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 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.)

RobinMoiraWhite Couldn't agree more. Have you taken Stonewall to task on the the untruths they are propagating about the Equality Act?

I can't understand why the CPS is giving advice about discrimination law in the first place. It is civil, not criminal law so why is it a matter for them?

I believe the EHRC have corrected their own guidance which now correctly references the single-sex exemptions and makes clear that the law does not give trans people the unqualified right to access the facilities of their choice.

Trans pupils and students are often told to use the ‘accessible’ facilities rather than those for their true gender. It may then be appropriate to rename these facilities using terms such as ‘unisex accessible toilets’, ‘larger toilet’, ‘toilet and changing facility’ or simply ‘toilet’ to reduce what is often perceived as the stigma of using toilets commonly identified as ‘Disabled Toilet’. This will help ensure schools and colleges respect the dignity and privacy of both Trans pupils and students and also pupils and students with disabilities, whilst both ensuring everyone’s safety and protecting their self-respect.

So nobody's been worrying about the stigma for disabled children who need to use the disabled toilet all these years, then? About challenging the thinking that ensures that such a stigma exists? Apparently it's not a problem if disability is shameful, but that shame shouldn't extend to a non-disabled child, so we need to rename the facilities in question if trans children are to use them. Nice.

The doublethink here is really infuriating. Especially when other guidance insists that disabled children being bullied is less serious, because the stigma is less. Make your fucking minds up. Either the stigma is less, or it's so great trans kids can't be expected to use facilities identified for disabled ones for fear of that stigma extending to them. Which is it?

There's such a breathtaking lack of empathy and care for children in all this. Adults threatening boys and girls with being charged with crimes if they don't accept the opposite sex undressing in front of them, girls forced to manage menstruation in mixed sex environments, the wishes of children of faiths, victims of sexual abuse completely disregarded. All parents know that our children are sensitive about their bodies and development at times - uncertain, embarrassed, fearful of being found 'inadequate', some horrified about pubertal changes, often struggling with mental health anxieties.
Yet a group that demands the ultimate empathy and understanding from society, targets children with a clinical precision and forces mixed sex toilets, sleeping accommodation and changing rooms on them. Zero bloody understanding of children and their needs.

Why is there no care or empathy for children in all this?

Some might say the targetting of children by some TRAs is not accidental.

@RobinMoiraWhite thank you for engaging.

Can I ask if you accept that biological sex, and gender identity, are different?

And if so, can I ask if you recognise that women have reason, in some situations, to want single sex spaces, and that this should be respected as legitimate?

If so, can I ask your views on:

1. Sport
2. Prisons
3. Women's refuges
4. Homeless shelters
5. Communal changing rooms
6. Hospital wards
7. Hostel dormitories
8. Medical care
9. Toilets
10. Prizes, awards, and women only shortlists

I suppose I am interested in when, and if, you see there as being areas in which someone's innate sense of gender identity should not overcome women's having single-sex provision.

I remember reading a (very sympathetic) transwoman's account of transition in the Telegraph a year or two ago. And what startled me most was when she said that she assured women that she was much more frightened of us, when using the ladies, than we were of her - that she was really afraid we would mock or sneer at her. And I instantly remembered the Margaret Atwood quote, that men are afraid women will laugh at them, and women are afraid men will kill them. There's a particular stomach churning fear, unique to realising it's late and you're walking home and a man is walking just a little way behind you. Of realising you're on a train alone with a man who is staring at you. Of someone's hand going where it shouldn't when you're minding your own business in a pub or club, and you turn around and some laughing male face smirks, because he feels completely entitled to grope you, because you exist. And women who protest are often assaulted. So, so many women are raped, and if one exists who has never been sexually assaulted, I'm yet to meet her.

Then there's the worldwide way in which women are brutally, universally, killed, assaulted, marginalised and abused based on sex. It's not done on gender identity. It's sex. So we need protections on a basis of sex, too, if that injustice is to be countered, and safety increased - no?

I often wonder, when this discussion happens, if transwomen really understand this aspect. We're not being exclusionary to be horrid. We're wanting single sex provision from lengthy lived experience, backed up by a plethora of statistically supported fact.

Just because a policy says something doesn't mean it's lawful.

Exactly.
Should Mr Bob Jones the Geography teacher turn up to an evening PTA social fundraising event cross-dressed & introducing himself as Gloria there is no law which requires that his colleagues, parents of pupils or governors to use female pronouns or call him Miss for the evening whilst discussing his forthcoming trip for the VI form to Berlin. Nor is it required or appropriate that he expect to use the women's staff loos for the evening.

