Birkenhead High School Academy

[CheshireSplat]

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/19849940.birkenhead-school-stop-accepting-transgender-pupils/

Is it just me or has the Chester Standard got completely confused between gender and sex. I've read it 3 times and can't make sense of it.

That first paragraph is a mess.

The first line and couple of paragraphs are total bollocks that completely contradicts the last part.

By transgender females I assume they mean girls who identify as something else, which are fine in a bloody girls school.

Allowing males in makes it a mixed sex school.

Oh good. I have learnt something from this board!

I don't think it's contradictory. The school wants to admit students according to 'gender identity', but the CEO of Girls’ Day School Trust, which is the group of schools it belongs to, says that this would make it a mixed sex school.

There's a thread about the GDST here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4442172-GDST-schools-announce-trans-policy

Seems fairly clear that the policy of the school and of the GDST is that Girls' Schools should be for female pupils whatever gender identity they may have, and that female transgender pupil should be welcomed and supported.

Local MP Mick Whitley and the Trans Legal Project disagree with that policy, though it is not entirely clear what policy they would support. Do they think that girls who identify as boys, non- binary or anything else should be excluded, and anyone who identifies as a girl should be accepted?

The Trans Legal Project mention a "case by case approach" but what could that possibly mean? Would a selection panel have to decide for each prospective pupil whether he or she was girly enough to be admitted?

That report makes no sense at all. I don't know if the writer really is that ignorant about the differences between sex and gender identity or just very bad at all heir job.
As an ex GDST alumna I applaud their policy. which is founded on the recognition that sex not gender identity underpins it's rationale of providing female only education . By excluding male applicants who identify as female but supporting existing ((female) pupils who identify as make subject to the overriding interests of the majority they stay true to their founding purpose of educating girls. In that respect, their charitable status is a godsend. And parents who send their daughters to single sex schools are goimg to vote with their feet if those schools start admitting boys.

The opening paragraph has gender identity as the policy for admission at the High School, not the sex at birth.

The last paragraph makes it clear that the GDST policy for admission will be made on the basis of the sex at birth not gender identity.

So the article is completely confused as far as I can make out.

If you scroll down it says Mick Whitley, Member of Parliament for Birkenhead, thinks the school is wrong to keep the school as a girl’s school (for females as a sex).

I looked him up and he is a Labour MP.

He was the one that got elected after Frank Field left the Labour Party? Go figure -another one who centres what the ladz want, never mind what the impact would have on girls..See also GCC and Notre Dame in Glasgow.

It takes me back to when I first got involved in the debate. It took me ages to work out what was what. Total confusion, so I'm assuming the writer has the same confusion and hasn't yet sorted it out, nor has the editor?

I heartily support any single sex school wishing to remain single sex.

No boys in girls’ schools and no girls in boys’ schools. It’s simple.