Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

364 replies

TangenitalContrivance · 05/04/2025 16:56

Hello everyone. Some may remember I asked for help with a complaint to my daughter’s secondary school in Brighton which allows Males into female changing spaces. Including swimming, without informing either children or parents.

this is clearly a safeguarding issue, borderline illegal and must not be allowed to stand.

I’m going to have to take the whole thing through a governors complaint and even higher, which I am willing to do.

please, if you can, could you read my complaint and the schools subsequent response and give me pointers for what to say in my follow up.

feel free to use the original complaint at your own school. You will be surprised how many are doing this!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
2fallsfromSSA · 21/04/2025 22:33

You've had loads of good feedback here, well done @TangenitalContrivance - did you see our response to your email?

Catiette · 21/04/2025 22:14

@TangenitalContrivance that is outstanding. Even without the SC judgement, it leaves no wriggle room. And with it? They should squirm in shame at the issues you've so succinctly laid out.

ThisLoftyBrickOP · 21/04/2025 21:41

Amazing work TangenitalContrivance

Solobanana · 21/04/2025 21:33

@TangenitalContrivance excellent work!!

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/04/2025 20:16

Hello

I don’t know what type of school it is (academy, local maintained etc) but I would make it clear by name who is directly responsible for safeguarding and risk assessments. It will make it clear in your complaint who will have to be dealing with Ofsted, DfE etc and I think it’s right and proper that whoever it is knows at this stage.

This is the direct quote I got from the DfE which you could cut right down to be applicable to your school:

In terms of health and safety in schools, all schools must adhere to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The employer in a school must take reasonable steps to ensure that staff and pupils are not exposed to risks to their health and safety.

The employer is required to ensure that a risk assessment is conducted and measures put in place to minimise any known risk. Employers, school staff and others also have a duty under common law to take care of pupils in the same way that a prudent parent would.

The employer in a school will vary depending on the type of school. For community, voluntary controlled, community special, and maintained nursery schools this is the local authority. For foundation schools, foundation special schools and voluntary aided schools the employer is the governing board. For academies and free schools, the employer is the governing board or academy trust and the proprietor is the employer in independent schools.

Schools must have a health and safety policy in place which the headteacher is responsible for implementing.

Other than what I have said before, no other comments. There’s a good line in one of the Acts about preplanning for safeguarding for disabled pupils, but that’s more for if they start to bodge it by making everything private cubicles and pupils with invisible disabilities are put at risk.

Please keep us informed as to how they respond.

WarriorN · 21/04/2025 17:41

Re policies, governors will have had to ratify all the schools polices.

Your letter will either demonstrate that they are TRAs or that they really didn’t understand what they were signing.

it may be that there’s a policy you can quote to them which will highlight where they’re fucking up

thenoisiesttermagant · 21/04/2025 17:02

TheOtherRaven · 21/04/2025 15:01

They are.

Not wanting to derail but to mention in passing a thread a long time back by a parent whose daughter and friends initially accepted a boy they had been with since early primary, who they got on with, being permitted to change with them in the girls' space in secondary. This then meant when another boy in their year wished to do so, having decided on a social transition and with a history of behaviour and attitudes that meant the girls were deeply uncomfortable and unwilling, it was almost impossible to say no to him as the precedent had been set and it then became unworkable to say no to one boy and yes to another on the grounds of who was 'nice'.

If it's one, it's all. Case by case applied to individuals just sets up more inequality.

Yes, the equality act also means that if one boy is included ALL boys must be included or it's direct discrimination against them.

thenoisiesttermagant · 21/04/2025 16:59

Absolutely brilliant letter @TangenitalContrivance.

Possibly for a follow up rather than in the main letter, but IMO it's quite clear compelling the use of sex deception / wrong sex pronouns is not only anti-safeguarding but meets the definition of emotional abuse in KCSIE.

"26. Emotional abuse: the persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and adverse effects on the child’s emotional development. It may involve conveying to a child that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may include not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or ‘making fun’ of what they say or how they communicate. It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children."

