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

@TakingMyChancesWithTheRabbits @WarriorN

I had a quick Google and the primary legislation that underpins the KCSIE statutory guidance appears to be the Education Act 2002, section 175. I would expect that this also interacts with other primary legislation, such as the Children Act.

It does make sense that the primary legislation itself needs to work together to clarify any potential conflict. The EA versus the GRA in the recent court case is indeed a perfect example.

I'm guessing that somewhere within these two acts it states that religious belief does not justify FGM. It feels like this is the exact type of clarification needed here too: that a belief that everyone has a gender identity (and that it's possible for this to differ from someone's sex) does not justify social transition. Given what we already know about the risks of social transition, I would expect it to be wholly appropriate to ban social transition of children unless it has been expressly recommended by an NHS health professional - and for there to be clear law around the limitation of that social transition where it impacts others. The clarity that has resulted from the recent Supreme Court case will help significantly with the latter and it's incumbent on the NHS to continue tighten up how it supports gender questioning children. For the OP's situation re changing rooms, all that is needed is the Supreme Court clarity.

There’s the children’s act and also working together to safeguard children. Kcsie comes from that.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/669e7501ab418ab055592a7b/Working_together_to_safeguard_children_2023.pdf

there are also other acts that were passed to safeguard vulnerable adults.

Well it does re safeguarding; it overrides religious belief in the case of fgm.

it’s specifically for children - re law I think there are other laws too such as the children’s act?

the discussion below is wrt schools and education and any provision for children

Thanks @WarriorN . I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm not sure whether KCSIE can specify that it overrides EA2010 as previous posters have suggested it should, as the former is just statutory guidance and the latter is primary legislation. If it was possible, then isn't there a danger that the Government could introduce statutory guidance to the GRA that overrides the protections to single sex spaces in EA2010 we've just had confirmed?

Keeping children safe in education

I'm not deliberately being obtuse here, but what safeguarding law are we talking about?

Agreed.
The only reason so many children have been actively harmed by transactivistm in schools is because of the usual bullying and intimidation. It's been evidenced in GIDs, it's all over the NHS & the rest of society. Too many schools also caved in.
Had some brave parents pushed this as far as the courts, no court would ever agree that a sex change was the greater priority to safeguarding a child below the age of consent from dangerous experimental drugs & surgery, future infertility and all the rest. A school arguing in court that 13 year old girls must be compelled to undress for swimming in front of 13 year old boys would lose the case.
The pc of gender reassignment is not more important for children below the age of consent than keeping them safe. No matter how much some adult transacitvists try to push this at children.

Absolutely spot on.

whether the DfE understands this is another question.

And this ISN'T a derail because a clear statement EA2010 does NOT take precedence over safeguarding in fact the reverse is true is needed to save everyone a lot of time, lots of money (that could be otherwise spent on actual education and appropriate facilities) and stop a lot of harm.

It's great OP is doing this but so many people are wasting time on this up and down the country because schools are breaking the law. We just need a line in KCSIE that is extremely clear safeguarding MUST come before EA2010 and that includes sex-based safeguarding. Any school not safeguarding first is breaking the law and putting children at risk.

Great post as usual BonfireLady

I'm still convinced that we need a line in KCSIE - as for GDPR - that EA2010 can never override safeguarding law and statutory guidance. That safeguarding law takes precedence and it is ok to 'discriminate' as it may be seen under EA2010 in order to safeguard a child.

We don't let kids drive - that's age-based discrimination under EA2010. Ditto drink. Ditto live entirely alone in a tent. Ditto get a job stacking shelves. Etc etc. Looking at things only from an EA2010 discrimination perspective is profoundly harmful to children. Ironically because of their pc of age!

As age is a pc and children are uniquely vunlerable due to their age ensuring this is crystal clear - that EA 2010 considerations cannot undermine safeguarding (including appropriate sex-based safeguarding) - is surely part of not discriminating against children due to their age!

And not letting gender questioning children do irreversible things to their bodies when they cannot meaningfully consent is part of not discriminating against their pc of gender reassignment. Because we wouldn't just let non gender questioning kids cut off healthy breasts because they wanted to. Thankfully hopefully this at least is a battle now won in the UK. However the social transition side which paves the way to mastectomy is still very much happening, seemingly.

OP - excellent letters! If I were a Governor, I'd be taking this very seriously indeed.

Do let us know what the response is.

I don’t think it’s a derail; it’s all part of the issue that schools will be considering and will be driving their responses

True. Although on balance, it seems fair to everyone from an equality perspective that a child who holds a belief that they have a gender identity that differs from their sex is given this option. It's in line with the draft Gender Questioning Children guidance in that respect too.

When it comes to safeguarding gender questioning children, we're way off where we need to be in schools. However, making sure that they don't have access to opposite-sex toilets and changing rooms is an important step in that journey as it safeguards both those children and everyone else who would be impacted if they used the opposite sex facilities.

