Legal rights of gender dysphoric yr 8 boy to be placed in a girls dorm

[PrawnQuaver]

Please could anyone help me understand the legal rights involved in the situation of a private school placing a gender dysphoric year 8 boy, who is currently identifying as female, into a girls dorm on school residential trip without consulting the parents of the three other girls in that dorm or asking the girls themselves?
The 10 protected characteristics of the 2010 Gender Equality Act have been quoted as cast iron justification but I don't know enough about it to provide a strong counter argument.

I've name changed for this post but am a long time mumsnetter

Which is how you can often tell when someone trying to misinform is posting. The logic gets torturous.

Indeed.

As in

the desire for a trans equivalent of s28 becomes all the more horrific the more plain it is made.

There is no trans equivalent of section 28 because transgenderism isn't a sexual orientation.

There is no trans equivalent of section 28 because transgenderism isn't a sexual orientation.

I got the impression that Robin was suggesting that preventing boys who say they want to be girls from sleeping in girls' dorms is 'a trans equivalent' of section 28. So preventing boys who identify as transgender from accessing girls' single sex spaces is a 'trans equivalent' of not allowing schools to teach about homosexuality. But I'm awaiting clarification on that one from Robin.

As ever, don't hold your breath.

@OldCrone

There is no trans equivalent of section 28 because transgenderism isn't a sexual orientation.

I got the impression that Robin was suggesting that preventing boys who say they want to be girls from sleeping in girls' dorms is 'a trans equivalent' of section 28. So preventing boys who identify as transgender from accessing girls' single sex spaces is a 'trans equivalent' of not allowing schools to teach about homosexuality. But I'm awaiting clarification on that one from Robin.

Oh. That's even more of a logic fail then. Its not just comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to something that isn't fruit. Or edible. Or round.

the desire for a trans equivalent of s28 becomes all the more horrific the more plain it is made.

Please explain this @RobinMoiraWhite.

Did you actually intend to state that to wish for clear and robust safeguarding measures based on sex is the equivalent of s28?

In what way? Exactly and specifically, what way?

I've just re-read that damning review of Robin's book, and yes, I think that's exactly what Robin is saying. It sounds on a par with this paragraph about the legal exemptions designed to exclude transwomen as rape counsellors.

The book notes :

"C]are should be taken to note the word “might”. For example, the situation may well depend on how well the trans person “passes”: if it is not possible to tell by looking at / listening to a trans woman that she is transgender then it is far less likely that the genuine occupational requirement would apply as compared with, say, a trans woman who does not pass as well and in a number of respects still looks male."

The reviewer 'The Legal Feminist' responds

The idea that “passing” is something that can or should ever be judged as a condition for employment is fraught with difficulty and embarrassment, both for anyone called upon to make such an invidious judgement, and for the trans person concerned. But even if that difficulty could be overcome, it doesn’t seem fanciful to think that the ability of a rape victim to detect when she is in the presence of a man may be heightened: her perception might not coincide with that of the manager. But more seriously than either of those objections, it should be self-evident that a rape victim who wishes to speak to a female counsellor should be granted that wish without question, and without any threat of subterfuge. It is difficult to imagine a more heartless message to convey to a rape victim than “The person you are sitting with, alone in a room, talking about your experience of rape, will either be a woman, or else a man who passes so well as female that you won’t be able to tell.”

According to Robin, there doesn't appear to be any situation, ever, where females can be without the presence of males.

@Datun

I'll explain. Kids are more than capable of expressing their feelings

And I'll explain, the reason we have safeguarding, is because adults keep claiming that their interpretation of the feelings of other people's children are more important than their safety.

They're not.

This ^^

At 13 I was more than capable of expressing my feelings to have sex with a much older musician and fuck off on tour with him as his adoring little sex toy.

Thank fuck the adults knew to safeguard me.

@Hugoslavia

Wow, I knew there would be some hatred and ignorance in some of these responses, but even by MN standards...

I put across a fairly reasonable middle of the road view point and got told to 'fuck off'!! If that's the level of aggression that people stoop to today, rather than have a reasoned discussion, it's unsurprising that there is so much vitriol in the world!

I won't be responding further. I won't stoop to that level.

Women don’t need to take a middle of the road line of thought about women and girls rights and safeguarding.

In fact we must take a very strong clear line that we do not sacrifice any of our rights and safeguards.

datun

That has such a chilling effect. Everytime I have read it . Hence I actually want Robin to clarify. Not with ambiguity. But with straight up answers.

That a transitioned male feels they have every right to ignore the discomfort caused by trauma of a female because they, and others who may or may not be truthful, think they ‘pass’ is indicative of just what that male thinks of others. ie. Nothing.

They are so unable to accept that something will give them away. Every. time. I think that the myth of not being able to tell is harmful. And if it takes that woman or girl 30-60 minutes to understand that she had been yet again tricked by a male and they are not female, the retraumatisation is real.

But it seems, it doesn’t matter reading this.