Came across this article in the telegraph which I hadn't seen before and I think this underlines why it's against ALL children's wellbeing to lie about sex. Do we think 'Bobby' still has friends? After lying to them for years? Was it really in Bobby's best interests to do this? The adults really failed on this one - persistently lying to children about material reality is abusive and as Zoe, a small girl, so perceptively realised directly contrary to everything else they'd said. 'Bobby' could have been a happy GNC boy, but no. archive.ph/tkxGM

RobinStrike · 21/04/2025 15:32

AlecTrevelyan006 · 21/04/2025 13:09

Excellent

my suggestion: Ask for an answer to each point - not a generic all-encompassing answer.

Absolutely this! Don’t let them avoid any section

TheOtherRaven · 21/04/2025 15:01

Songstress9 · 21/04/2025 14:19

I would be interested to know what factors might affect their case by case considerations. If he looked girly? If all his friends are girls? If it stops the boys bullying him? If he’s not attracted to women/girls? These are all easily refuted.

They are.

Not wanting to derail but to mention in passing a thread a long time back by a parent whose daughter and friends initially accepted a boy they had been with since early primary, who they got on with, being permitted to change with them in the girls' space in secondary. This then meant when another boy in their year wished to do so, having decided on a social transition and with a history of behaviour and attitudes that meant the girls were deeply uncomfortable and unwilling, it was almost impossible to say no to him as the precedent had been set and it then became unworkable to say no to one boy and yes to another on the grounds of who was 'nice'.

If it's one, it's all. Case by case applied to individuals just sets up more inequality.

Jfybcderk · 21/04/2025 14:56

"A suitable alternative might be to allow the pupil to use private changing facilities, such as the staff changing room or another suitable space."

This to me this is unclear whether the private changing facility would be offered for the person identifying as the opposite sex or the person who requires single sex changing facility for reasons such as religion or other.

Obviously I know which it is but it might be worth making that clear.

Songstress9 · 21/04/2025 14:19

I would be interested to know what factors might affect their case by case considerations. If he looked girly? If all his friends are girls? If it stops the boys bullying him? If he’s not attracted to women/girls? These are all easily refuted.

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/04/2025 14:14

I am working but will give this a look over the next few hours. My concerns are that secondary school kneejerk reaction across the country at the moment is to make toilets and changing rooms into lots of private rooms. It’s really difficult for me when I have UK examples of children dying in these new private toilet cubicle/room designs, and also incidents of being sexually assaulted, because I feel it’s unfair to highlight individual cases without getting permission from families. And of course these are only the cases that have been reported and I can verify.

The most concise way I have ever been able to covey the privacy/safety balance is:

Why do we have a gap under public toilet doors? For health and safety
Why do we get rid of the gap when toilets are mixed sex? For privacy
What are we getting rid of by doing that? Health and Safety

I think this is a good easy to read article that sums it up too which you could relate to individual changing rooms:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/drug-dealing-drinking-dirt-problems-28517175

I don’t know how your daughter’s changing rooms are configured but my immediate thoughts if children are in private cubicles it needs extra supervision and safeguarding input, particularly for children who are vulnerable (which sounds like it includes the boy in your case).

This is why I was so excited about SSA leaflet! First thoughts add their concise bit about safety gaps after this:
But:

  • How are pupils expected to ask for this without disclosing personal trauma, sexual assault, religious conviction or disability?

And also tweak ‘This solution provides dignity and privacy to all pupils without sacrificing the legal rights or safeguarding of others.’ To this solution provides ‘privacy to a pupil without sacrificing the legal rights or safeguarding of others.’

Add the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to your list of legislation. I believe one in 1992 may also be relevant but the 1974 is the one the DfE specifically quoted back to me.

Will check back later. Understand your need for conciseness is probably at odds with a rambling privacy/safety discussion!

