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

@FOJN

(remember, we're talking about an 8 year old here)

Are we? You might want to read the OP again.

PrawnQuaver

You mention 10 protected characteristics in your OP; is the school listing 10? There are only 9 in the EA. It may be that their justification is based on a made up PC.

To be fair I initially read it as 8 years old too.

I don't know why posters insist on assuming that everyone is familiar with the English school system nor why it is so impossible to state a child's actual age.

I don't know what age "Year 8" is. I could Google it but why should I have to?

@OldCrone

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.

Exactly this.

@RobinMoiraWhite

I'm lost.

Is your position that is is "extremist" for a majority of female bodied people to not want to share safe spaces with male bodied people?

And if so, why are the wants of trans people more important than the wants of a substantial number of biological women?

Do you believe all spaces should be unisex and biological women have no right to single sex spaces?

@mybroomstick

As well as being so harmful for girls and women expected to buy into this lie, it’s also really harmful to the trans person also.

It’s the equivalent of telling a child in a wheelchair who will never walk, that they will one day be free to walk and run just because they want to.

It’s a horrifically cruel trick to play on a child especially.

My parents used to lie to me to fuck with my head all the time in ways that feel similar. Telling me we were going to the vets to make my dog better, when actually he was getting put down, and laughing at me afterwards.

It makes me wonder whose enjoying setting these kids up to fail. Whose getting their kicks out of dangling a lie like a carrot and then watching the kid fall flat on their face when reality hits home.

Who does that to a child, except an abuser? Why would any teachers, trained in safeguarding, let parents abuse their child in this way?

Is there some kind of social loathing of gnc kids that means some adults are subconsciously only too happy to scapegoat gnc kids in this way?

It sounds like a stretch until we consider the likes of Keira Bell and what she was put through, just because she didn’t fit into a neat little box of expectations. Then it feels exactly like culling gnc.

It's always my questions that get ignored or batted away with something meaningless.
I'm not sure whether to be offended. I'll just carry on asking, I suppose.

extreme views

to add to Datun's list:

like women and girls not wanting to share spaces with men and boys who want to identify their way into them?

like women and girls wanting safety, privacy and dignity that single sex spaces and services should provide?

or how about not wanting the language around women and women's health to be bastardised and dehumanising to women with the result that it excludes women from the very services they need?

or not serving up women as potential victims to convicted male rapists by incarcerating said males in the female prison estate?

not expecting women prisoners to be used as validation tools for males and male rapists who declare they feel like a woman?

or excluding women fleeing violence or requiring rape and trauma counselling by allowing males in those places and services?

If anyone considers those views extreme then they lack any humanity.

If anyone considers those views extreme then they lack any humanity

Clearly women need to shhh and let the penis owners in to observe what the women are doing and talking about. The penis owners need to watch. They need to listen. They need to be in control. They don't care about being lonely or unwanted. Being unwanted simply adds to the frisson. This movement is a voyeurs wet dream.

I very much enjoy Robin’s assumption (“I am the advocate”) that Robin is the only one bringing a legal qualification to the table here

Bit…sexist, innit?

Also, wrong.

It’s a very common misconception from many visitors that women here are “just” mummies, and do not in fact possess many relevant professional accomplishments and skills. We just don’t all feel we need to make the appeal to authority of posting under the names that those professional accomplishments belong to. I’d rather make the point on its own merits, myself.

May I suggest that anyone who believes men can be women should perhaps think before accusing other people of extreme views.

@Floisme

May I suggest that anyone who believes men can be women should perhaps think before accusing other people of extreme views.

This.

May I suggest that anyone who believes men can be women should perhaps think before accusing other people of extreme views

Indeed. Thinking it's possible to change sex is a very extreme position. And one that very few people believe is actually possible.

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 am going to leave this here again because it wasn’t answered. It seems that Robin likes to make rather hyperbolic statements and never explain. Just like the usual ploppers.

Although they did come back and tell us we were effectively extremists. I am another one who won’t report their negative generalisation though, because I want readers to see the level of debate from someone who is supposedly Stonewall’s finest.

Well we know the level of dishonesty and denigration towards women that the very head of Stonewall shows. Nancy Kelley just try to cloak her hatred behind statements that can be open to interpretation. Why on earth would we expect anything different than disparagement and denigration from a member of SW legal team?

We will simply watch the upcoming Allison Bailey case we great interest.

Given that RMW didn't answer the question, I'm guessing we can assume that RMW doesn't believe that:

• Rape survivors have the right to a female counsellor if they ask for one
• 13 year old girls have the right to single sex sleeping accommodation.

