How to tackle school

[EarlyModernEnglish]

I’d really appreciate some practical advice.

There is a trans girl at my daughter’s school who is sometimes present in the girls’ changing room when my daughter and her friends are getting changed. My daughter is 11; trans girl is 16. Daughter says she and some of her friends feel uncomfortable with this but don’t dare say anything for fear of being called transphobic.

I know this isn’t a new issue and has probably been discussed on here many times, but I’d really some tips for an effective, calm approach to follow in the current climate. I am so cross at the thought of these young girls being made to feel uncomfortable. My daughter is anxious about any action because she desperately fears being called transphobic.

Thank you.

Blueberry, I read it as more about the wording of the EHRC guidance. AEA argued that being written as 'should' (as in 'organisations should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present' was being read and advise as 'must'.

Also, transsexual and transgender are not the same thing, are they?

The below is from legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

The Defendant, EHRC, said that

the COP said “should,” not “must,”
that exceptions were available, and
that the bodies which had adopted the “must” position had not expressly said that they had had regard to the COP. On that basis, the EHRC said that those bodies cannot have been led, or misled, by the COP, as none of them mentioned it.
In fact, the EHRC said, a policy that said a service provider ‘must’ treat people according to the role in which they present would be “directly inconsistent” with the COP.

In other words – other bodies may well be making this unlawful assertion, but it ain’t us guv.

also

The decision

The Judge decided that AEA’s question about the lawfulness of the EHRC’s guidance should not be put in front of the courts. His job was not to decide what the correct interpretation of the law was at this stage. All he had to do was decide if AEA’s claim was “arguable” – that is, was it arguable that the EHRC’s guidance was so wrong as to be unlawful.

He decided it was not, for the following reasons:

On the first argument, he agreed that the COP said “should,” not “must.” He pointed out that the guidance extends to just four paragraphs and is intended to be a brief summary not a detailed legal analysis. After “should” comes the disclaimer “However,” followed by an explanation of where exclusion will be reasonable. Although it is not detailed, it is not intended to be an exhaustive guide.
He also agreed that if there are public bodies which have understood a ‘should’ as a ‘must,’ these are capable of challenge by individual service users to individual service providers, whether inclusive or exclusive. We look at this below.
On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.
It may well be that a service needs to be female only, but the variation in presentations of transwomen from someone who is ‘visually indistinguishable’ to someone who has only just announced an intention to transition, and the variation in needs of the service users from a rape crisis centre to a changing room with partitioned cubicles, mean that there cannot be the certainty advanced by the Claimant.
In respect of the third argument, the judge agreed that physical appearance is relevant. This is unfortunate. Someone who is genuinely visually indistinguishable will be unlikely to cause challenge or consternation on accessing a SSS, even if they should choose to do so. Focus on a person’s physical appearance is likely to be experienced as demeaning by both the subject and the person required to make the assessment.

So, as with most things gender ideology related, there is no clear cut answer, it is open to interpretation

@NancyDrawed

Blueberry, I read it as more about the wording of the EHRC guidance. AEA argued that being written as 'should' (as in 'organisations should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present' was being read and advise as 'must'.

Also, transsexual and transgender are not the same thing, are they?

The below is from legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/10/aea-v-ehrc-an-explanation/

The Defendant, EHRC, said that

the COP said “should,” not “must,”
that exceptions were available, and
that the bodies which had adopted the “must” position had not expressly said that they had had regard to the COP. On that basis, the EHRC said that those bodies cannot have been led, or misled, by the COP, as none of them mentioned it.
In fact, the EHRC said, a policy that said a service provider ‘must’ treat people according to the role in which they present would be “directly inconsistent” with the COP.

In other words – other bodies may well be making this unlawful assertion, but it ain’t us guv.

also

The decision

The Judge decided that AEA’s question about the lawfulness of the EHRC’s guidance should not be put in front of the courts. His job was not to decide what the correct interpretation of the law was at this stage. All he had to do was decide if AEA’s claim was “arguable” – that is, was it arguable that the EHRC’s guidance was so wrong as to be unlawful.