Unfortunately at my children's school, even the teachers that do understand some of the risks associated with social transition are having their heads turned by other messaging that they are hearing. For example, I was told by one such teacher that a gender questioning child at school "doesn't mind if you get it wrong" when it comes to pronouns. I politely pointed out that even if this child is genuinely relaxed if people are using sex-based pronouns, it's coercive that the school supports the idea that it's positioned as having accidentally made a mistake and "getting it wrong" to do so. There's a big guilt trip going on and an implicit understanding that it's cruel to acknowledge someone's sex. I have made it clear to this teacher, the DSL and the Head that I won't be a part of any child's social transition because social transition is not a neutral act and that the statutory KCSIE guidance says that extreme caution is needed here (I avoid using pronouns altogether but I do refer to the child as a female who identifies as a boy). Sadly, the statutory guidance that covers this is the bit that the school says it doesn't need to follow. Sigh.

I appreciate that's all a bit of a derail when it comes to this thread though. Sorry OP!

Bit by bit, safeguarding is coming back to schools. But it's a hard slog and it's appalling that there are school leaders who are ignorantly or actively undermining it at every turn. I'm looking forward to hearing the update from the OP on all of this 🤞🤞

at the same time there is obviously a concern around mental health of these children as they fully believe that the trans identity is central to their issues.

Yes - they are actually affirming the child’s “identity” (aka “reality”) as “trans” (ie born in tbe wrong body) by offering alternative spaces.

To add:

I've just seen the latest update from the OP. Great letter!

Immediate action requested now and on with the complaint 💪💪💪

they will likely reorganise the loos somehow but they will find workarounds on every other point

This is very possible. In my own experience, the school advised me that changing rooms and toilets are separated by biological sex, not gender identity. They also advised me that a child who says that they identify as a different gender from their sex and doesn't want to use the single-sex spaces will be given an alternative. That's great as it means they are following the law on single sex spaces but it also means that there remain many other issues which put gender questioning children at risk of harm because of their approach to the wider points relating to gender identity e.g. they actively promote the idea that it's important to support someone's gender identity, they think it's important that teachers should be allowed to send their preferred pronouns in their email signatures to students and it's very clear that they see me as a risk to my (previously gender questioning) daughter because of "my views". They are consistently failing to recognise that their support for socially transitioning children - and for making sure that children believe it's unkind not to use preferred pronouns - is putting vulnerable children at risk of entering an affirmation pathway into the gender clinics. They even have a safeguarding policy which positions parents who are concerned about their children "exploring their identity" in relation to "gender" as potential domestic abusers.

For the OP, I think this is going to come down to:

a) how far to take this fight. My understanding was that it was (understandably!!) ring-fenced to changing rooms and that the supporting points in the brilliantly written email all linked to this e.g. from the OP's update above:

I am male, the father of two children, one gender questioning. I see this as one small thing I might be able to do to set the world on an even keel - keep males out of female changing spaces in schools

b) what the school does next. It's very possible that they'll say they are now going to have single-sex changing rooms and toilets in line with the SC ruling on the meaning of the words in the EA and the existing legislation relating specifically to schools. However, they may not - if they don't, it looks like the OP has an incredibly strong case if this needed to be taken further.

in the absence of direct guidance about things like PE and PSHE I don’t doubt for one nano second that they will defend this to the hilt.

they will likely reorganise the loos somehow but they will find workarounds on every other point

I also think that the hyperbole around most vulnerable in society (for being trans rather than a host of other issues) will step up a notch. and that could also have the unintended consequence of more children identifying as trans

Hopefully this is now a done and dusted case. However, it's very possible that the unions and some activist teachers will be telling schools leadership teams that things still aren't clear etc etc.

As bonkers as it sounds, my children's school went to its solicitors regarding paragraphs 205-209 of the statutory KCSIE guidance (the 4 paragraphs that talk about the difference between being LGB and gender questioning and the relevance of the Cass Report when supporting vulnerable children amongst other things) and told me that they had received advice that they didn't need to follow these paragraphs because they are draft. There is a note above the 4 paragraphs that says that this section is "under review". It doesn't say it's draft though. I think it's been mentioned elsewhere on this thread that the Prevent section of this statutory guidance is also marked as "under review". I can't imagine a school saying it doesn't need to follow Prevent protocol on this basis!!

So my caution here would be to expect the unexpected. The school may well double down, depending on where it's getting its advice from. Unfortunately some schools might actively seek advice on how to avoid following the law, rather than accept that they have made a mistake.

@TangenitalContrivance do you have someone who will go to the hearing with you if it still goes ahead? I can see this was mentioned as a possibility up thread.

Exactly - keep the receipts though and how they tried to brush you off! Remember the SC judgement ruled on what the law has always been. So they've been breaking the law.

Honestly, it's not bloody rocket science to know that over a certain age girls and boys shouldn't be sharing, and that's based on biological sex. Anyone who can't see that's true, and it's essential for girls to access education (as all development charities seem to somehow know when it comes to other countries), shouldn't be in a position of responsibility over children.

I really want people to lose their jobs over this, or it will just happen again.

This is great news for you. They have no defence now

Brilliant news!