Councillor urges removal of transgender admissions from school policy in East Riding

Well if says the school is a girls school or a single sex female school or any derivative thereof that mentions sex, then that is an unlawful policy.

Thing is it will take an attendant parent to challenge this legally.

Thanks for the link, I hope the 'heated' debate comes out on the side of the law.

I don't think councils should have the power to impose such a policy on a school, it's not a case of discrimination, it's a case of allowing the school to be just as it describes itself to be a school for girls.

According to Google -
In the UK, local councils are statutory bodies, meaning they can only do what specific Acts of Parliament expressly or implicitly authorise them to do.
(no idea if that's true)

I wonder if the Councils have the power to turn a single sex school into a mixed sex school.

Single sex schools are permitted to "exceptionally" admit pupils of the other sex. This is specifically mentioned in the Equality Act. It was originally intended for things like pupils wanting to study an A-level that's only offered at the wrong sex school, or allowing the child of a teacher to join, but the language of the law is quite broad and I believe it's still untested whether it would allow trans-identifying pupils.

Here's the relevant paragraph:

1(1)Section 85(1), so far as relating to sex, does not apply in relation to a single-sex school.

(2)A single-sex school is a school which—

(a)admits pupils of one sex only, or

(b)on the basis of the assumption in sub-paragraph (3), would be taken to admit pupils of one sex only.

(3)That assumption is that pupils of the opposite sex are to be disregarded if—

(a)their admission to the school is exceptional, or

(b)their numbers are comparatively small and their admission is confined to particular courses or classes.

(4)In the case of a school which is a single-sex school by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(b), section 85(2)(a) to (d), so far as relating to sex, does not prohibit confining pupils of the same sex to particular courses or classes.

And here are the explanatory notes:

This paragraph allows a single-sex school to refuse to admit pupils of the opposite sex. A school is defined as single-sex if it admits pupils of one sex only. This is so even if it admits a small number of pupils of the opposite sex on an exceptional basis or in relation to particular courses or classes only. Limiting those pupils to particular courses or classes is not discrimination. However, other forms of sex discrimination by the school against its opposite-sex pupils would still be unlawful.

Examples
A school which admits only boys is not discriminating unlawfully against girls.

If the daughters of certain members of staff at a boys’ school are allowed to attend, it is still regarded as a single-sex school.

A boys’ school which admits some girls to the Sixth Form, or which lets girls attend for a particular GCSE course not offered at their own school is still regarded as a single-sex school.

A boys’ school which admits girls to A-level science classes is not discriminating unlawfully if it refuses to admit them to A-level media studies or maths classes.

A boys’ school which admits girls to the Sixth Form but refuses to let them use the same cafeteria or go on the same visits as other Sixth Form pupils would be discriminating unlawfully against them.

It doesn't sound like it could be used to allow a boy who claims to be a girl to attend a girls school. 🤔
The paragraph is clearly talking about allowing the opposite sex to attend in a part-time capacity or only for specific lessons, not as a permanent pupil.

I think much of the argument revolves around the secrecy element. If a school is going to admit boys for whatever reason they need to be transparent about why. It also leads to big questions about how the trans child is treated within the school. Will other pupils know they are male or will it be a big secret. Much of the initial guidance involves awareness that the boys are known to be boys - nothing is hidden.

Isn't it also a matter of whether you can justify discriminating against the people you are not making an exception for, besides any effects on the people the facility is intended for?

I think a women’s college in Cambridge used this “exceptional” loophole. Hopefully this is the correct link:
https://newn.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-10/rationale.pdf
If that is indeed feasible, then the bigger challenge for the school will be to organise single sex toilets as there isn’t any exception to that.

This came up on my fb feed as I’m near to Beverley. Denizens of this board will not be amazed to hear that the comments were full of women outraged that anyone could possibility object to a trans-identifying boy in an all girls school. It was #bekind to the nth.

Why would you put a gender questioning child into a single sex school and nail down their choices? Leave them in a mixed school and leave their options open, surely thats the most BeKind choice of all.

I wonder how the parents of all the girls who chose the school precisely because it was a single sex girls school where their daughters could enjoy learning without being subjected to sexual harassment, bra strap twinging, jostling, being talked over etc, plus the parents who chose a single sex school for religious or cultural reasons , I wonder how those parents would feel about their choices and wishes being pushed aside for the wishes of a mythical child who wouldn't even have the legal status of a GRC !

I hope they would feel very very angry.

But in these cases, isn't the school using its discretion?

A single sex school may decide to admit a child of the opposite sex for exceptional reasons, but there is no obligation.

The council seems to be arguing for something different.

I can imagine.
What do you think would be the reaction to the idea of a trans-identifying girl in an all-boys' school? Would it be seen exactly the same?

I have to say, the woman I know who was educated "exceptionally", with two other staff daughters, in an otherwise all-boys school found it a genuinely traumatizing experience. I hope if it's still done that there is more consideration put into the different bodily needs of teenage boys and girls.

I know you know this: it's not the most validating. The girls, and girls alone are required to be the validation prop, and the protector.
The girls alone are the ones required to be kind. The adults can pat themselves on the back thinking they did the best thing for the child in the short term, leaving the child and his peers to pick up the pieces or the pretence that this is all it takes for a boy to be a girl.

I know what you’re saying, but it’s a the most reasonable comment to make to people who are wanting to validate a child’s ‘identity’. Even if you want to go 100% supporting identity issues, all the way to the hilt, I still don’t know why you would take a child out of a school where they can be gender fluid, its so restrictive.