Telegraph reports schools face legal action

[BovaryX]

The Telegraph reports that schools face legal action if they prevent trans children from accessing the toilet of their choice. It cites the new guidance from the CPS

Schools have been warned by prosecutors that they could face legal action if they fail to allow transgender pupils to use their preferred lavoratories or changing rooms. A new guidance document for schools, drawn up by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), advises teachers that excluding trans pupils from “particular facilities” could be seen as “indirect discrimination” if it is not “justifiable as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

When it's lawful to provide separate services for men and women;
The Equality Act says it's lawful to provide separate services for men and women if:

• there's a good enough reason for providing separate services, for example

the services are of a type that you would object to someone of the opposite sex being there - for example, separate changing rooms or a service involving personal hygiene

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/single-sex-and-separate-services-for-men-and-women-when-discrimination-is-allowed/

And good morning to you TheProdigal. Speaking entirely personally, I avoid comments like ‘graced with presence’ about other social media users, especially those who don’t use pseudonyms. But, of course, that’s your choice.

There is an important debate to be had about how the rights of one protected group impact on another and he that should be regulated. I will be speaking about the trans / religious clash at a legal conference this very weekend.

The debate will not be advanced without understanding the law, and not mis-stating it, or guidance which sets out the position accurate, as the quote from Transgender Trend does.

These are difficult issues and blanket positions which do not take into account the particular circumstances of the child and the school will not meet the current law.

Argue for a change if you believe the present position is wrong; resist proposed changes if you think they lead to unfairness by all means, but beware of those who think a complex area is simple.

How much will it cost to transform every communal toilet in UK schools to individual cubicles? Who will pick up the tab for that?

Yet disabled pupils still sometimes have to go to court to force schools to use the money allocated to them to make their environments accessible.

"justifiable as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

Let's see now... preventing sexual abuse of girls... that seems to be a legitimate aim.

Keeping male bodies out of the girls' toilets in order to keep girls from harm... yes, that seems justifiable.

Providing alternative provision for children who do not want to use the toilet... that is a proportionate response to the problem. Compassionate, too - an attitude which is distinctly lacking towards the girls caught up in this debate.

Indeed. And I'd think there are considerably more disabled pupils.

This is the furthest possible thing from a grassroots movement. Which is why I'm hoping the people involved, caught up in hubris, will be stupid enough to take on those who have even more power than they do.

It's a shame none of the royal kids are at boarding school age at the moment. A TRA attempt to try to force one of them into shared sex facilities would be an act of such epic stupidity that someone would be bound to try it.

Legitimate aim? Like ensuring adolescent girls feel confident that their school toilets are not accessible to anatomical males?

Self contained toilets cost more and take up more space. They are not the answer to toilet provision for reasons of cost, logistics, and the increased risk of voyeurism.

This is an entirely new and manufactured problem that has only become an issue in recent years. In the past, the biggest problem was anti social behaviour in toilets.
Women and girls are not the ones pushing for mixed sex toilets.

Most boys and men aren't either. Mixed sex toilets are the "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist that nobody wants other than a handful of people with very questionable motives.

Surely letting males into the girls toilets would be indirect discrimination against girls?

argue for a change if you think the present position is wrong

That's hilarious. Given the present position has come about with no public debate, no public consent and no media scrutiny At least the latter seems to be changing, as the supine, somnabulant press wakes up...

Women here have been arguing for change for a long time. That's why TRAs are trying to get both this forum and the site as a whole shut down.

So if I had a son who wasn't comfortable using the boys loo at school however doesn't identify as a girl, why can't he use the girls too? After all, he'd feel more comfortable.

What's the difference between these two individuals which means one is allowed in and not the other?

Legitimate aim:

Protecting girls' rights to dignity, privacy and respect.

Seems pretty legitimate to me. Who says girls' rights are not legitimate?

Proportionate: offering alternative facilities to those who feel unable to use male facilities, for whatever reason.

Seems eminently proportionate and reasonable to me.

Female people wanting privacy, dignity and space away from males is not 'legitimate' or 'proportionate'.

This will exclude a proportion of females from access to spaces. That's what it will do. While criminalising them for daring to protest. While ensuring that the male people involved have access to male facilities, third spaces AND female spaces and are absolutely free to choose whatever they want whenever they want and fuck the needs of anyone else in the situation.

What is legitimate, inclusive or even basically moral about that?

'could be seen as indirect discrimination' is something I'm seeing more of in guidelines.

Why is it not direct discrimination against the protected characteristic of sex, to make the required single sex facilities essentially mixed sex?

tellme given they are arguing that there is no justifiable or proportionate aim to uphold single sex spaces and therefore transgirls (who are legally Male) must be let it in, it follows that the school are not using the single sex exemption and the toilet is therefore mixed sex so any boy can enter.

Either they are using the single sex exemption or they are not.

Or indeed any male teacher. What could possibly go wrong?

Why is it not direct discrimination against the protected characteristic of sex

And direct discrimination against girls on the grounds of their religion if this is a barrier.

And direct discrimination against girls on the grounds of their disability if they have one presenting a barrier to this, such as the teenager with Aspergers just criminalised.

There is no coherency anywhere within this. But CPS have just put trans at the top of the protected characteristics list and announced it's the top trump. Which is not in keeping with the EQA2010, has never been through parliament, was in no manifesto, and has absolutely no democratic legitimacy of any kind.

It's infuriating. How does this get through checks before being published without someone saying - actually, the EA clearly states that...

(I know, it's Stonewall. I wish someone would take them to court)

Ah, but we will surely be told why we are wrong, shortly. If time can be squeezed from a busy speaking schedule!!

CPS have just put trans at the top of the protected characteristics list and announced it's the top trump

Yup. Ever think it might be being used as a distractor, while other issues get hustled in by the back door?

The use of pseudonyms here - I wonder why that is???!! Free speech based on biology and fact is being hounded out. Stonewall has infiltrated many government departments workplaces with gender ideology.

@RobinMoiraWhite
I will be speaking about the trans / religious clash at a legal conference this very weekend.

Is anyone going to discuss about the trans/ women’s/girls rights clash? Or is this tantamount to t**fdoom and requires #nodebate

In your view, is the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls (EA 2010) an ‘absolutist’ position or is it up for debate/compromise?

Biological sex is immutable - apart from Dr Who.

Thought so, thanks. It's literally going to be a free for all.

Michelle and the worrying thing is ad it's badged as being from the CPS many people will not connect those dots and so go along obediently.

Ahhh the CPS. Perhaps they could invest some of the energy invested in this (a minority cause) into ensuring processes and procedures for getting more rape cases to court in a way that treats women and girls like human beings. That would be nice.

Basic human rights?!!! WTAFFFFF.

What actual basic human right are trans people being denied?

bangs head on table. So tired of this shit