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

And the woke allies are falling over themselves to support this position. That boys can be girls and be girls can be boys.

Well newsflash. They cant. People can wear what they want, call themselves what they want, that's fine. Obviously. But if you're one of the cock people then you're not a woman. And thats ok. Really. It will all be fine. But how you dress does not give you a free pass to undress with women and girls, and sit in on their trauma sessions so you can get watch and enjoy, and smash up women's safeguards so that you can be in on it.

No.

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.

RMW does it all the time. Hoping that women will fall for it. But there will always be a woman here with more knowledge and understanding than RMW to put them right, when RMW tries to mislead people.

This is the problem with alternative facts and alternative realities.

RMW may well believe what they are saying to be true. Genderism is based in a belief that internal beliefs construct a different reality and unwanted facts are discarded, and indeed it is wrong for others to raise or mention those excluded facts and jar that chosen reality meeting such powerful personal needs.

However that separates the world into those entitled to have personal realities and those who are not entitled and are bound to service and care for others to enable them. Even the atheists and the agnostics.

And it means laws that have various interpretations depending on your internal beliefs and the discreet re writing of them outside of parliament. This is never going to work in a society, is it?

This is never going to work in a society, is it?

No. It doesn't work. Which is why the card house is tumbling around them

Also, as we always seem to get back to the Jaguar Landrover ET case sooner or later, let’s just all remember that it does not set a legally binding precedent.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/jaguar-land-rover-ltd-signs-legal-agreement-ehrc.

Important not to overstate its relevance. After all, we’re all just seekers after the truth, are we not?

I don’t know if it’s true, but I understand that the individual involved also now identifies as a woman, so I am really unclear on how and why a great victory is being claimed.

Can I ask an ignorant question of the wise women here?

Suppose a lawyer came onto MN, under their own name and misrepresented the law… Is there any professional body we could complain to?

Just trying to understand a hypothetical case here

This is a very interesting summary of the JLR case. It seems Taylor's colleagues were very much between a rock and a hard place. Presumably Taylor wanted them to realise he was transitioning otherwise what is the point of suddenly wearing clothing designed for women? But at the same time, any comment or acknowledgment was recorded as harassment.

I'd imagine that they're now too scared to interact at all

Oops forgot to post link!

a-question-of-consent.net/2021/01/02/taylor-v-jaguar-landrover-a-landmark-case-or-losing-sight-of-the-landmarks-of-reality/

Am I remembering correctly that we had a poster recently who posted that someone they knew had a transitioned male start work in an organisation with that acquaintance. And everyone was so worried about saying the wrong pronouns or the wrong thing that after just a week or two that person left?

How has this been framed as a 'good' thing? That people are now so worried about losing their own jobs for saying the wrong thing that they will simply just limit contact with a colleague which makes that colleague feel uncomfortable.

Perhaps all this framing like the aggressive pronouning and the constant reminder that a group of people are more likely to report hate crimes (whereas women you know, just tend to not even bother reporting rape and assaults because they realise nothing will get done), the charities telling women whose husbands are transitioning and where there is a high likelihood that they are suffering abuse themselves that the women refusing to call their husbands by their preferred pronouns and name are abusers ... and the list goes on, seems like a great big fat win for some people.

But when the reality actually seeps into their bubble, they might start understanding that the win is not what it seems.

However... crack on everyone who believes that a 12/13 year old boy should be sleeping in the girl's dormitory. What a WIN!!!

Just an interesting screenshot for anyone to bear in mind when considering the accuracy of RMW's posts.

For context at the time of posting, at the tribunal of the doctor in question, some charges had been found "not proven".

Many had been found admitted and proven.

This morning, his fitness to practice has been found impaired and sanctions are now being discussed.

Hardly "cleared of all charges".....

Obviously, there is a special knowledge that some legal people have. They can wish legal decisions into being.

Or maybe it was something that had been discussed in back rooms, like with Blunt and that special group in Parliament. And if so, again the confidence in those discussions may have been misplaced.

Not sure I ever would want to see a doctor that has been declared as being impaired the way Harrop has. I don’t think there is any coming back from that even if he is one day allowed to practice.

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?

Well this is the whole misogynistic route of it, isn't it? That the discomfort or safety or view of girls is not to be considered in favour of someone else. Its the blatant cultural misogyny underpinning all of this.

You may want to point out that girls cannot be enabled to develop appropriate boundaries nor the confidence to assert their boundaries if adults are instructing them to ignore their discomfort and prioritise the feelings of males to be around them when they are vulnerable ( such as changing or sleeping).

@BreadInCaptivity

Just an interesting screenshot for anyone to bear in mind when considering the accuracy of RMW's posts.

For context at the time of posting, at the tribunal of the doctor in question, some charges had been found "not proven".

Many had been found admitted and proven.

This morning, his fitness to practice has been found impaired and sanctions are now being discussed.

Hardly "cleared of all charges".....

For goodness sake! You'd think that someone whose book on trans law has been reviewed as "If the objective of the book was to increase understanding of the law in this area, it must be judged an abject failure", would at least think about even giving a slight nod to accuracy.

That tweet is going to need to be memory holed stat!

Oops.

Then the child needs to be in their own room. To ensure the rights of all are upheld.

Then the child needs to be in their own room. To ensure the rights of all are upheld.

Sounds very simple doesn’t it?

@Helleofabore

Then the child needs to be in their own room. To ensure the rights of all are upheld.

Sounds very simple doesn’t it?

And hard to argue with.

It recognises the particular need for adaptation and inclusion for the boy.

It recognises the equality of need and standard safeguarding for the girls.

It balances and meets all needs, leaving no child the loser. Oooh look, it's inclusion!

It balances and meets all needs, leaving no child the loser.

But it does have a loser doesn't it...the ideology.

That's why 3rd spaces are continually rebuffed.

It's because it acknowledges that sex matters. That TW/TM cannot and should not always be treated as biological women/men and the same for trans children.

This is what I find so frustrating when activist cry they want equal rights for the trans community.

They manifestly don't. They want trans rights, in any and every circumstance to top trump the rights of anyone else.

All based on an inner identity that is dysphoric (dysphoria definition: A state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction).

In other words the emphasis is to minimise one persons unease/dissatisfaction even at the cost of causing those very same feelings for many others.

If these feelings matter, then they matter equally for everyone and the only reasonable response is that which reduces the negative impact to a minimum - even at the cost of your ideology.