The government would have to carefully consider the best course of action, which it isn't really known for doing.

So you believe the right of a male to access a place designated as for the other sex would trump that of females to keep that place single sex? Why?

The latest census said that trans people were 0.5% of the population. And I'd be very surprised if any single sex schools currently have a trans population of more that a couple of people, max. Sounds pretty exceptional to me.

How so? That would only work If the protected characteristic of gender reassignment was seen to trump that of sex? If a school excludes all males, citing the PC of sex, that includes males of all gender presentations.

Schedule 11 states "exceptional". MTF "as a group" would certainly not be exceptional. It would make a school mixed sex. It's not there to facilitate "choices" en masse and ruin single sex provision.

The gender reassignment protected characteristic does not require a GRC. It's a very low threshold.

The claim wouldn't be for sex discrimination, it would be for indirect discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

Outside of the chalet school and other fictional schools, that would not happen. Teachers don’t usually bring their children to work. That’s not how life works.

Ah...so you DON'T want mixed sex loos after all then? Interesting.

Because that's what the law allows for. A girls school can admit the odd boy (eg, the child of a teacher, if they are normally given priority under the admissions criteria), but can still have an admissions policy that, in non-exceptional circumstances, does not allow boys.

Also as a child cannot have a GRC, gender reassignment protected characteristics would not apply, whereas the school could lawfully argue for staying single sex due to the protected characteristics of sex. The MTF child could not claim discrimination on basis of sex, as no males are allowed into the school.

I work in a single sex girls school. We have a number of trans students (f identifying as m) and there are no problems / bullying - students are just very accepting and supportive of each other.

I can’t read the telegraph article due to the pay wall but I hope that what it is being proposed will allow this situation to continue.

Schedule 11 paragraph 3.

How can it admit pupils of the opposite sex and still remain single sex? That makes no sense. @

If a girls school is not using that power, MTF children as a group will be disadvantaged because they cannot attend their choice of school

I am not aware anyone has the legal right to their choice of school.

Because the school does have the legal power to admit occasional pupils of the opposite sex and remain, officially, a single sex school. This is specifically set out in the Equality Act.

Would you mind posting a link to the section of the EA that sets this out?

Many thanks

Because the school does have the legal power to admit occasional pupils of the opposite sex and remain, officially, a single sex school. This is specifically set out in the Equality Act. If a girls school is not using that power, MTF children as a group will be disadvantaged because they cannot attend their choice of school.

Yes, the argument about the disadvantage the girls would face would be the school's response to the claim, as part of the "is the policy objectively justifiable" stage. At this stage it's all theoretical, as a claim has never been made. I do wonder if the Good Law Project spent some time looking for a trans child who had been rejected from a single sex school, but then decided that actually they were running the risk of supporting claims like Sarah Summer's, and let it lie.