As y9say, SimplyMonstrous, this response is incorrect. It's a (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the EqA. And proceeding that way would breach the rights of the other children under the EqA and the UNCRC.
A girls right to privacy is not superseded by the right to privacy of a child who identifies as trans.
The documentation accompanying the EqA spells this exact scenario out, and it's unsurprisingly the opposite position to that claimed by LGBT orgs.
A girl's right to privacy:
Is based on the protected characteristic of sex.
She is entitled to single-sex spaces and therefore to a changing room free from males, however they identify.
_A trans-identifying child's right to privacy:^
Is based on the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment.
Sex: such a child must not be excluded from changing with the other children of its sex, unless they want to be. These are all children sharing the same legal sex and therefore have a right to be in the space that corresponds with their sex.
Gender reassignment:
So while trans-identifying children cannot be excluded from their own spaces (because that would treat two children sharing the same sex differently, in breach of their rights under the EqA), their right to privacy under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment means they cannot be forced to change with children whose sex they share.
There is no declaration in the accompanying explanations to the EqA that trans-identifying children must not be excluded from the single-sex spaces of opposite-sex children.
On the contrary, because we have the existing right of girls and boys to privacy via single-sex spaces (which are not of course superseded by the right to privacy of trans-identifying children), the EqA explanations actually illustrate this exact scenario and state that the latter group's right to privacy means they are to be offered alternate arrangements, such as a staff waiting room.
The rights of both groups of children to privacy are thus balanced and do not infringe on each other at all. That's the law.
Unlike what is presented in all the trans guidelines...
And if you look at the Children's Rights Impact Assessment from Women and Girls in Scotland, you'll see that giving trans-identifying children access to the changing room of opposite-sex children also breaches the human rights of those children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
You will find a lot of good points you can use when talking to your council. Also worth pointing out to them that this impact assessment has prompted the Scottish Children's Commissioner to finally question whether these guidelines are fit for purpose and that they've asked the Scottish Government to stop using them until they've been properly assessed.
The position of the Scottish Government and LGBT Youth Scotland is that no one is forcing schools to use these guidelines - they are apparently just that: guidance.
What this means in practice is that all liability for any breaches of the human rights of children under UNCRC and the EqA will lie with councils and schools. Insurers however will only honour a liability insurance policy if the claim does not arise from the insured acting in breach of the law.
Furthermore, the Scottish Equalities and Human Rights Commission have taken note of the CRIA too and have now passed it onto the UK EHRC for their consideration.
So that's quite a few of our public bodies tasked with upholding the rights of children and/or the law in general who have very recently acknowledged that these trans guidelines are a concern. The assessment that they are in breach of the law has been publicly accepted as correct. So if any claims should arise, your council's liability insurance policy may well be found to be invalid.
It's quite unlikely that your council will be aware of any of this, especially the fact that the criticism of these trans guidelines has now publicly been accepted as valid an what the legal consequences may be.
Might be worth pointing that out to them.