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"

I've seen emerging evidence of the 'trans/religion clash' and how that will be 'discussed'.

Effectively what we're about to see is virtuous racism. Like we now see virtuous misogyny, and virtuous homophobia. It will be about discrediting, smearing and silencing females who have dared to suggest they have a reason for privacy and dignity that should be considered. It will not involve trans people giving the faintest compassion, consideration or intersectionality towards meeting the needs of females with religious reasons, it will legitimise the political trans lobby in furthering action towards suppressing and excluding those women.

Bottom line: this is a male supremacist movement, dressing up truly morally dire attitudes towards females and other class groups as a 'good thing'. It's morally wrong to treat people this way. Other humans have human rights as well as trans people. Equality doesn't mean 'meet the master race'.

Incidentally the smearing, dismissing, belittling and discrediting of female people's religious views that prevent a small group of males getting precisely what they want all the time, will involve slamming into reverse years of expensive community and local authority and national government work, initiatives, policies etc such as community cohesion, tackling radicalisation, reducing domestic violence and abuse, enabling women from minority culture and faith groups to access public places, health care, swim, etc etc.

But fuck that eh? They're only females.

I think I've grasped that RobinMoiraWhite doesn't care about girls' privacy.

I don't grasp why people with a very obvious conflict of interests get to be the ones setting things into law.

Why shouldn't female children have privacy from male children, RobinMoira? I would have wanted that as a teenager, and so would every girl in my school. The proportionate change is to allow use of a separate facility for the transgender child.

I don't grasp why people with a very obvious conflict of interests get to be the ones setting things into law

That is an excellent question. Harry Miller said that the upper echelons of the police are signing pledges to Stonewall Stonewall are a lobby group. Why are radical changes being implemented without public debate or public consent? Cui bono?

I think it's now beyond all reasonable doubt that the interests of the TRA political lobby starts and finishes with trans people. They are incapable of even acknowledging, never mind considering, the interests or needs or even basic rights of any other group, and their inbuilt prejudice against biological females is staggering.

This is not a group that should be making national policies.

Equally, me and teenage DS spoke about this and he said he would want privacy away from girls (although we tend not to hear about transboys pushing to go into the boys changing rooms)

No, from what I hear, transboys at school tend to change separately, and no one calls them cisboyphobic for preferring NOT to share with those of the same 'gender' but opposite sex.

this is a male supremacist movement, dressing up truly morally dire attitudes towards females and other class groups as a 'good thing'

Yep.

I have read the above comments with real interest.

If you take a moment to read my posts, I haven’t stated what my personal views are, I have given a (hopefully) objective view on the state of the law.

And I note the responses.

Robin

My sons boarding school has a 16 year old trans boy in the boys wing of the boarding house....the child has their own bedroom (with a sink & lockable door.) school arranged for the child to use private facilities & also made one toilet block mixed sex...boys were mortified if they entered & girls were in there so boys tactfully avoided the mixed sex toilet & walked further to use the boys one. School handled the situation well but the boys did not feel comfortable at all having a female sleeping in their wing of the house-no one asked them how they felt though. Often we ask what about the girls, but it’s sometimes equally important to ask how boys feel in all this mess.

I think that claiming or hinting that your posts are not in line with your personal views is odd.
If you believe the law states that women have the right to single sex spaces, why would you argue we don't?

I think we focus more on girls because of safety; girls are less safe in mixed sex spaces. But yes, privacy and dignity also applies to boys.

There have been a few cases before where transmen insisted on using men's spaces and the men in them were deeply uncomfortable. I recall in particular a gym at an American university and a Korean sauna in Chicago - in both cases other users were confused and distressed, and made complaints. I never did hear what happened with the sauna, possibly TRAs were not yet feeling sufficiently emboldened to legally challenge men at that point.

...teenage DS spoke about this and he said he would want privacy away from girls.