'Drug dealing, drinking and dirt' The problems with school toilets in Wales

Pupils are taking drugs and drinking in "dangerous unhygienic" completely enclosed toilet cubicles, says a report by campaign group Merched Cymru

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/drug-dealing-drinking-dirt-problems-28517175

WarriorN · 21/04/2025 13:59

Absolutely fantastic letter @TangenitalContrivance. Agree with pp’s suggested edits, especially asking a direct question which demands a detailed explanative answer.

if they continue to defend themselves to the hilt, this evidence will be very useful for further challenges, quoting to the DfE etc.

make sure you’ve downloaded all polices from the school website that they have that may be relevant to all this before you send it.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 21/04/2025 13:17

What an excellent and comprehensive letter that really holds the school to account for their actions. 👏👏

One small suggestion - where you state :
"Forcing girls into mixed-sex spaces—even via soft pressure or through policy ambiguity—raises the school’s exposure to criminal, civil, and professional liability, particularly for:

  • Indecent exposure
  • Voyeurism
  • Sexual harassment under the Equality Act
You could add - "It also exposes boys to potential allegations of serious criminal acts if they are enabled to be in spaces where girls undress for sports like swimming" ?

Just a thought.

SparklyPinkHairband · 21/04/2025 13:14

TangenitalContrivance · 21/04/2025 12:18

This is really long.

Have I missed anything?

What have I got wrong or misrepresented?

Subject: Escalation to Stage 2: Formal Complaint Regarding Safeguarding and Mixed-Sex Changing Facilities

Dear xxxx,
I write to formally escalate my safeguarding complaint to Stage 2 under your school complaints procedure. Your Stage 1 response dated 4th April 2025 has failed to address the central safeguarding, legal, and equality concerns I raised. These matters require urgent review at the highest level, as they relate to the welfare, dignity, and legal protection of all children in your care.
Below, I set out the major shortcomings in your Stage 1 response and provide additional legal, practical, and ethical objections. Please ensure each is addressed in full by the Stage 2 review panel.

1 Failure to Guarantee Single-Sex Changing Spaces

You continue to rely on a "case-by-case" approach without ever stating that female and male children will not be required to undress in front of one another. This leaves all pupils—especially females—without a clear, enforceable right to privacy. In your own words, you state: "We wish to avoid putting students who identify as transgender in humiliating or uncomfortable positions." Yet you make no equivalent commitment to female students. Should it not be equally unacceptable to place a female pupil in the humiliating position of having to undress in front of a male peer?

2 Selective and Misleading Use of Statutory Guidance

You cite paragraph 205 of Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) concerning LGB children, which is irrelevant to this complaint. My concern is not about sexual orientation. It is about biological sex.
Your failure to engage with the safeguarding risks of placing male pupils—regardless of identity—into female spaces misrepresents my concerns and avoids addressing legitimate safeguarding expectations under:

  • The Equality Act 2010
  • KCSIE 2024
  • The School Premises (England) Regulations 2012
  • The Human Rights Act 1998

3 Supreme Court Judgment: Definition of Sex

Your policy directly conflicts with the UK Supreme Court's recent ruling (Case UKSC 2024/0042) which confirmed that "man," "woman," "male," and "female" in the Equality Act refer exclusively to biological sex. The Court stated:
"A gender recognition certificate does not erase biological sex."
"The term 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to a female of any age." "Where the law requires single-sex provision, it means based on biological sex, not gender identity."
Your policy must reflect this legal position. If it does not, I ask whether the school has taken legal advice since this ruling, and if so, whether the advice was shared with your insurers, given the potential for future safeguarding liability.

4 Compelled Speech by Policy or Peer Pressure

You appear to misunderstand the legal concept of compelled speech. When girls are expected to silently accept a male in their changing room—even if presented as an optional arrangement—this creates coercive social pressure. The potential for peer or staff disapproval is itself a form of compulsion.

5 Failure to Apply the "Prudent Parent" Standard

As the designated safeguarding lead, your legal duty is to act as a prudent parent. No prudent parent would place their daughter into a changing room full of male pupils—even those identifying differently. That this would be unthinkable in reverse (placing a lone girl in a male changing room) highlights the gender bias in your current policy.

