Secondary School complaint about mixed sex changing rooms. Update, school response and request for help writing the escalated complaint to governors

This is really good advice - keep forcing them back to their incoherent decision that they are enforcing a "humiliating or uncomfortable position" on girls by insisting they undress in front a boy.

Enforcing mixed sex changing is also exposing children / teenagers to potential allegations of committing criminal acts - specifically voyeurism and indecent exposure. A 17 year old Lia Thomas in the swimming team and therefore in the pool changing rooms with 12 / 13 year old girls changing for their events could have some very serious charges laid against him .

Also, if you swap the males and females around - surely the head teacher can see the insanity of sending a lone teenage girl into the a changing room full of teenage boys? Even if she thinks she's male - that's basic safeguarding.

'You state that
"As a school we wish to avoid putting students who identify as transgender in humiliating or uncomfortable positions as far as is reasonably practicable"
and therefore a boy who identifies as a girl shouldn't be forced to use the boys' changing room.
Shouldn't the same apply to girls? Is it acceptable to put girls in the "in humiliating or uncomfortable position" of having to undress in front of a boy or boys?

Bingo! 🎯I think the Head's tone was disgraceful.

Good luck, OP. I'm sure it feels utterly overwhelming. Especially as your first letter should've been a slam dunk.

Just keep chipping away using as much advice as you can. It doesn't have to be perfect.

They're clearly just batting it back to the council to get advice. You constantly reiterating why they're wrong, is going to require them to ignore it more and more.

They will absolutely be beginning to understand that they are on the wrong side of history, given the direction of travel of this issue.

Good luck, and thank you, on behalf of parents everywhere.

I was thinking about this last night OP and I think what KnottyAuty says here is similar to my thoughts:

if your original is sound but ignored it’s more powerful to re-refer to it and then add some short statements/questions than to write a whole new one. As it makes the thread of arguments easier for others to follow later as you get towards the tribunal/court stage. Obvs I’m not a lawyer but that approach of hammering the same stuff home has worked well to assert our rights and avoid court/full legal by getting the other side to back down.

Short statements/questions following up on your original letter and their reply will probably be harder to ignore.

'You state that
"As a school we wish to avoid putting students who identify as transgender in humiliating or uncomfortable positions as far as is reasonably practicable"
and therefore a boy who identifies as a girl shouldn't be forced to use the boys' changing room.

Shouldn't the same apply to girls? Is it acceptable to put girls in the "in humiliating or uncomfortable position" of having to undress in front of a boy or boys?

Any student who has a need or desire for increased privacy,
regardless of the underlying reason, will be provided with a reasonable alternative changing area such as the use of a private area or with a separate time to change.
Would it not be more workable to offer these alternatives to any boy who declines to use the boys' facilities, thereby removing the issue of girls being placed in 'humiliating or uncomfortable positions'?

The principle that girls should not be required, under any circumstances, to share their single-sex spaces, required under [official guidance] with boys, should be straightforwardly and reliably stated in school regulations.

What is your rationale for making it a 'case-by-case' rolling issue?"

I hope you are not overwhelmed by all the suggestions, OP, and I wish you the best of luck.

It’s extraordinary that a professional teacher leading a British state secondary school needs local authority funded legal services to defend against a parent asserting a very basic, very obvious safeguarding position.

“I seek a clear, written assurance from SCHOOL XXX that:
a. Males of any age or identity will never use female-only changing or shower facilities (and vice versa).”

The head teacher’s use of very narrow legal interpretations to enable his or her school to furtively work against parents is the obliteration of parental trust.

The tiny minority of parents who are happy for males to use female only changing or shower facilities are not recognised by the headteacher either, they just happen (this time) to be inline with the unilateral decision made by the headteacher.

Where on earth are the Governors, their absence and the headteacher’s very public position can only show their support.

Thank you OP for dragging the headteacher into the sunlight

Even your quote falls on the side of children being protected under the EA.

Just because it hasn’t been tested in law doesn’t mean that’s not how it is worded and therefore used and the only thing to prevent that will be a successful challenge in court which as you know, hasn’t yet happened.

OP I feel your pain - I’ve been through a similar process unsuccessfully. In our case we had outright lies, new meanings of words invented, shockingly bad EqIA and a point blank refusal to acknowledge the issue.

I would focus on the safeguarding issues around a male student being in with females. Why do they not let all boys change with girls? Surely they know that the student hasn’t changed sex purely by his own wishful thinking? ‘Gender identity’ is not sex.

It’s interesting that the school rejects the basic premise of the non statutory guidance issued by government but is happy to listen to the extremely legally dodgy guidance from the Brighton and Hove Trans Inclusion Toolkit.