He decided it was not, for the following reasons:

On the first argument, he agreed that the COP said “should,” not “must.” He pointed out that the guidance extends to just four paragraphs and is intended to be a brief summary not a detailed legal analysis. After “should” comes the disclaimer “However,” followed by an explanation of where exclusion will be reasonable. Although it is not detailed, it is not intended to be an exhaustive guide.
He also agreed that if there are public bodies which have understood a ‘should’ as a ‘must,’ these are capable of challenge by individual service users to individual service providers, whether inclusive or exclusive. We look at this below.
On the second argument, he agreed with the EHRC that even if a service has met the first requirement by showing it needs to be a single or separate sex service in order to exclude men, nevertheless, it must also meet the second requirement to exclude transwomen where necessary.
It may well be that a service needs to be female only, but the variation in presentations of transwomen from someone who is ‘visually indistinguishable’ to someone who has only just announced an intention to transition, and the variation in needs of the service users from a rape crisis centre to a changing room with partitioned cubicles, mean that there cannot be the certainty advanced by the Claimant.
In respect of the third argument, the judge agreed that physical appearance is relevant. This is unfortunate. Someone who is genuinely visually indistinguishable will be unlikely to cause challenge or consternation on accessing a SSS, even if they should choose to do so. Focus on a person’s physical appearance is likely to be experienced as demeaning by both the subject and the person required to make the assessment.

Yes, that's exactly what I said, only in more words. Single sex spaces can legally be trans inclusive and indeed if they want to exclude trans people they need to be be able to justify it, in court if necessary. There is no requirement for single sex spaces to exclude trans people, so again, the people on this thread saying it's against the law for a trans girl to be in the girl's changing rooms are quite simply wrong.

The Judge decided that AEA’s question about the lawfulness of the EHRC’s guidance should not be put in front of the courts. His job was not to decide what the correct interpretation of the law was at this stage. All he had to do was decide if AEA’s claim was “arguable” – that is, was it arguable that the EHRC’s guidance was so wrong as to be unlawful.

The judge explicitly said AEA's challenge was not arguable because it was "wrong in law". Again, this is a direct quote from the judgement. AEA's interpretation of the law could not have been proved more resoundingly incorrect, and yet mumsnetters continue to assert it as fact.

You might also wish to see the recent High Court verdict on trans women in women's prisons which concluded it is perfectly legal under the EA2010 for the MoJ as a service provider to choose to make their single sex provision trans inclusive.

Ultimately it's up to OP, but the fact is it will weaken her case if she quotes demonstrably false legal advice from organisations with an obvious anti-trans bias.

It's still a no.
I reckon hell will freeze over before parents allow their daughters to be forced to undress in front of unknown males in schools. It's only got this far because of the gaslighting of girls to accept they have no right to say no and keeping it a secret from parents.

No is a complete sentence.

Blueberry We've interpreted the same words differently.

But from the same legal feminist piece:

EHRC agrees that women only space does not have to include anyone who is male at birth, and described prescriptive inclusion policies along the lines of self-ID as “directly inconsistent” with the Code of Practice

and

The judge strongly agreed with the EHRC that a better challenge would have been brought by an individual service user against an individual service provider, rather than in the abstract at the level of the EHRC and the AEA

Which doesn't sound like

'The judge explicitly said AEA's challenge was not arguable because it was "wrong in law"

to me

I suppose I should go and read the actual judgement again, rather than relying on someone else's interpretation, but I am not legally trained.

Either way, the EA allows for single sex spaces as posted earlier by TheInebriati

@MrsOvertonsWindow

It's still a no. I reckon hell will freeze over before parents allow their daughters to be forced to undress in front of unknown males in schools. It's only got this far because of the gaslighting of girls to accept they have no right to say no and keeping it a secret from parents.

No is a complete sentence.

It is already happening as you can see here in this thread. Hell isn't freezing over, parents are tiptoeing through reams of politeness to avoid upsetting anyone.