6 Failure to Address Consent Safeguarding Boundaries

Your response ignores my explicit point: no parent, child, or authority can give permission for a child to see or be seen naked by the opposite sex. Safeguarding principles are not subject to personal preference. The law does not permit children to waive privacy protections.

7Failure to Provide an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)

You did not provide the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) that should justify your "case-by-case" approach. I now formally request a copy of this document, redacted as needed.

8 Misapplication of the Gender Reassignment Characteristic

You appear to interpret the Equality Act as granting pupils who identify as trans a right to use opposite-sex facilities. It does not. The Act contains explicit exceptions allowing single-sex spaces. The comparator for someone with the characteristic of gender reassignment is someone of the same sex without the characteristic, not someone of the opposite sex.

9 Practical Safeguarding Oversight

You state that "any pupil who wishes increased privacy will be accommodated." But:

  • How are pupils expected to ask for this without disclosing personal trauma, sexual assault, religious conviction or disability?
  • How are staff trained to identify silent safeguarding needs where disclosure is unlikely (see Ofsted’s 2021 review)?
  • Where is your written framework to assess risks before placing any pupil in an opposite-sex changing space?

10 Documented Risk of Sexual Assault in Schools
Widespread underreporting of sexual abuse in schools is a matter of public record. The BBC (2016), Ofsted (2021) have both shown:

  • That girls frequently do not report incidents out of fear, shame, or peer dynamics.
  • That safeguarding must work on the presumption that abuse is occurring.

Forcing girls into mixed-sex spaces—even via soft pressure or through policy ambiguity—raises the school’s exposure to criminal, civil, and professional liability, particularly for:

  • Indecent exposure
  • Voyeurism
  • Sexual harassment under the Equality Act

11 Indirect Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
You state that the needs of faith-based students will be considered, but provide no evidence of:

  • How religious requirements for same-sex privacy are recorded, updated, and verified.
  • What alternative options are made available to preserve these beliefs.
  • Whether any impact assessments have been conducted to understand how "case-by-case" deters some faith communities from attending School XXX altogether.

12 Request for Documentation
In accordance with FOIA and best transparency practice, I now formally request:

  • Your full legal advice (or a summary thereof) on mixed-sex changing policies.
  • The school’s Equality Impact Assessment.
  • The policy documents and training materials provided to staff about changing room access.
  • The name(s) of the individual(s) responsible for authorising this policy and managing safeguarding risks.

Final Observations

Your current approach leaves girls unprotected, parents in the dark, and the school exposed to future challenge. As per the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

"A suitable alternative might be to allow the pupil to use private changing facilities, such as the staff changing room or another suitable space."

This solution provides dignity and privacy to all pupils without sacrificing the legal rights or safeguarding of others.

Unless a clear and permanent assurance is made that changing spaces will remain single-sex and that opposite-sex entry will never be permitted, I will:

  • Escalate this complaint to the full Governing Body.
  • Refer the matter to Brighton & Hove’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).
  • Refer the matter to Ofsted and the Department for Education.
  • Consider initiating legal action and contacting the press.

I look forward to your acknowledgment and confirmation of the complaints panel process within five working days.
Yours sincerely,
xxx xxxxx
Father of two pupils at xxxxxx School

Edited

Sorry I don't feel qualified to offer any advice, and I will blatantly "borrow" from you when I write my multiple letters to multiple schools (current primary, future primary, and I may even throw in the potential secondary school even though we are a few years away) - so basically place marking!💐

Great work @TangenitalContrivance

AlecTrevelyan006 · 21/04/2025 13:09

Excellent

my suggestion: Ask for an answer to each point - not a generic all-encompassing answer.

Peregrina · 21/04/2025 12:56

I think you’ve got the example of “girl in room of boys” twice, if I have read that correctly.

Yes, I agree - that jumped out for me too.