Thanks!

OP it sounds like the safe schools alliance are who you need to speak to. And to cite this case in your argument.

And in the meantime theres a pre-action letter on that website that @2fallsfromSSA posted you could fact check against.

Can you request that they issue the Equality Impact Assessment that the school did to justify this action when you send your repose? They can provide a redacted version. [edited to add - a non existent or poorly conceived EqIA will win your argument for you]

I don’t know anything about this situation but based on my experience fighting in the middle SEN quasi-legal system, if your original is sound but ignored it’s more powerful to re-refer to it and then add some short statements/questions than to write a whole new one. As it makes the thread of arguments easier for others to follow later as you get towards the tribunal/court stage. Obvs I’m not a lawyer but that approach of hammering the same stuff home has worked well to assert our rights and avoid court/full legal by getting the other side to back down.

good luck

And? It doesn’t mean children wouldn’t be protected.

Indeed. This is a key point.

@IwantToRetireyou are just displaying your own ignorance. The EA pc is not based on the age of the person and it isn’t dependent on any of the rules set out in the GRA such as living for two years as the opposite “gender”.

No school age child is likely to have a GRC as you need to be over 18 years old before you can apply for one & to have lived in your acquired gender for more than two years.

You clearly didn't read the quote I bothered to post saying this has not been ratified in law.

Maybe you have been Stonewalled.

And the point of the guidelines is to tell schools there is no legal precedent.

You should be glad I have found you this quote so that when presuming to give advice to someone who needs genuine information with a current situation in a school they will know that schools are not able to state what you are saying.

they may say this is what they practice but could face the real threat of being taken to court for doing it.

Glad to see you on the thread @2fallsfromSSA

It has nothing to do with age. It’s not based on having or applying for a GRC. So if children are considered to be in any stage of “transition” they are protected under the Equality Act pc of “gender reassignment”. This doesn’t give them the legal right to use the spaces of the opposite sex, of course.

Here is the link you need, the same case that @KnottyAutyrefers to: https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/legal-action-against-oxfordshire-county-council/

Under age children being protected by the characteristic Gender Recognition has not yet been confirmed in law:

this approach suggests that children who are not old enough to acquire a gender recognition certificate, may fall within the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they have stated that they wish to live and identify as the opposite sex. This does not necessarily mean those that are gender questioning will be protected but as the law stands at present, it is a possibility, and ultimately it will be a decision for the courts and would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

And as part of the process (whether leading to surgery or not) is to have "lived as the opposite sex" for 2 years.

Which raises the question of whether schools should be allowing children to be registered with them as being the opposite sex whilst under 18.

The wide definition of gender reassignment, the uncertainty of whether those who are gender questioning will be protected under the Equality Act 2010, and the difficulty of balancing different protected characteristics and views are likely to pose an issue for schools when preparing such a policy.

From Gender questioning children: a summary of the legal position for schools

From the EHRC:

The Equality Act says that you must not be directly discriminated against because you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

• A wide range of people identify as trans.
• However, you are not protected under the Equality Act unless you have proposed, started or completed a process to change your sex.

Have you seen the case in Oxfordshire where a 13 year old was all set to take the county council to Judicial Review and was expected to win? OCC withdrew their school toolkit and backed down. There might be useful information in their about legailities - but otherwise I agree with the pp who said to reply thanks but your points don't address my concerns / LGB is not T and there is a risk. You have misunderstood case by case - which is an assessment of the facilities and not the individual. I would like a governors hearing. Then get on the phone to Sex Matters asap! good luck

One thing to note about the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which, as others have said applies to any age and is not dependent on a GRC) is that courts have stated the comparator for someone with the characteristic is someone who does not have the characteristic but is of the same sex. So a trans identified boy who is treated differently from other boys would be being discriminated against, the legislation does not require someone who is male but identifies as female is treated the same as women and girls.

Well done OP, you need to take this all the way through the complaints process but I suspect they won't back down. Have a look at the SSA website and go to legal and look at the OCC case, you may find some legal language there you can use. Do get in touch if you think we can help

No, it isn’t dependent on having a GRC.

Protection under the 'gender reassignment' bit of the EQA 2010 starts as soon as they've decided to transition or even discussed it with anyone - it's almost unbelievably imprecise considering this is a piece of legislation
Not if they are still legally children.

this is incorrect @IwantToRetirethe protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the EA covers all ages and isn’t directly related to the GRA. The PP is correct.

Cynical evasion and arrogance Catiette

Schools down here, and the council, are on very thin ice and they know it. Most people are captured so don’t push the issue as they see no problem. However it only takes one to open the floodgates.