Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Safe Schools Alliance support Legal action against Oxfordshire Schools Trans Guidance

113 replies

GColdtimer · 14/12/2019 20:45

Safe Schools Alliance supports legal action against Oxfordshire County Council. Three claimants (a teacher, a parent and a 13 year old girl) are bringing proceedings on the basis the guidance is illegal, breaks safeguarding protocols and compels teachers to subscribe to gender ideology or be at risk of disciplinary action.

The legal team think there the claimants have a really strong case.

[[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxfordshire-council-may-be-sued-over-shared-school-lavatories-0d5jkz89r?shareToken=599901c4c91e068da7ef3ae8730ec733&fbclid=IwAR3AjPIakXSUBQo6DAy6Fx1qmy1X4HyHA-jszAxWFZ0mFn2hGVzqCQxR2SU Sunday Times Article]

More details on the website, including the letter which went to OCC in all its wonderful legal glory:

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/legal-action/

Please come and see us on Twitter and share.

OP posts:
RoyalCorgi · 15/12/2019 14:03

The share token doesn't seem to work - is it just me?

TinselAngel · 15/12/2019 14:05

The share token didn't work for me either, and I'd love to read the full article?

Original poster
GColdtimer · 15/12/2019 14:07

Will try and get another share token. Hang on.

OP posts:
OP posts:
TinselAngel · 15/12/2019 14:16

Thanks, that one works.

stella47 · 15/12/2019 14:52

The guidance specifically states that it applies to cross dressers. Surely even a surface skim reading would pick up some likely issues.

Have they run the guidance by anyone who used to be a teenage boy, or who used to be at school with teenage boys? Just, you know, to see if they could see any loopholes?

koshkat · 15/12/2019 14:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
GColdtimer · 15/12/2019 15:53

It's astounding. And a whole safeguarding board passed this shit show. A board including senior reps from NHS, Police, district councils. Armed forces. Etc. God knows what they were threatened with if they didn't comply.

OP posts:
GCAcademic · 15/12/2019 16:00

God knows what they were threatened with if they didn't comply.

Probably with being publicly denounced as "transphobic"

Cascade220 · 15/12/2019 16:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WichBitchHarpyTerfThatsMe · 15/12/2019 16:20

I'm so happy to hear about this action. Lucy Butler deserves to have a shit Christmas imo, that's nothing compared to the risks and harms she's willing to put children through. I can't wait to hear her response. In a way I'm hoping that they refuse to withdraw the guidance so that a proper Judicial Review does go ahead.

HandsOffMyRights · 15/12/2019 16:27

Thank you and so pleased to hear about this. Will get my spade out.

LangCleg · 15/12/2019 16:31

And a whole safeguarding board passed this shit show.

That is bloody terrifying.

Cascade220 · 15/12/2019 16:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

drspouse · 15/12/2019 17:13

I believe so as it's public sector?

Original poster
GColdtimer · 15/12/2019 17:42

We asked them about the impact assessment in feb. They said it was only guidance, they didn't need to do one it was up to individual schools. However nowhere did the explicitly state that.

Lang one day when I meet you in RL I will give you chapter and verse on the whole entire shit show of the apparent "review" they carried out. They were evasive, dismissive, lacked transparency. And never addressed a single concern apart to say we were wrong. Hearing top barrister say "you were right" was quite a moment. This has been a year in the making.

OP posts:
Uncompromisingwoman · 15/12/2019 17:56

It's a dangerous and toxic combination of ideology, mangling the law, and lobby group demands. Even a swift reading throws up all sorts of contradictions and completely unworkable demands. These guidelines seriously propose that all girls who refuse to be forced to undress in front of boys must be told to change elsewhere. Completely unworkable in a school - for health and safety reasons, lack of supervision, the additional time that would impact on PE lesson time etc. It only works if girls are forced to undress in front of boys - the perfect example of coercive control in action.

LangCleg · 15/12/2019 18:02

Lang one day when I meet you in RL I will give you chapter and verse on the whole entire shit show of the apparent "review" they carried out. They were evasive, dismissive, lacked transparency. And never addressed a single concern apart to say we were wrong. Hearing top barrister say "you were right" was quite a moment. This has been a year in the making.

I am honestly just sitting here in disbelief. The foundational premises of safeguarding and the statutory duties ignored. It's terrifying.

Uncompromisingwoman · 15/12/2019 18:12

This is the hill that I will die on. I get cross about some things and am very exercised by companies like M & S putting their female customers at risk via their mixed sex changing rooms, boated lobby groups lying about the law and women's sport. BUT allowing these groups to groom children in schools and to implement these awful guidelines gives me a permanent rage. As well as writing to my MP yet again, I have already dug a bit and will continue to do so.

Poota · 15/12/2019 18:25

Payday next week. Digging implement at the ready.

LucretiaBourgeois · 15/12/2019 21:55

As someone who was involved to an extent in the framing of the Equality Act, I can't say how happy it makes me to see that the writers of the legal letter properly understand the provisions of the Act in this area. So many inaccuracies and blatant untruths are cited on this, mostly based on outright lies by Stonewall and (at best) ignorance and a lack of rigour by others. The provisions are complex (law is) but they didn't end up the way they are by accident - they were hard fought for.

andyoldlabour · 15/12/2019 22:21

What is so obvious about this so called "guidance" particularly to schools, is that there is a lot of money behind this.

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 15/12/2019 22:53

What is so obvious about this so called "guidance" particularly to schools, is that there is a lot of money behind this.

Yes, and that there isn't really any interest in caring for children, not even the trans kids. Why do they think it would be good for trans kids to be put in a position which alienates pretty much all their peers? It's so obviously not going to make their lives better. Third spaces would be much more likely to result in acceptance and kindness.

You can force kids to comply but they won't like it. The girls won't like being forced to share their toilets with boys, especially as they deal with menstruation (which is already stressful enough when you first start and in a school setting). We're a sexually dimorphic mammalian species, sex matters. We're genetically programmed to register which sex is which, no amount of coercion can undo that.

This guidance is far more likely to make trans kids isolated and excluded. Even as they're allowed in the opposite sex toilets, changing rooms and teams (against the girls wishes - even if they're bullied and coerced into silence). It's almost as if the people writing it have only encountered children in theory and not in real life at all.

HandsOffMyRights · 15/12/2019 23:05

Hoping this will reach the half way point by tomorrow. It's such an important stand - like Maya's test case.

I have so much admiration and respect for the mother, the teacher. And a 13 year old girl - what guts and determination must she have to do this? I hope one day somebody like this leads a party I can vote for.

Lamahaha · 16/12/2019 06:32

Yes, and that there isn't really any interest in caring for children, not even the trans kids. Why do they think it would be good for trans kids to be put in a position which alienates pretty much all their peers?

Exactly. You can't change basic human nature, and if girls feel that they are being forced to share with a troubled boy it is likely to breed resentment against that boy, making him even isolated and excluded. I can imagine the problem would only be escalated by forcing the matter. Girls aren't pushovers; they will object.

Far kinder and more sensible for his parents and teachers to talk to him, persuade him to use a third space, which hopefully the school would provide.