Doesn't matter that the girls are upset though.

I’d also question why year 12s are changing at same time as younger students any way… our school doesn’t Allow this… neither did any I have worked at

It generally happens with sports clubs OnceuponaRainbow18 which are often mixed age. And the very rare timetable clash but then generally schools will ensure that older / younger students are kept separated.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

It's still a no. I reckon hell will freeze over before parents allow their daughters to be forced to undress in front of unknown males in schools. It's only got this far because of the gaslighting of girls to accept they have no right to say no and keeping it a secret from parents.

No is a complete sentence.

But this is what troubles me - what power do parents actually have ? It’s all very well saying hell will freeze over before parents ‘allow’ this - but as another poster has said, it is happening and hell remains ablaze!

what power do parents actually have ?

Take a step at a time and do so as professionally as possible. Then escalate it as needs be. Most schools don’t/won’t want to dig their heels in.

Read the school Complaints Policy and guidance here: safeschoolsallianceuk.net/resources-2/factsheets/#How_to_Complain_to_your_Childs_School

There is no requirement for single sex spaces to exclude trans people
Unless you mean trans men in female spaces and trans women in males' (which I doubt you do), then this is a contradiction of terms. A single sex space excludes trans people of the opposite sex by definition.

Parents speaking up is the first thing EarlyModernEnglish A minority of parents of troubled children are told that it is essential that everyone else affirms their child. This puts everyone in a difficult position and not wanting to be unkind - hence the needs, rights and safety of everyone else, especially girls gets abandoned.

But there are competing rights and no matter how often we're told that this group's rights transcend everyone else's - it's not true.
Girls have the right to undress, sleep, shower away from the male gaze. Schools only follow Stonewall law because it's not been challenged - until now. Few schools will insist on male born students undressing alongside girls if parents speak out. That's why the EHRC technical guidance I quoted earlier suggests 3rd spaces. Because they know that forced mixed sex nakedness for children is unacceptable.

We all have to become that parent - respectfully but assertively.

I'd be livid. Hope you manage to get it sorted OP

We all have to become that parent - respectfully but assertively.

This.....

We need to stop putting safeguarding aside for fear of being labelled transphobic or being unkind.

We fail our children when we do this.

Remaining silent is not a neutral act.

It's being complicit in an ideology that's deeply damaging to both children who are recipients of trans affirmation (both socially - in respect they need to learn their rights do not supersede that of others if they are to have healthy positive relationships - and medically if they go down that path) and children who are forced to accept/believe that their rights/dignity are lesser than those of trans status.

The latter applies especially to girls who are already socialised to "please" others (especially men) in virtually every aspect of their lives.

Taking away the right to single sex privacy in a changing room is no small thing.

It's a gross erosion of boundaries that can potentially cause a significant and damaging shift in a child's perception of what's appropriate/normal to expect as a female, especially when in a vulnerable state.

@Winederlust

There is no requirement for single sex spaces to exclude trans people Unless you mean trans men in female spaces and trans women in males' (which I doubt you do), then this is a contradiction of terms. A single sex space excludes trans people of the opposite sex by definition.

Exactly

(Love your username )

Trans people ARE the opposite sex - that’s why they’re called trans.

If a trans woman really was a biological woman, then she wouldn’t be a trans woman. She’d be a woman.

As others have said look up the school's policy, see if it actually is legal or some lobby groups interpretation of how they would like the law to be. Keep that information in you back pocket particularly if it was stonewall as you can then later raise some of the issues around them.

Then I wouldn't ask for a meeting I'd do everything in writing as much as possible.

So some questions:

1. Why is male child allowed to change with much younger female children?
2. With our awareness growing of peer on peer abuse what safeguarding has been put in place to protect both the male and female children involved.
3. What risk assessments have taken place.
4. What assessment has taken place from perspective of the female children has consideration been given to their dignity and privacy. Why does this boy's feelings over ride the girls?
5. What training has the school had to manage difficult situations like this, who delivered this training.
6. Why have parents not been informed of this?

