Surely as long as everything is open and everyone consents then there doesn’t need to be any problem.
It's not open. The policy being challenged says that nobody - the opposite sex children and young people in question, and the parents of those children and young people - are not told, far less asked for consent. Nobody is being given any sort of a choice here, and parents aren't even told.
There would need to be a period of change involved, probably review by local government/school board etc to acknowledge the person as transgender. If a hetero boy is doing this for cheap thrills, well it won't really be that cheap to go through all of that.
No there wouldn't. This toolkit that is being challenged states very clearly that as soon as an individual says they are transgender, they must be treated for all purposes as that new gender. That's why there is a court case. Your own suggested approach would be deemed transphobic, you see. In fact the new CPS guidance says girls must be taught that challenging a boy or male in their spaces is unlawful, and even potentially criminal. That will almost certainly be challenged too, because the fucking CPS literally say that bullying a child for being black or disabled is less bad than doing so for being LGBT. It creates a hierarchy of protected groups. And you know who's not protected at all under that advice? Women and girls, harassed and bullied on grounds of sex. Which happens an awful lot in schools, as it does in society. But there's silence on that one.
- there is no sexual preference included here either? If you take gender identity into account, shouldn't you also segregate based on preference? Arguably you would feel worse changing in front of the same sex if they were homosexual (as they have attraction to your sex) than a transgender person that identifies as heterosexual?
Sorry, but that sounds homophobic to me. The threat from boys is not around sexual preference, but male patterns of violence - 98% of sexual crime is committed by men; we average around thirteen and a half thousand men in jail for sex offences, compared to a hundred and twenty five or so women. And before you eyeroll (because these are kids, right?) - one girl's rape on school grounds is reported to the police on for every single day of the school year, and that's the tip of the iceberg in terms of what happens in our schools unless you genuinely think all rapes are reported, and nothing but rape happens - no assaults, harassment, groping or voyeurism at all. And a transboy (natal female) was sexually assaulted by male peers when housed with them on a school trip under this policy. Other girls were upset when a transgirl walked around with excited male anatomy very much on show. This policy isn't unique to schools, either. Most sports organisations have also adopted it. Girl Guiding have booted out women raising concerns on this policy applying to all guiders, and all staff. Because sex segregation is safeguarding 101, and yet apparently we need to adopt collective amnesia, as soon as trans issues arise.
And that's before you get into the privacy aspects. Single sex provision means each sex can change amongst peers with the same anatomy. Do you remember being a teenager? How stressful and uncomfortable all the changes were? You don't want opposite sexed companions when changing.
For clarity: a trans person is no more or less likely to pose a risk than someone of that biological sex who has not transitioned. So we should be applying the exact same policies, on a basis of biological sex. For the safety, privacy and dignity of all parties concerned. We certainly shouldn't be forcing trans people or children into provision with their former gender identity. But nor should we ask children and young people to accept a policy that we have considered unsafe and unreasonable for extremely good reason, to cater to others. We need to provide alternatives so that everyone's needs, rights and interests are balanced.