New EHRC guidance for schools

[emzvalentine]

The EHRC has produced new guidance for transitioning pupils in Scottish schools, with English guidance to follow shortly.

Despite the recent calls for statutory codes for implementing the exceptions in the Equality Act, the EHRC has, once again, repeated a policy that fails to take into account the needs of girls, and defers to the trans organisations.

Details and link to the guidance document are on this thread:
twitter.com/VicM2019/status/1166808190983577608

It they were listening to the women’s groups then there would be no reason to leak it. If women’s groups had been ignored or listened to and dismissed then trust is lost both ways. Why would they start listening after the draft?

The changing room scenario is absolutely terrible. The one girl who isn't happy getting changed with someone with a male body goes off to a separate cubicle to change. As if it would only be one... well it might only be one who speaks out I suppose. Guessing the imaginary school has no Muslim girls in it, for example.
I can't believe this is from the EHRC who actually are aware of single sex exemptions.

This is appalling. If this is a draft then they clearly have completely ignored concerns for women and girls and are prepared to collude with misrepresenting the EA. If this is an example of the good work you will be undermining if you make a fuss then I suggest you do it as loudly as possible and ignore those telling you to be quiet.

So no-one should ever leak anything on the off chance someone who considers themself more important and influential might have been doing something about it already?

That sounds reasonable.

The current EHRC technical guides for schools in Scotland and England (published in 2014) contain this example:
“A school fails to provide appropriate changing facilities for a transsexual pupil and insists that the pupil uses the boys changing room even though she is now living as a girl. This could be indirect gender reassignment discrimination unless it can be objectively justified. A suitable alternative might be to allow the pupil to use private changing facilities, such as the staff changing room or another suitable space.”
In the new draft guidance, EHRC has cleverly concocted a scenario which results in a GIRL (not the transgirl) being excluded from the GIRLS changing room, leaving the transgirl in the changing room with the other girls.
This draft guidance clearly illustrates the mindset within EHRC and shows that they are not listening to the concerns of women, despite their claims to the contrary. The draft guidance also shows that the government’s assurances that the Equality Act exemptions will be maintained are worthless, when the EHRC is actively trying to ensure they are not implemented.

Have just started going through it and a huge WTF in the first few paras:

gender reassignment, which means proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process, or part of a process, for the purpose of reassigning a person’s sex.

Propertyfaux My point exactly. If women's rights groups had been involved in drafting these guidelines, they wouldn't have been written like that.

It's just like with the new Relationship, Sexual Health and Parenthood curriculum in Scotland. That was drawn up without talking to any of the women's rights groups who don't support transgender ideology. Then it got put out to the public for feedback and despite a great many people writing to them after that to improve the curriculum, it's taken years to get rid off the worst nonsense. All of that hard work just to essentially tinker round the edges. Because by this stage, authors are pretty attached to their words.

Based on the curriculum as it currently stands, our teachers are still going to be teaching gender ideology to children, talking to them about porn without mentioning that it is harmful to women and so on.

To return to the school guidelines - "a few select groups" were sent these for feedback. On draft guidelines that look much more like a final draft than an initial one. And having now read them it's clear that women's rights groups haven't been offered a seat at the table in producing these, or else they would read very differently. They even include guidance going back to how the EHRC used to misrepresent the EqA before Fair Play for Women forced them to correct themselves.

No, whichever women's rights groups have been sent this for feedback were offered nothing but the crumbs off the table.

I've produced guidelines myself, for work, and there's a big difference between being involved and consulted with on drawing them up and being asked to comment on the nearly finished product.

Gone through it a lot more and truly shocking.Needs a lawyer to go through point by point and refute their whole document to them. Dont think they have a case to defend much of it. I think this directly contradicts the law for example as single sex means what is says on the tin
: However, schools must comply with the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, which

provide that in every school which is not designed exclusively for girls, half the toilet accommodation should be for boys; and the EA 2010 when developing policy on the use of toilets by trans pupils. There is nothing in law preventing schools taking an inclusive approach by supporting trans pupils to use single-sex facilities that align with their gender identity, unless such an approach puts another pupil at a detriment.

I would also add, if women's groups have been involved in the writing of this (highly doubtful) I don't think they are on our side and we definitely need other women's voices.