For the NASUWT to supply such guidance to SLTs begs many questions.

Why is there no care or empathy for children in all this?

My view? It's deliberate.

The people pushing it do are not interested in the safety or best interests of any children - including trans children.

At best, they want their political agenda pushed no matter the cost to children. At worst, I can't say because I'd be deleted but we ALL KNOW who benefits most from weakening of safeguarding of kids.

Apparently it's not a problem if disability is shameful, but that shame shouldn't extend to a non-disabled child, so we need to rename the facilities in question if trans children are to use them

I find the same thinking about mental illness. TRAs get furious if it is suggesting that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, which leads me to think that they believe that mental illness only refers to utter madness.

So the 13 year old changing for swimming (an act that usually involves stripping naked) is forced to undress in front of any adolescent boy who self identifies as a girl -

One of the schools near us were going to change to unisex toilets but then changed their mind, due to protests. I talked to my 13 year old daughter about it and she was horrified about the idea, saying, “But how would they get changed?!”

To her, it’s inconceivable that girls should change alongside boys. I think some girls just wouldn’t do it with punishments and disengagement from sport as a consequences.

To her, it’s inconceivable that girls should change alongside boys.

But with the help of the CPS and their firendly teaching materials, she will be brainwashed indoctrinated educated to understand that some girls have willies and she needs to get over it.

But with the help of the CPS and their firendly teaching materials, she will be brainwashed indoctrinated educated to understand that some girls have willies and she needs to get over it.

What will happen is that girls will learn early that their own feelings of discomfort and unease around wanting privacy are wrong if what a girl wants is different to what a male expects of her.

But this is why I think there’s been an overreach. Girls don’t want this and, more importantly, parents, irrespective of their religious and political affiliations don’t want it for their children.

What will happen is that girls will learn early that their own feelings of discomfort and unease around wanting privacy are wrong if what a girl wants is different to what a male expects of her.

Precisely.

A female's right to say no must depend first on whether or not the male she is saying no to finds it offensive. Or upsetting.

Well those are noble questions. I'll predict you'll either get no answer or a lot of probably quite patronising and pompous waffle, but the root of it is that women have been patiently asking these questions and explaining to the TRA political lobby for years. It isn't that they don't know. It's just that they don't care.

nolongersurprised
I agree there's been a massive overreach. BUT is the welfare and safety of girls (in fact all children) important enough? Will parents speak out? Will MPs finally find their courage (instead of whimpering in corners to journalists about how awful this all is) and stand up to protect children?

I'm no longer sure. Don't underestimate the exceptional levels of intimidation and bullying that this ideology encourages. When organisations can actively threaten young girls that they must accept naked males who self identify as the opposite sex in their changing rooms or be charged with a hate crime I'm not sure how much lower society can sink.

I agree there's been a massive overreach. BUT is the welfare and safety of girls (in fact all children) important enough? Will parents speak out? Will MPs finally find their courage (instead of whimpering in corners to journalists about how awful this all is) and stand up to protect children?

Women and their children have been bullied into submission and, I suspect, been hampered by female socialisation. Natal men in female changing rooms affects women so mainly women have been complaining. The push back has been from women, hence TERFs etc.

But moves like these will engage father. The sexual protectiveness of fathers towards daughters is another issue all on its own, but if their daughters will be distressed by it, so will they. TRAs don’t seem to bully men in quite the same way - I wonder why?

I just can't tell you how uncomfortable I am about Stonewall and the NASUWT creating policy that tells my daughter she has to get changed with children of the opposite sex.

My DDs school (a private school, incidentally) have already told her that, but in addition, the CPS seems to be saying that:

1. her school could be sued if they don't allow this.

2. if she says anything, a slip of the tongue, a naive mistake, that is perceived as hurtful, she could be guilty of hate crime - according to the new CPS hate crime guidance for schools.

So - when a few months ago, a MTF trans child (wearing boys uniform) came into her changing room, her and friends said "this is the girls'" - and were told by the trans child's class mates - and I quote - "no, he is a girl" - I'm wondering if those girls naively questioning this, would be guilty of a hate crime? It's not much different to the Aspergers lad saying "is it a boy or a girl" to a PCSO.

These policies, and the CPS and Stonewall interfering in our schools, and threatening to sue schools, and threatening to criminalise children for hate crime - this cannot be in the interests of our school children. It cannot be good for education, for critical thinking, for freedom of expression and discussion.

this cannot be in the interests of our school children.

