Stonewall training in school

[Bluebelliphant]

My daughters school has arranged some training for parents about LGBT issues. Apparently it is written by Stonewall. Does anyone know what this might be?

Good grief Lang Is that true?

I'm afraid so. He's got a CBE for services to equality and diversity, dontchaknow.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/who-we-are/about-our-commissioners

I'm afraid so. He's got a CBE for services to equality and diversity, dontchaknow

FFS. What a load of utter bollocks

And once again Lang thanks for the education on this board. It's extraordinary what is going on and at some point it's going to result in class action lawsuits. I seriously doubt anyone will ever be held accountable given the 'lessons learned ' mantra which guarantees business as usual

So the suspicion is that Stonewall and the EHRC were/are deliberately misrepresenting the law?

Incidentally, I’ve spent a not insignificant amount of time reading various reports and I’m still not clear what the law is.

Single sex spaces (e.g. toilets/changing rooms) can refuse entry to trans people on a case by case basis? So a school could refuse one trans pupil but allow another, and blanket bans are not allowed? Or can they have a policy of refusing all?

What I’m really confused about is the role of the GRC - I know this won’t apply to school kids. It seems that a GRC means the person is now legally the opposite sex for all purposes. Does this mean they cannot be refused entry to the toilets/changing rooms? There is conflicting information from various sources about this too, some say the sex exemptions apply even with a GRC.

Apologies, OP for derailing, but there seem to be people around who know this stuff!

I don't think the EHRC were but I don't think they're fit for purpose. I do think Stonewall were/are. It's deliberate, along with wanting to remove single sex exemptions that are currently protected by the EA

People with a GRC are legally protected as being the sex they have written on their new birth certificate. However, at the same time, there is provision for excluding them on a case by case basis. In short, it's a bit of a confused mess as a direct result of the GRA which is why many women want that law overturned.

This is a good document which I find is useful at clarifying a very confusing situation.

www.equallyours.org.uk/deighton-pierce-glynn-briefing-on-how-legislation-protects-women-only-spaces-and-services/

Can schools not grasp that the GRA 2004 states that it only applies to persons aged at least 18. Children cannot legally transition nor begin the process.

noblegiraffe

It's no surprise that you're confused. Because there are conflicting bits of information in the different pieces of legislation. And a lot of it is open to interpretation, until caselaw is established.

That's why the term Stonewall Law has been coined.

The EHRC were forced to confirm that without a GRC the comparator over whether you are being discriminated against according to sex is someone of your own legal sex. If you have a GRC, your legal sex will be opposite to your biological sex. And your legal sex is now the comparator (but, interestingly, there are still some exemptions built in, the rule of primogeniture, for instance).

So without a GRC, a transwoman's comparator would be other men.

Children can't get a GRC until they are 18.

The protected characteristic 'Gender reassignment', as far as I know, does not specify an age. And the guidance is someone should be treated as their preferred gender.

However, as exemptions have been built in, it's clear that exceptions can be made. And the term is if they are 'a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.'

It's absolutely acknowledged that places like rape refugees and sport should be subjected to those exemptions. But using a phrase like a proportionate means to legitimate aim is rather woolly. And, in which case is open to opinion and interpretation.

Providing a schoolchild with a separate, perfectly acceptable toilet would, to most people, constitute a proportionate means. And the legitimate aim would be so that the other children (girls usually) maintain their privacy and dignity in their own toilet.

Again, as far as I know, case-by-case is not actually written anywhere. And you can have a blanket policy. Going case-by-case would be a nightmare of why you would let one person in and not another.

This is my understanding, but because it's so confusing and often contradictory, I'm happy to be corrected.

noble, the best info on school toilets I can find is actually building regulations:
separate toilet facilities for boys and girls aged 8 years or over are provided except where the toilet facility is provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and that is intended for use by one pupil at a time

Source: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1943/regulation/4/made

As a child cannot get a GRC, they are (legally) their biological sex, so boy always means boy and girl always means girl. Where schools are moving to "gender neutral", they need to ensure their toilet facilities are individual rooms if they want to meet building regulations.

And the term is if they are 'a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.'

Datun which raises the question, who determines 'proportionate' who determines 'legitimate?' It's all so very subjective Deliberately so

So the suspicion is that Stonewall and the EHRC were/are deliberately misrepresenting the law?

Not quite. The suspicion is that a large number of institutions in the UK have been ideologically captured and are unable to see law accurately as a consequence. And that this is made worse by a revolving door of a very few people drawn from narrow demographics as heads of third sector and government orgs. See this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

And also the concept of policy laundering:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_laundering

Some schools will have Y13s and even Y12s (and their Scottish equivalents, someone can translate for me) who are past their 18th birthday.

As ever, the marvellous FairPlayforWomen is helpful here - this is from their website (my bolding):

EHRC technical guidance for schools:

3.20 The way in which school facilities are provided can lead to discrimination. 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.

3.35 A previously female pupil has started to live as a boy and has adopted a male name. Does the school have to use this name and refer to the pupil as a boy? Not using the pupil’s chosen name merely because the pupil has changed gender would be direct gender reassignment discrimination. Not referring to this pupil as a boy would also result in direct gender reassignment discrimination.

FPFW says:

“The definition of Gender Reassignment is extremely broad and covers someone as soon as they propose to undergo a process to change sex. This ‘process’ is a personal one and is not clearly defined but it may or may not include bodily changes. Gender reassignment surgery or a gender recognition certificate is not required for someone to be protected under Gender Reassignment or to be termed a transsexual. All people (including children) covered by gender reassignment are collectively described by the term ‘transsexual people’. This definition also covers young children who socially transition. In the context of the Act the term transsexual is used whereas most people would now use the word transgender. Even if a child is too young to know what reassigning gender means they will still be covered because they have started their ‘personal process’. ECHR schools guidance indicates that mis-gendering a pupil who identifies as transgender and/or insisting they using single-sex spaces according to their birth sex would be discriminatory. <strong>Interesting however, it does not state that they must be allowed access into the opposite single-sex space. It can be enough to simply provide an alternative space for them</strong>”.