Sooo EHRC will now ignore women pointing out that guidelines breach the Equality Act and human rights out of spite?

And it is all Mumsnet fault for copying a public twitter link?

Sounds awfully similar to suggesting it is a women’s fault a man hit her, if she had just done what she was told...

The examples given are shocking. And they seem to over-interpret the law. They place all the onus on girls to adjust to the trans girl whose rights seem to be paramount. The idea that one girl may object to having a transgirl in their changing room? What if the school is 50% Muslim? I went to an all girls school and the communal showers in the gym went unused - teenage girls don’t usually like stripping off in front of each other let alone in front of a male bodied classmate. Are 15 girls meant to squash into the single staff changing room in order that a trans classmate can use the Girls changing room? Appalling - girls don’t matter AGAIN

So, what's the big plan then? Strong arguments for saying the leak is justified - if the outcome undermines work that's being done by some women, presumably there's something planned to counter that? What's the end goal? Someone mentioned up thread about getting a lawyer to pick it apart. Deadline for feedback is when - tomorrow? So, who is paying for this? Who is organising it? Is there any plan beyond the leak?

Always I am sure there as a case in the states where a women’s high school swim team all got changed in the janitors cupboard for this reason.

Birds - The ridiculousness of this is almost funny if it wasn’t so enraging.

Seriously, what's the plan beyond the leak, & "someone wanted to bring this to much wider attention"? Because if there are women working on it, and it seems to be from posts here that the leak could scupper that work, what's the offset for that? Does anyone know?

Wherever you stand on any of the issues about trans children, I found reading this useful to get an idea of the range of issues facing schools. The examples (which they stressed may not be the final ones used) show how many areas of school life can be affected and the many solutions schools and teachers will have to find to negotiate them. Student welfare is, of course, the most important thing, but, god, how stressful to manage everything in the 'right' way could proof to be for teachers/school staff. The rights of the trans pupils can collide with those of girls, various religious groups and the disabled (who generally aren't served all that well in schools as it is.) It's such a delicate balancing act.

Indeed, if someone with autism finds lying impossible because of their protected characteristic (disability) so persists in calling a trans identified boy ‘he’, who is harassing who by insisting he says ‘she’? Considering of course that the trans child is not having to actually do anything where as the autistic child is being persecuted for their inability to carry out an action due to their disability.

All of that is already known. We've seen all over the U.K. how these guides are being written & even on this thread there's proclamations over women not being heard. So, I'm guessing the aim is along the lines of making some noise in the hope that women get a voice? And yet, when they do, as has happened presumably with the groups who have been approached & asked for feedback, that 'seat' almost at the table gets whipped away because they're then suspected of being the leak & pushed back out the door.

I honestly get the impression that beyond "someone wanted to bring this to much wider attention" it's not been thought through. So, I'm hoping either the OP, or others supporting the leak, can fill the rest of us in because beyond making some noise, I can't see that this will help.

So, again, what is the plan?

Why should this all be done under the radar?

Why shouldn't ANYONE be allowed to see the draft proposals for SCHOOLKIDS?

Surely all proposals that affect kids should be able to be commented on?

Safeguarding should be everyone's business. Not bringing in policies on the quiet.

So you have a plan then? What is it?

For Women Scotland certainly don't seem to have been consulted:

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1167030071699365889?s=20
twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1167032131664711680?s=20

Looks like ForWomenScotland are on the case, and that this needed leaking.

I thought it was stated at the (videoed, publicly available to view) meeting about revising this that it was unacceptable for girls to be excluded from girls' provisions in order to include a male?

This has gone for the easy option: Trans Trumps Everything.

Disability, religion, faith, culture, trauma, sex, the lot. Which puts the protected characteristics in a hierarchy of some being more important than others, and women in every situation always being subordinate to the feelings and wishes of a male - not to be fairly accommodated, but to be given what they want which is unfettered access to women and women's spaces.

I see 'assigned sex at birth' has been the open door to sex being 'reassigned'. The language is going to have to be rejected wholesale, isn't it? And bugger politeness, there is more at stake than people's feelings now.

ReappearingWomen did you just join to tick us off? That unless we tell you our amazing master plan we should let the men decide?

I'm asking if there was any thought on what the aim was, beyond undermining work already happening. And I take it from the responses that there wasn't.