TangenitalContrivance · 21/04/2025 12:31

@ everyone - my intention is to redraft this letter with any further advice from here or Bayswater included - and send it in tomorrow, first day back at school

OP posts:
TwoLoonsAndASprout · 21/04/2025 12:30

That is an astonishing piece of work. Only one thing jumped out at me - I think you have a (longish) typo here:

As the designated safeguarding lead, your legal duty is to act as a prudent parent. No prudent parent would place their daughter into a changing room full of male pupils—even those identifying differently. That this would be unthinkable in reverse (placing a lone girl in a male changing room) highlights the gender bias in your current policy.

I think you’ve got the example of “girl in room of boys” twice, if I have read that correctly.

SinnerBoy · 21/04/2025 12:26

👏👏👏

TangenitalContrivance · 21/04/2025 12:18

This is really long.

Have I missed anything?

What have I got wrong or misrepresented?

Subject: Escalation to Stage 2: Formal Complaint Regarding Safeguarding and Mixed-Sex Changing Facilities

Dear xxxx,
I write to formally escalate my safeguarding complaint to Stage 2 under your school complaints procedure. Your Stage 1 response dated 4th April 2025 has failed to address the central safeguarding, legal, and equality concerns I raised. These matters require urgent review at the highest level, as they relate to the welfare, dignity, and legal protection of all children in your care.
Below, I set out the major shortcomings in your Stage 1 response and provide additional legal, practical, and ethical objections. Please ensure each is addressed in full by the Stage 2 review panel.

1 Failure to Guarantee Single-Sex Changing Spaces

You continue to rely on a "case-by-case" approach without ever stating that female and male children will not be required to undress in front of one another. This leaves all pupils—especially females—without a clear, enforceable right to privacy. In your own words, you state: "We wish to avoid putting students who identify as transgender in humiliating or uncomfortable positions." Yet you make no equivalent commitment to female students. Should it not be equally unacceptable to place a female pupil in the humiliating position of having to undress in front of a male peer?

2 Selective and Misleading Use of Statutory Guidance

You cite paragraph 205 of Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) concerning LGB children, which is irrelevant to this complaint. My concern is not about sexual orientation. It is about biological sex.
Your failure to engage with the safeguarding risks of placing male pupils—regardless of identity—into female spaces misrepresents my concerns and avoids addressing legitimate safeguarding expectations under:

  • The Equality Act 2010
  • KCSIE 2024
  • The School Premises (England) Regulations 2012
  • The Human Rights Act 1998

3 Supreme Court Judgment: Definition of Sex

Your policy directly conflicts with the UK Supreme Court's recent ruling (Case UKSC 2024/0042) which confirmed that "man," "woman," "male," and "female" in the Equality Act refer exclusively to biological sex. The Court stated:
"A gender recognition certificate does not erase biological sex."
"The term 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to a female of any age." "Where the law requires single-sex provision, it means based on biological sex, not gender identity."
Your policy must reflect this legal position. If it does not, I ask whether the school has taken legal advice since this ruling, and if so, whether the advice was shared with your insurers, given the potential for future safeguarding liability.

4 Compelled Speech by Policy or Peer Pressure

You appear to misunderstand the legal concept of compelled speech. When girls are expected to silently accept a male in their changing room—even if presented as an optional arrangement—this creates coercive social pressure. The potential for peer or staff disapproval is itself a form of compulsion.

5 Failure to Apply the "Prudent Parent" Standard

As the designated safeguarding lead, your legal duty is to act as a prudent parent. No prudent parent would place their daughter into a changing room full of male pupils—even those identifying differently. That this would be unthinkable in reverse (placing a lone girl in a male changing room) highlights the gender bias in your current policy.

6 Failure to Address Consent Safeguarding Boundaries

Your response ignores my explicit point: no parent, child, or authority can give permission for a child to see or be seen naked by the opposite sex. Safeguarding principles are not subject to personal preference. The law does not permit children to waive privacy protections.

7Failure to Provide an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)

You did not provide the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) that should justify your "case-by-case" approach. I now formally request a copy of this document, redacted as needed.