Can schools not grasp that the GRA 2004 states that it only applies to persons aged at least 18. Children cannot legally transition nor begin the process.

Would a child who has been referred to a gender identity clinic and taking hormone blockers be covered? Or would that not count because according to the clinics these medications are 'fully reversible' and just give the person 'a pause' in their puberty?

Because if these drugs are considered to be reversible and simply give the child more time to decide whether or not transition is right for them, then I think you are right that they have not started a process and the EA2010 protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which I think is the law that you intended to refer to) cannot apply to children.

If it is considered that children attending gender identity clinics and possibly also taking hormone blockers have started on a path to transition then we are actually allowing children to start this process, which we are told does not happen in the UK.

Sorry Mockers. I just reread your post and I think you were referring to the GRA2004. But anything to do with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is covered by the EA2010, and legal transition means that a 'process' for changing their sex* has to have been started.

*I know sex can't be changed but the legislation uses similar terminology to that.

SarahTancredi

Many thanks for posting Stonewall guidance on mixed sex accommodation, sports and confidentiality.

I note that there is absolutely no reference to the dignity, privacy and comfort of other children - clearly not relevant here.

Sports - no mention about fairness to other children - yep mainly girls... clearly not relevant here

Confidentiality - I had heard about this but reading it warrants a WTF response.

Safeguarding chipped away in plain sight...

OP There is a Stonewall school - discussed on another thread which public ally called its children T##Fs.

This is not inclusion. This is bullying. Imagine a young child being uncomfortable on a school trip / toilets and being too frightened to confide in their teacher in case they are called a bigot.

Children must be supported to form their own boundaries - where they feel comfortable — it is dangerous to erode this.

Inclusion refers to the needs of ALL the children.

I did check with the teacher who advised me
of the training that there were no plans to introduce gender neutral toilets and she assured me not. But it amazes me how naive so many people are to these issues. I've been following this for a few years now so consider myself fairly well informed, hence the concern at Stonewall training, as I know they are a lobby group. My issue is that I will only have chance to ask one or two questions so I need to make them count. Possibly asking for definition of sex vs gender?

My issue is that I will only have chance to ask one or two questions so I need to make them count.

1: has the material that is going to be used in school been checked for Working Together compliance by the school's safeguarding lead?

2: to what level are the Stonewall employees coming into the school safeguarding trained (should be Level 2)

Don't ask them about ideology or opinion. Ask them about the law and their statutory duty towards safeguarding.

It's a tricky one and is very dependent on what the session looks at. IF removing sex segregated toilets and changing rooms from children is raised, then I'd ask why they are insistent on removing rights from other protected groups under the equality act (religion, disability, race, sex etc). It really goes against the ethos of most schools.

But Lang's suggestion is better!

Thanks for the various bits of info, it’s bonkers that we are looking at building regulations.

I’m not surprised that schools are starting to go to mixed sex toilets because trying to decide who should and shouldn’t be in single sex toilets seems to be more hassle than it’s worth.

You need to convey that you know much more than they think you do. Which you do! Hence basing the questions on statutory guidance that they know they have to adhere to.

Because if these drugs are considered to be reversible and simply give the child more time to decide whether or not transition is right for them, then I think you are right that they have not started a process and the EA2010 protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which I think is the law that you intended to refer to) cannot apply to children.

If it is considered that children attending gender identity clinics and possibly also taking hormone blockers have started on a path to transition then we are actually allowing children to start this process, which we are told does not happen in the UK.

Stephen Whittle (!) flagged the problem of applying the term gender reassignment to children to the Equality Bill committee in 2009.

Q 73Mr. Boswell:
May I ask one other question, which is about juveniles? It surfaced in a different context this morning. My impression is that trans people under 18 and those who are contemplating their position are very much under the radar of this legislation. Is that a concern for you, and can we deal with them as well?

Stephen Whittle: This is another of our big problem areas. The legislation covers young people through various protections, but the problem is that “gender reassignment” is an absolutely inappropriate term to use in relation to young people. If someone rings me up about their 11-year-old with cross-gendered behaviour, and the school wants them out, what should I do? Should I say, “Let me speak to the 11-year-old,” and then explain that the child wants a sex change? Thirteen and 14-year-olds who make that statement get entwined in a huge, goal-driven medical process that does not let them get out, yet we know that 80 per cent. of young people who manifest very cross-gendered behaviour will not grow up to be trans but will grow up to be gay or lesbian.
We need to rethink that. Again, we have come up with a phrase and a definition that we think would suit. It is gender-varied and carefully defined and would fit into the framework.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090602/pm/90602s01.htm

That's pretty sensible, and Stephen is using the desistance figure that Mermaids et al now rubbish. Overton Window shift, or just salami tactics to get the legislation through?

teawamutu Given the lack of any criticism from SW on Mermaids' more recent stance, I'd say the latter. I don't think SW has ever been interested in what happens to detransitioners or kids who grow up to be same-sex attracted. At the time, SW may have been concerned about being able to keep T separate from the LGB for various reasons, but that's no longer necessary or politically prudent. The phrase 'acceptable collateral damage' springs to mind.

Stonewall is a lobby group with a lot of knowledge about LGBT+++ issues.

Stonewall is a lobby group which no longer gives a flying fuck about LGB issues.

After achieving gay marriage, they needed a new income source which turned out to be trans rights.