Those should give you the basis of something you can bulk out.
I suspect the school will probably write back with a generic be kind and quiet letter.
In which case I'd be pointing out that no child can have a GRC and that neither can they have surgery therefore they are still male.

If they raise the child is trans then

Argh caught the post button.

If they raise the child is trans then see the point above.

It's very stupid of the school to put both the female and male children at risk like this. Despite What others like to think Safeguarding is not about being kind or affirming anyone's feelings.

@Sickofpineneedles

5. What training has the school had to manage difficult situations like this, who delivered this training.

In my school absolutely nothing!!

Anyone else very interested to see if the anticipated EHRC guidance due soon will make all this very very clear?

I am very tired of some poster’s attempts to keep leveraging males into female single sex spaces. Why does anyone think it appropriate for a Year 12 male to be in a changing area with 11/12 year old females ?

That the poster thinks there is nothing amiss with it shows the lack of experience being a teenaged girl and/or parenting a teenaged girl. Because that poster is incapable of considering a teenaged female’s needs (whatever gender identity that female believes fits them).

It is the same for all threads whether it is that poster advocating for children to use puberty blockers, or access to single sex spaces. The advocacy is never properly considered from the female perspective.

[quote OnceuponaRainbow18]@Sickofpineneedles

5. What training has the school had to manage difficult situations like this, who delivered this training.

In my school absolutely nothing!![/quote]
That's interesting and must be difficult.

I thought asking that might highlight if they have had dodgy advice.

The only training available OnceuponaRainbow18 is from self interested adult groups desperate to enforce their world view on schools. And a captured education establishment in thrall to these groups and demonstrating a lack of care for the rights of girls.

The Safe Schools materials need to be shared with every leadership and pastoral care team in schools. This can't be allowed to continue, no matter how earnestly certain adults insist that girls and their privacy matter nothing in the quest for boys self identifying as girls to be validated by sharing spaces with them as they undress.

Anyone else very interested to see if the anticipated EHRC guidance due soon will make all this very very clear?

Yes. There's a growing realisation at the heart of government that this is a mess. The EHRC has been promising guidelines for 5 years (maybe longer). The spectacularly awful (now withdrawn) CPS guidelines were an insight into how activists could write misogynistic completely impractical advice for schools with massive safeguarding problems on every page.

I suspect that 3rd spaces will be the solution - which of course raises its own logistical, practical and safeguarding challenges for schools. There'll be lots of huffing and puffing from the usual suspects - but it will be an education to hear them justify why "transitioning" boys must have access to girls undressing

@Sickofpineneedles

As others have said look up the school's policy, see if it actually is legal or some lobby groups interpretation of how they would like the law to be. Keep that information in you back pocket particularly if it was stonewall as you can then later raise some of the issues around them.

Then I wouldn't ask for a meeting I'd do everything in writing as much as possible.

So some questions:

1. Why is male child allowed to change with much younger female children?
2. With our awareness growing of peer on peer abuse what safeguarding has been put in place to protect both the male and female children involved.
3. What risk assessments have taken place.
4. What assessment has taken place from perspective of the female children has consideration been given to their dignity and privacy. Why does this boy's feelings over ride the girls?
5. What training has the school had to manage difficult situations like this, who delivered this training.
6. Why have parents not been informed of this?

Those should give you the basis of something you can bulk out.
I suspect the school will probably write back with a generic be kind and quiet letter.
In which case I'd be pointing out that no child can have a GRC and that neither can they have surgery therefore they are still male.

If they raise the child is trans then

Whoever advised on our school's policy is already onto the 'no GRC' thing by using the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and say therefore to exclude a child who identifies as trans from the opposite sex space amounts to indirect discrimination. But surely it is direct discrimination regarding the PC of sex if a single sex space is allowed to be mixed sex at the behest of a child who identifies as trans?

I also want to know what happens with the children who identify as non binary - which facilities do they use and why?