Women don’t need to take a middle of the road line of thought about women and girls rights and safeguarding.

Quite. What does compromise, indicated by a middle of the road approach, look like?

Just a bit of a risk? For what??? To validate who, exactly?

They are so unable to accept that something will give them away.

Yes. The very fact of their presence in that situation gives them away.

I think that the myth of not being able to tell is harmful.

It is. And it shows that 'trans acceptance' isn't about accepting trans people for who they are, it's about deception. It's about trying to convince other people that someone is something they are not. That a male person is a woman.

The general view is represented by the recent BBC 'Womanhood' programme

No, the views of six virtue signalling, desperate for exposure z list celebrities does not reflect "womanhood" for all of us.

'Passing' means hiding your true nature, getting people to believe you are something you are not. It is perpetrating a fraud. So when to talk about how well someone passes you mean how well they perpetrate a fraud. How well the deceive others.

@Lovelyricepudding

'Passing' means hiding your true nature, getting people to believe you are something you are not. It is perpetrating a fraud. So when to talk about how well someone passes you mean how well they perpetrate a fraud. How well the deceive others.

Yes indeed. Trying to pass yourself off as something you are not is generally frowned upon, and can be a criminal offence.

Why then the gushing approval when it comes to trying to pass yourself off as the opposite sex to that which you are? Why is this intention to deceive not just tolerated but celebrated?

But with straight up answers.

Robin doesn't do straight up answers

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The general view is represented by the recent BBC 'Womanhood' programme

No, the views of six virtue signalling, desperate for exposure z list celebrities does not reflect "womanhood" for all of us.

Hear, hear.

@Datun

I've just re-read that damning review of Robin's book, and yes, I think that's exactly what Robin is saying. It sounds on a par with this paragraph about the legal exemptions designed to exclude transwomen as rape counsellors.

The book notes :

"C]are should be taken to note the word “might”. For example, the situation may well depend on how well the trans person “passes”: if it is not possible to tell by looking at / listening to a trans woman that she is transgender then it is far less likely that the genuine occupational requirement would apply as compared with, say, a trans woman who does not pass as well and in a number of respects still looks male."

The reviewer 'The Legal Feminist' responds

The idea that “passing” is something that can or should ever be judged as a condition for employment is fraught with difficulty and embarrassment, both for anyone called upon to make such an invidious judgement, and for the trans person concerned. But even if that difficulty could be overcome, it doesn’t seem fanciful to think that the ability of a rape victim to detect when she is in the presence of a man may be heightened: her perception might not coincide with that of the manager. But more seriously than either of those objections, it should be self-evident that a rape victim who wishes to speak to a female counsellor should be granted that wish without question, and without any threat of subterfuge. It is difficult to imagine a more heartless message to convey to a rape victim than “The person you are sitting with, alone in a room, talking about your experience of rape, will either be a woman, or else a man who passes so well as female that you won’t be able to tell.”

According to Robin, there doesn't appear to be any situation, ever, where females can be without the presence of males.

Strangely enough, 'Legal Feminist' is so far out on a limb that their 'damning review' has been taken as a reccomendation by many. I am happy with the industry trade monthly 'Employment Lawyers Association Briefing' which described it as 'Authorative, knowledgeable, objective and highly readable.' That's a problem with being a polemic campaiging group with no balance - you are a polemic compaigning group with no balance. Not helpful if clients want to understand what the law really is. Witness the AEA judicial review case.

And the last sentence quoted above is not my view. Trans people can be excluded but as the EHRC Guidance IMHO correctly states, 'exceptional' reasons are required.

There we go - it is exceptional that raped and traumatised women would want a male free space to recover in and to talk.

It is exceptional that any woman would want safety, privacy and dignity that male free spaces allow.

This isn't a misogynistic agenda determined to destroy every women only space, determined that women will have nothing and nowhere where males are not permitted, of course it isn't.

When and where are women entitled to women only spaces in your opinion then @RobinMoiraWhite?

To patronise and 'educate' at a guess RedCarpetRebellion, pity it doesn't work.

And the last sentence quoted above is not my view. Trans people can be excluded but as the EHRC Guidance IMHO correctly states, 'exceptional' reasons are required.

Got it.

Do you think that raped women wanting a female only space to recover is characterised as exceptional? What about teenage girls in a shower? Or a school dormitory? Or a female prison cell?

Is it exceptional for a woman to want only a female handling her breasts for a mammogram? Or a nurse doing her smear?

Which one of these situations would constitute exceptional, and which wouldn't, in your opinion?

Because the situation I quoted was a raped woman being counselled by a man, unbeknownst to her.

In the interests of clarity it would save a lot of time if you could list the situations that you consider exceptional. Is it all the above, some of the above, none of the above?

Year 8 kids might not be having sex and might be perfectly safe sleeping in the same room. But what happens in 24 months time when we have year 10 kids sleeping in the same room. Such a major safeguarding issue! Amazed me that even in this thread there are people willing to compromise on hypothetically their daughter’s safety.