8 Misapplication of the Gender Reassignment Characteristic

You appear to interpret the Equality Act as granting pupils who identify as trans a right to use opposite-sex facilities. It does not. The Act contains explicit exceptions allowing single-sex spaces. The comparator for someone with the characteristic of gender reassignment is someone of the same sex without the characteristic, not someone of the opposite sex.

9 Practical Safeguarding Oversight

You state that "any pupil who wishes increased privacy will be accommodated." But:

  • How are pupils expected to ask for this without disclosing personal trauma, sexual assault, religious conviction or disability?
  • How are staff trained to identify silent safeguarding needs where disclosure is unlikely (see Ofsted’s 2021 review)?
  • Where is your written framework to assess risks before placing any pupil in an opposite-sex changing space?

10 Documented Risk of Sexual Assault in Schools
Widespread underreporting of sexual abuse in schools is a matter of public record. The BBC (2016), Ofsted (2021) have both shown:

  • That girls frequently do not report incidents out of fear, shame, or peer dynamics.
  • That safeguarding must work on the presumption that abuse is occurring.

Forcing girls into mixed-sex spaces—even via soft pressure or through policy ambiguity—raises the school’s exposure to criminal, civil, and professional liability, particularly for:

  • Indecent exposure
  • Voyeurism
  • Sexual harassment under the Equality Act

11 Indirect Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
You state that the needs of faith-based students will be considered, but provide no evidence of:

  • How religious requirements for same-sex privacy are recorded, updated, and verified.
  • What alternative options are made available to preserve these beliefs.
  • Whether any impact assessments have been conducted to understand how "case-by-case" deters some faith communities from attending School XXX altogether.

12 Request for Documentation
In accordance with FOIA and best transparency practice, I now formally request:

  • Your full legal advice (or a summary thereof) on mixed-sex changing policies.
  • The school’s Equality Impact Assessment.
  • The policy documents and training materials provided to staff about changing room access.
  • The name(s) of the individual(s) responsible for authorising this policy and managing safeguarding risks.

Final Observations

Your current approach leaves girls unprotected, parents in the dark, and the school exposed to future challenge. As per the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

"A suitable alternative might be to allow the pupil to use private changing facilities, such as the staff changing room or another suitable space."

This solution provides dignity and privacy to all pupils without sacrificing the legal rights or safeguarding of others.

Unless a clear and permanent assurance is made that changing spaces will remain single-sex and that opposite-sex entry will never be permitted, I will:

  • Escalate this complaint to the full Governing Body.
  • Refer the matter to Brighton & Hove’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).
  • Refer the matter to Ofsted and the Department for Education.
  • Consider initiating legal action and contacting the press.

I look forward to your acknowledgment and confirmation of the complaints panel process within five working days.
Yours sincerely,
xxx xxxxx
Father of two pupils at xxxxxx School

OP posts:
MrsOvertonsWindow · 21/04/2025 11:41

2fallsfromSSA · 21/04/2025 08:40

@TangenitalContrivance our statement should help you with your response. It just reiterates that schools should have always been prioritising SG and the SC judgement clarifies this:

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2025/04/19/supreme-court-child-safeguarding/

This is a wonderful letter, clearly highlighting the catastrophic failure of politicians, the DfE & the rest of the education establishment to safeguard children from the toxic belief that they could be born in the wrong body.

Hopefully parents can use some or all of it to challenge any school dancing to the tune of transactivism instead of centring children's safety and well being. I'm sending it to my MP today.

Thank you SSA. Flowers

TangenitalContrivance · 21/04/2025 11:32

2fallsfromSSA · 21/04/2025 08:40

@TangenitalContrivance our statement should help you with your response. It just reiterates that schools should have always been prioritising SG and the SC judgement clarifies this:

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2025/04/19/supreme-court-child-safeguarding/

Very useful. I am drafting the response letter now. Will share here!

OP posts:
2fallsfromSSA · 21/04/2025 11:10

Really appreciate you posting, we hope this statement will support parents and schools enforce safeguarding for all children.