GDST schools announce trans policy

[AgathaMystery]

Hopefully this share token will work. If not I will screen shot.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/01/group-girls-schools-says-will-not-accept-transgender-pupils/

Good good good. And, strictly speaking, they do accept transgender pupils because they accept FtM transboys and NB but they know the difference between sex and gender. Well done on a sensible and intelligent decision.

Fingers crossed, but dd may have a choice of GDST and non GDST girls schools in the next couple of months (for Y7 entry). This sort of clarity is very useful for making decisions, and I wish the other girls schools involved would be as clear on their approach to the Equality Act single sex exemptions.

@Dozer

Their argument seems to be legalistic, rather than that it would not be in girls’ best interests to end GDST’s single sex provision.

Of course it will be based on the legal element of losing single sex provision (SSP). Its parents make the decision in the best interest of their girl. If no parent ever wanted SSP the school would go mixed sex. The schools are filling a need by offering parents a SSP option as the parents have decided against a mixed sex school for their girls. So no boys even special boys who's "best interest" is to be in a girls school. Doing SSP rather than going the emotional "best interest" stops the counter-claim of "most marginalised" "killing me" etc. etc. Any objection is an attack on little girls' right to the single sex exemption, or forcing little girls to change for PE with a human with penis in the room.

I'm delighted they have come out and been really clear on this point and I hope the backlash is manageable (although it will shine more light!)

I strongly agree with their decision to maintain the single sex facilities and provision of education.

My concern is about the wording of the statement. Can’t explain it v well.

Eg they’re not simply saying ‘we will continue to offer single sex education, which is in accordance with equality legislation’.

Unlikely to be related! Different decisions. Assume the pensions thing arises following reduction in government subsidy for private school teachers’ pensions.

Good.
I hope this snowballs into other areas, and that this gives people the confidence to speak out.

@Dozer yes I completely agree with you - also the headline suggests (and I'm sure will be used / twisted) as blanket transphobia ie NO transgender people rather than just those of the male sex.

Such a relief and such a sensible decision. Organisations for girls ought to understand the detriment to girls of losing their single-sex spaces, and whilst this has been couched in terms of the legal requirements of the Equality Act, I am sure there is a genuine belief in the value of single sex education for girls behind it too.

Such a contrast to the Girl Guides.

My DD didn’t attend a GDST school but am going to write to them anyway and thank them.

Such a contrast to the Girl Guides

This.

I went to a GDST school, glad to see they get it.

So good to see this. They're also right to criticise the lack of national government guidance. The more that Stonewall and the other self interested lobby groups are removed from having influence at the heart of government, this more of this we'll see.
This should also give confidence to schools generally in standing up to bullying by the mob.

Day by day institutions seem to be moving to a clearer understanding of sex vs gender and the differences between the two.

They seem quite right. By allowing M2F transgender pupils to apply but not other males they would be guilty of discrimination.

The lack of guidance from ECHR has been an issue but perhaps a good thing it was delayed to the point where there was a societal debate around gender ideology.

Dumb headlines, as they wouldn't reject a girl for being transgender, the point is that they are single sex schools.

I do suspect timed to get positive PR before the teachers strike.

Interesting! If there's a belief that this will be positive PR with the general public rather than negative..... doesn't that say a very great deal about where public perceptions of all this now are?

It's also exactly where all this is going to have to go to move forward. Trans needs respected, met and provided for. Lots of mixed sex facilities available to ensure this. And female only provisions equally respected, met and provided for. Everyone's a winner. Any dog in the manger 'we don't want females to have accessible things too' is not acceptable behaviour in an inclusive society.

Good.

Haven't read the article, but I welcome the commitment to keep the schools single sex. I went to a girls' school from the age of 11 and so did my daughter. I feel it was beneficial in both cases. There are pros and cons, but on balance the absence of boys and having a mainly female staff was a good thing.

I thought Eton came out a couple of years ago and stated firmly and clearly that they would remain single sex, so no transboys to be admitted. Oddly enough, they haven't been relentlessly attacked over this.

It's my impression that a significant number of parents who choose single-sex day schools do so for religious reasons, especially girls' schools. I assume they would think again if it turned out that the school had started admitting male pupils who would be in class and changing rooms with their daughters.

You have to wonder if they took legal advice under threat of legal action by parents who chose single sex girls schools for their daughters and wanted them to stay that way. Don’t forget, these are parents ponying up for hefty fees (the 2 academies aside) who expect to get what they are paying for.

Anyway, good to see an organisation referring to the actual law, as opposed to the makey-uppy Stonewall version, and providing a clear policy on this issue.

Oh interesting. My local girls school is gdst and super proud of being Stonewall level silver or something. How can they square that with this sensible announcement that they will be, um, following the law?

I couldn't read the Telegraph article, so can I check - are they saying they wouldn't accept a new trans boy (only that they would allow an existing female pupil who transitions to stay)?

You can't get a GRC until you're 18, so unlikely that any potential trans boy pupil would be legally male, so I think they would be excluding them on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic. Does the EA allow them to do that?

(I'm asking because we're often at pains to make clear on these boards that it's not that we want to exclude trans people from female-only spaces, just male people.)

Good! My dd is at a single sex school - big part of this organisation sadly but hopefully this decision will allow some clarity for other single schools to look to when assessing these matters.

BettyFilous, I think it could be the other way round.

In central London at least it is not unusual for very affluent and powerful parents to throw their weight around and to reach for lawyers if they don't get what they want. Including entry to a desired private school. A quick look at the education boards and the angst around entry to KPS, NHHS, WHS, PHS, NHEHS, BHS and more of the alphabet soup gives a flavour. Tutoring begins for 4+ entry at places like Kensington Prep School. And if little Johnny thinks he is Ava, and th parents are on board, they will see benefit in them going to an all girls, and very sucessful and sought after girls primary. I think that is why the statement sounds so legal. It is firing a warning shot to anyone thinking of it. This is our interpretation of the Equalities Act, which inter alia protects our right to supply a single sex provision. We are not following Stonewall/lobby group law. We want Government guidance.