Younger adolescent boys would be acutely embarrassed by this. Do not forget that around ages 12-13, the girls are on average bigger than the boys.

I agree absolutely that girls are clearly at risk in mixed sex intimate spaces, but boys don’t actually want them either. Navigating puberty is tough for boys as well & they deserve a single sex space to go about their toileting business. Just as girls are not drinking to avoid going to the loo at school, boys are not taking a dump when they might need one if it’s in a mixed sex loo.

Also aren't random erections rather a thing in teen years? I'd imagine that the non horrible boys would find that prospect excruciatingly embarrassing if forced to share spaces with girls.

Will school budgets be increased to pay for sanitary waste bins in the boys toilets?

Will school budgets be increased to pay for sanitary waste bins in the boys toilets?

And urinals in the girls'

I think those with what can only be described as a pornographic and empathy free view of adolescence tend to forget how painfully self conscious most teens are. It's hard enough to navigate the changes puberty brings, both mental and physical, without being forced to do so in the presence of members of the opposite sex while naked, feeling vulnerable, and knowing that if you complain you might get in trouble. Why would anyone want to put kids in that position? It's awful. More dangerous for the girls, but awful for everyone.

I think we focus more on girls because of safety; girls are less safe in mixed sex spaces. But yes, privacy and dignity also applies to boys

I totally agree

I know this is FWR, but in this instance with the school environment being the subject I felt it wasn't a derail to point out that the vast majority of school children, boys and girls, want and need sex segregated spaces.

This guidance is so open to abuse.

RobinMoiraWhite, I see from googling you that you are a barrister with a very personal interest in trans rights.

Have you considered that it is impossible for you to be impartial on this issue? You appear to be interpreting the law unusually, and wilfully disregarding the SEX based exemptions that exist allowing lawful exclusion of those who are not biologically female despite being 'legally female'. Perhaps understandable, given your personal perspective, but biased and incorrect, nonetheless.

I'm surprised to see you sneer at 'pseudonyms' by the way. There are many reasons why people might not wish to use their original given name in a public forum. There is no reason to shame someone for representing themselves with a new name. This seems rather hypocritical of you, to be honest.

Not read whole thread but to robin, school changing facilities are normally communal. You can't see how it would be proportionate in a school to keep them single sex?

Robin's posting history would suggest not!

I'm in my phone (and supposed to be working) but advanced search was useful, once I found it. RobinMoira has been eloquent in similar topics before!

Thelnebriati
This is a deliberate and provocative push from the current right wing government which is designed to provoke a backlash towards the entire LGB community

No it isn't. This is guidance from the Crown Prosecution service based on
Equality and Human Rights Commission'd draft guidance.

Neither of those bodies are the government.

Barracker, it’s sometimes useful to flip the protected characteristic to examine an argument. You wouldn’t, for example, suggest that a black barrister could not defend an organisation accused of racism, or a female barrister be unsuitable to act in a sex discrimination case with a female claimant.

I regard it as a mark of professional practise that, as well as acting and advising Claimants with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, I have advised and acted for those accused of gender reassignment discrimination or who wish to understand, truely what the extent of the protection afforded to that group is.

The fact that we barristers fo this as a fundamental part of our professional practice is not always grasped by the wider world. You may remember, (if you are unfortunate to be as old as I am !) in the early days of the Blair government, Cherie Blair being criticised by the Labour movement for advising an employer on defending an attempt by a union to be recognised in a particular workplace.

It’s what we do.

I suppose I get frustrated when I see patently incorrect statements about what the law IS. (And ‘guidance’ that is built on myth or misinterpretation or wishful thinking.)

I have absolutely no problem with folk wanting, and campaigning for, the law to be something different from what it is.

But you have to start with an understanding of what it is, and, in this area, how the courts have interpreted ‘legitimate aim’ and ‘proportionate means’.

Sorry for this being a didactic post. As I have said, I’m speaking on this issue this weekend and I seem to have my ‘law lecturer’ head on today.