Is it in the interests of a teenaged girl to be humiliated and afraid to show her distress while being forced to undress in the presence of a male, for the benefit of that male's wellbeing?

It's that straightforward.

I think of my generation's humiliation and awful memories of being made to share a communal shower with other girls under the eye of a female PE teacher. Every girl hated it. Those awful memories are powerful 30 years later.

These will be much worse.

Michelle, that is so freaky, I was just thinking about that when I wrote my post!

I was remembering an old thread on here (AIBU I think) where loads of women shared their experiences of communal showering in PE a few decades ago, having to run through them naked, and then walk to get your towel, all sorts of horror stories. And other indignities.

I was thinking "this could end up being this next generation's version of that - girls being forced to undress in front of the opposite sex, and risking a hate crime accusation if they say anything!"

I've got a question for our visiting barrister. We are talking about legislation and guidance on the law. We need clear definitions of the terms being used. Could you define these terms?
Gender
Gender Identity
Gender role
Gender presentation
These have all been mentioned in this thread and it would help the discussion to have them clearly defined.

It's infuriating.
Men and boys are not just expecting heaping servings of validation in the form of names, pronouns and the like. It's not enough that a boy can use a private room separate from the other boys and tell himself this is my special girl room. Hell's teeth, it wouldn't be enough even if the extra special private room had a neon lighted sign above it declaring 'girly sparkle girl only room for girls right here'
No.
The only validation that will properly serve, is the enforced validation of actual girls, demonstrated by the forced presence of their actually female bodies, and the compelled utterance of false words from female mouths.

This is about USING other PEOPLE, female people as living props.

We all know that even if every girl chose to evacuate to a room entitled "room for smelly hairy boys", that a boy seeking validation would choose THAT room over his own sparkly private girl room in a heartbeat.

Because it isn't actually about wanting to use a "female changing room". It's not about wanting to use a "female name" or have "female status" recorded.
No.
It's about wanting to use female people, no matter what they call themselves, no matter how they identify. We are the living targets. Whichever room the people with real female bodies are in - that's the target.

This sense of entitlement is a demanded entitlement not to names, pronouns or status.

It's a demanded entitlement to other people.

God, I really can’t believe anyone’s seriously coming on here arguing that teenage girls should be forced, under equalities law, to be naked in front of boys and men.

But then, what would I know? I’ve just spent the last 27 years being a lawyer, and a mother, reading the law and advising on it and doing boring mother things.

It’s pretty basic: if you want your teenage daughter to be forced to undress in front of males, support stonewall. They’re the movement for you!

If you think girls should have the freedom to choose who they get naked in front of, write to your MP and explain you’re terrified and angered by the way in which trans activists are trampling over the privacy and dignity of women and girls. Say you’re frightened by the CPS guidance. Say girls should have privacy from male bodied people. Say no female should be bullied by the law into undressing in front of a man. Ever. In any circumstances.

It doesn’t have to be a long letter/email. I’ve worked in a political context, and believe me MPs really do care about their post bags. They notice. You can easily find your MP’s email address on Parliament’s website. If you care about the privacy and dignity and safety of girls, please write.

Males don’t belong in our teenage daughters’ changing rooms.

Paintedlady my MP would be totally up for that, sadly.
Can someone unlock this statement for me please - So schools must have sex-segregated facilities, but trans students must be allowed to use the facilities for their acquired gender Choosing/deciding to identify as a different gender does not change a young person's sex, so how does that affect sex segregated facilities?

I must admit I don't quite see how the human rights of transgender people entitle them to use the facilities of the opposite sex.

They seem to be arguing that the intention for toilets has always really been gender segregation, not sex segregation. I think this is fed by the idea that now science has taught us all sex isn't really clearly definable anyway.

The protected characteristics cited in the Equality Act are as follows, this is a cut and paste quote from www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2:

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

Crucially, though - having any one of those protected characteristics - DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE OTHERS TOO!!!!"

Sorry for shouting, there.

But.... are disabled males automatically allowed into women's spaces, because they - disabled males - too have a protected characteristic - the protected characteristic of disability? No, they are not.

Are elderly men being automatically allowed into women's spaces, because they too have a protected characteristic - the protected characteristic of age? No, they are not.

Similarly - having the protected characteristic of "gender reassingment" does not automatically confer the rights and attributes of "ALL" the other protected characteristics, or even any of them.