Mixed sex changing rooms in a Brighton secondary school - part 3 - we're really cooking now

You can’t have “an enclosed cubicle”, there’s no such thing.
A cubicle, by definition, has separating partitions with open spaces above and below the side walls and door.

To be considered “enclosed” it must be a room; ie with 4 walls, a ceiling and a lockable door.

You are not alone in feeling like that ❤️ I've been politically homeless for a long time. Green, LibDem, and Labour had always been my go-to before this madness. I've spoiled my ballot paper in the past because I can't in good conscience choose any of the candidates or the parties they represent.

Quite!

And it’s a fantastic example of why sex sometimes matters! That the school dont seem to recognise that it’s logically incoherent and sinks their own case is baffling

It would be interesting to know if the school ever had a case-by-case decision where the trans position was not upheld?

Am I right in remembering that any trans identifying girls use alternative changing rooms and are not allowed to change in the boys changing rooms with the boys? So in one case the school recognises that it is not safe to put 1 or 2 girls into a changing room full of boys, but in another case is quite happy to put 1 or 2 boys into a room full of changing girls. Perhaps that's what they mean by case-by-case.

Tried to read the document but (not being a lawyer ?) was unable to understand the narrative that GLP are trying to develop, to me it reads like throwing stuff at a wall hoping that something sticks. Some parts surprised me

31. The Claimants do not offer any attempt in the SFG to overcome their flagrant delay, and the years’ old expiry of limitation. For this reason alone, the entire challenge is unarguable and permission should be refused.

Part of the TRA mantra is that you can't tell. To talk to other parents about a trans child would be outing so unless you as a parent had read every policy, how would you know what the school authorities were up to?

54. The Claimants’ position is extreme. It is unarguable for the same reason that their case, more generally, is unarguable

Apart from the English itself, I have read the second part a few times and I am still not 100% sure what it means, I would have thought that the respondents position that young children can change sex or have no sex at all or can oscillate between the sexes is pretty extreme in itself.

60.2. The case-by-case approach is rationally connected to the aims specified because it provides the School with scope to make decisions that protect the welfare of trans children, and avoid unlawful gender reassignment discrimination, as necessary. This is given that trans children face higher than normal marginalisation (including in social and educational settings and in respect of health and safety). The School has already explained this.

I'm not sure how you balance the rights of trans children and others if your policy means that you only discuss what is going on with one child's parents?

It's back to the hierarchy of rights, some rights are more equal than others.

It would be interesting to know if the school ever had a case-by-case decision where the trans position was not upheld?

Yep, stay dull, stay safe. Don’t worry about the “poor friend” thing. I presumed it was the same stuff from your past that the school threatened you about. I don’t expect you to be perfect or for us to be in agreement about everything. We agree that your daughter and her peers deserve their legal right to the safety, privacy and dignity of single sex spaces. This includes those who believe they have a gender identity.

Dull wins cases. Keep it up.

That is great news! 😀

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools i am interested in why the argument is that you are not a suitable litigants friend.

is the argument that you are transphobic and an undue influence?

A decision by a judge agreeing with that would be an article 8 infringement so doubt it would be a be a runner. I don't give a shit if you are far right or whatever BTW.

The only worry i have is that you are out of time, i assume that you got your application in pronto once you “became aware” of the none existent policy. (That made me spit my tea out) in the defence argument.

Why are they against it please?

a couple of people on Reddit were concerned the “fighting fund” was being used for this case.

I was wondering whether they offered to do it pro bono, and that's why the school went with them, but then I remembered that this is the Good Law Project we're talking about.

Are they really? Isn't there an issue with a public sector client being represented by an activist organisation? With a frankly terrible track record of results in this area?

believe it or not, they are representing the school as their legal team.

Fist pumps

I'm always confused when it comes to GLP acting as a legal team as they are not a regulated legal firm. I assume they hire in practising barristers to appear in court but why wouldn't the client go directly to a barristers chambers rather than go to GLP

I'm not too clear what the GLP's role is in this

believe it or not, they are representing the school as their legal team.

So am I right in thinking that a judge will now consider the summaries from both the claimants and respondents and assess whether there's a case worth seeing?
I'm not too clear what the GLP's role is in this (although that may be explained later in the document, which I'm still reading).

I think the argument was that it was being consulted on at the moment so GLP considered it draft and subject to change. It smacked of just an excuse to say it’s not appropriate to challenge at this time because it hinges on the guidelines. Which is funny because the GLP brought a case against the EHRC over a set of interim guidelines that had already been withdrawn when they went to court.

KCSiE is not a draft now either - it comes in in September.
The DfE design guidelines 2026 discuss single sex suites where, for example, sanitary machines are not to be in view of boys.
The Scottish school toilet case was won and talked about washbasins being single sex use and mentions the Equality Act.
LH v NHS also showed that staff have the right to single sex facilities (which should morally extend to children even if there weren’t other rules in place).

You do they think they are kidding?
The only thing they can cling on to is making each toilet enclosed with hand basin and dryer inside. This is their ‘sophisticated’ solution though, as detailed in their submission to the KCSiE. That isn’t going to happen because of economics and practical reasons - they have to all open onto a main circulation space if mixed sex use. There’s specific design constrictions they don’t understand. There’s not enough corridor to retrofit. Plus if just for religious reasons and keeping the sanitary machines and bins out the way, it could be argued the pictograms on the door still have to be different for most of these individual toilet rooms.

Mixed sex, enclosed toilets are also a safeguarding nightmare. Just look at the schools that have had to install alarms marketed at ‘gender neutral’ toilet design.
They have no design experience -they are making it up as they go along.

#8 of that statement is quite amusing. They directly quote KCSIE that single-sex facilities are required, and then say "yeah but who knows if anyone really cares, that's a draft anyway". Absolute fuckwits.

In fairness to them, it must be difficult to defend the batshittery. Anyone with a shred of sense wouldn't touch the case with a bargepole.