As they don't appear to be on the notional list of 'exceptional' circumstances in which trans people can be excluded.

Good to have that confirmed.

As they don't appear to be on the notional list of 'exceptional' circumstances in which trans people can be excluded

It's pretty repulsive really. Desperate males who will say and do anything in order to get access to females. It's always been like this in one form or another. Which is why women and girls have sex segregated space in the first place. These males have reinvented themselves as women and reframed themselves as the victims. And some people have actually fallen for it. Instead of telling these men to fuck right off.

@Floisme

May I suggest that anyone who believes men can be women should perhaps think before accusing other people of extreme views.

And to add to that, one that seems to support a 12/13 year old boy sleeping in a dorm with the girls and cannot see any issue with it at all.

You could also imagine that this person has no concept of what being a 12/13 year old girl actually is like either. Funny that. How can a ‘woman’ be such a great advocate for women…. but cannot have the basic understanding of being a 12/13 girl?

It really is impossible to unsee it once you see it.

The subset of males insisting they are ‘just like every other woman’ but lack any concept of the needs of girls (let alone the actual needs of women), effectively punching down to ensure girls grow up with lowered boundaries.

You have to keep asking yourself, who benefits from that?

Statement of superior authority. Followed by a statement that women wanting rights, safeguarding, to be homosexual and not shag males, to be independent of male supervision- in fact to just say 'no' to male orders to them- are 'extremists'.

Yeah, nuff said there really.

It's male supremacism in one neatly wrapped parcel. #nothankyou.

We will simply watch the upcoming Allison Bailey case we great interest.

We will. Your efforts so far with that haven't exactly covered yourself in glory, RMW.

Also really enjoying 'female people need equality of access to TW, and equal respect for their voices, lived experience, need for specialist spaces and choice to respect their needs' = section 28 for trans people!

Females being allowed to retain some equality is just the same as every other humanitarian disaster in history! Panic!

There aren't sufficient eye rolls. HQ, we're going to need bigger emoticons.

Nothing to see here. Move on now. If a man or boy has womanly internal feelz then they are a woman, and thus are sweet kind and gentle, and pose no risk whatsoever with their female penis. So they are completely safe to undress with girls, sleep in girls spaces, join women's trauma groups. Coz they is the same. Sort of. Apart from their penis. Which is a woman's penis anyway. So the women transphobic bigots must silence themselves.

Seriously. What a crock of shit. Why the heck are people buying into this. It's time to wake up. ⏰

We will. Your efforts so far with that haven't exactly covered yourself in glory, RMW.

Indeed, RMW, certainly liked to hang round ABs twitter page and observe there too. Yet another space they should really keep out of. RMW couldn't help themselves from jumping in to ABs page to contribute their unwanted and unasked for opinion. Even though their doing so was entirely unprofessional and entirely inappropriate. But the compulsion takes over I suppose.

Seems to be a general theme here.

You are right Beckert. I keep forgetting. That transitioned males grew up feeling like a girl, while they were a boy and having to cope with their penis and such rather than periods, becoming objectified by males of all ages, and female body development.

But IT WAS JUST THE SAME.

So, of course a group of males should be able to tell girls what they need, because… those males HAVE experienced being just the same.

After all, their girl dicks were just outie vaginas and they were just one of those girls who ‘didn’t’ get periods (and the medical condition they suffered that caused that was, you know, being male).

So, of course a group of males should be able to tell girls what they need, because… those males HAVE experienced being just the same.

To clarify, tell girls what the girls needs are!

I am sure we have all experienced males telling us as teenaged girls what they, males, needed.

I am quite astounded by RMW's attempt to misinterpret the EA2010. The Act is not a tool to ensure transpeople get everything they want and to hell with everyone else, it is there to define 9 protected characteristics, 8 of which are equal because disability (rightly) trumps all according to conversations between members of the HoL.

As far as single-sex provisions go, reframing the Act's exceptions as exceptional circumstances is a particularly deceptive piece of propaganda. It deliberately gives the impression we have to jump through hoops to justify single-sex spaces. However, examples given in the Act where it would be classed as proportional to exclude one sex (inc those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, don't forget it is an equal characteristic not preeminent, all terms in the Act are fully defined and clarified) are swimming sessions and a Saturday dads' group. Hardly a high bar! No other statutory exceptions are undermined, quibbled about and downright lied about than the explicit single-sex protections in the Act. Only those that apply to women. Well I for one say ENOUGH.