Good Law Project commissions legal advice on trans children and schools

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

goodlawproject.org/news/legal-advice-for-trans-children/

"To help parents and schools, Good Law Project has commissioned some expert legal advice which we hope will help schools in England and Wales understand their responsibilities and help families understand their rights."

I've had a quick scan (IANAL) and it all seems pretty sensible as far as I can see? The Fox Killers editorialising doesn't always seem to say quite the same thing as the full opinion IMO which is interesting (but that may just be me).

• Co-ed schools cant exclude a child because they are trans

• Schools aren't required to treat children as the gender they identify with in all situations

• Single sex schools don't have to admit children who only identify as that sex.

It would really help if we could get the b**y politicians to make a (minor) amendment to the Equality Act, to define the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment as only applying to the over 18s.

Who would have thought, that a law enacted to protect a very very few, very 'feminine' males, who choose to wear feminine attire, could have been so twisted as to muck up the lives of an entire generation of school children.

I thought that judges were supposed to look at the 'intention' of the law, as well as the wording? Perhaps I'm wrong...

No it's not good.
(You must have skim read it. )

Starts of with clear equality act explanation.
Ends with "let people with a penis do what they want otherwise it's unlawful or discriminatory".

This part is galling seeing as the UKs most predominant group of girls schools have recently firmly stated they won't enrol students with a penis, which is lawful due to the exemptions in the equality act.

I wonder what the legal argument is for point 5. there @Linguini

He's fucking obsessed. I assume that the GDST is also ok about it's legal position.

@Linguini

No it's not good. (You must have skim read it. )

Starts of with clear equality act explanation.
Ends with "let people with a penis do what they want otherwise it's unlawful or discriminatory".

I did just skim it There was a lot being able to justify discrimination and balancing needs. This lawyer seemed to think that the disadvantage to one trans child would always outweigh the disadvantage to every other child in the school - I'm really not convinced many people would accept that as correct?

actually, maybe I misread that.

I get mixed up on all the definitions. Anyway, my dds' (girls) very sought after school does let girls who want to be boys stay in the school, but hasn't yet let boys who want to be girls into the school. It's only a matter of time though I think until this is challenged.

@Linguini

This part is galling seeing as the UKs most predominant group of girls schools have recently firmly stated they won't enrol students with a penis, which is lawful due to the exemptions in the equality act.

That summary does not quite match what is said in the full opinion IMO. The full opinion says that if the single sex school can justify the exclusion then fine. If refusal cannot be justified unlikely to be lawful. Schools probably have to at least consider the admission.

IMO fairly easy for single sex schools to justify staying single sex?

FGS the formatting alone..

Girls (boys) boys (girls) girls schools (boys schools) (trans girls) boys (girls who identify as non binary) ET fucking Cetera

By the time you break through what's being written it's just like speak fucking plain English please....

Translation for screenshot above:

Q4. Can a girls school exclude girls who identify as male?

A. No.

Q5. Can a girls school refuse to admit a girl who identifies as male?
A. No

Q6. Can a girls school refuse to admit a boy who identifies as male.

A. Yes.

Ah I apologize.

I couldn't properly understand the text with all the flipping in brackets. So thanks for that!

It’s obviously written for parents who want their child’s social transition supported by the school. It doesn’t cover pronouns and it overstates the position for a nb identity given that the EHRC has made it clear nb and protection under gender reassignment needs to be clarified through the courts or via updated legislation.

I used to be a fan of GLP with them challenging cronyism the Covid contracts. I have donated to them too.
HOWEVER they have lost their way and now seem to be meddling busybodies.
For instance, they recently had a campaign complaining that looked after chikdren coukdnt go to school in their LA. This seems reasonable until you realise that the looked after chikdren in question were 6 foot thugs up for attempted murder in a viscious and unprovoked attack on a father protecting his ten year old son.
And THAT is why the LA we’re keeping this gang of thugs out of county… but GLP had worded it as though Oliver Twist was being kept away from his BFF.
Meddlers.

I'm not sure it takes schools much further as it highlights numerous issues which have not been tested by the Courts. Many of the legal principles he addresses also apply to other protected characteristics. So if you insert girls or Black & other ethnic minority or religious groups, you can apply much of the guidance to them. So discrimination via a uniform policy guidance applies (and has already been tested in the courts) to other protected groups and schools have to bear all groups in mind.

The elephant in the room is whether girls and their education are to be relegated to the role of support humans / services for confused boys? Must girls be forced to undress in front of "trans girls" in order to validate their identity in a shower or changing room (which a court believes applies to women prisoners) or not?
He does advise schools to think these things through carefully. If a school considers the rights of all the protected groups (ignoring the trans tops everything demands) then they can plan resources to ensure that girls have privacy and safety from boys (no matter how they identify) while boys self identifying as girls have their own safe spaces. If a school can demonstrate how they've thought and planned for these competing needs, then he does say this can stand up in court.

The threats to the status of single sex schools are depressing. When you look at the long and honourable history of education for girls it's tragic that it's under threat from men. But - here we are in upside down land where so much that women fought for, men are determined to claim for themselves.

Is he trying to get this in before the EHRC clarify their advice on single sex facilities?

I really don't think that his authority over how to uphold the equality act is going to trump theirs.

You can discriminate on the grounds of sex, and also gender reassignment. Of course.

It must be both fair to people with the other protected characteristics and justifiable. Which isn't really very hard.

I read twitter (but am not on it which is probably as well) and someone was posting that because you can't get GRC till 18 so school would be discriminating on basis of age. Someone else pointed out they didn't think age applied in schools and was told it did, was about proportionately, age discrimination applied to everyone and he knew as his job was law. I wish I could have directed this law professional to section 84 of the Equality Act - age discrimination is explicitly excluded as a protected characteristics with regard to schools. (Probably best I can't be drawn into such a game of pigeon chess though).

Schools DO discriminate in the grounds of age.
You can’t be 33 and ask to join Year 7.

He says that girls' schools are allowed not to admit a trans girl (a boy who identiifies as a girl). But that they have the option of admitting such a child as an exception.

This is his key argument:
"single-sex schools are able to admit pupils of the opposite legal sex in exceptional circumstances without losing their single-sex status. A recognised example of this is a single-sex school that admits children of members of staff irrespective of sex. There is no obvious reason why this exception could not be used by schools to allow trans children to attend single-sex schools which align with their gender identity rather than their legal sex."

So he is saying that girls' schools can accept transgirls (boys identifying as girls) without jeopardising their charitable status as single sex schools. So the argument will be that they are being transphobic etc in not doing this.

It clearly is not in the best interest of girls to admit boys on the understanding that they are the same as girls i.e. genuine trans, when there is no definition for genuine trans... because it's all made up.

I may as well take my cat along to my DDs school, at least she's female.

Girls schools are not set up for mixed sees - there are only girls changing rooms for example.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Translation for screenshot above:

Q4. Can a girls school exclude girls who identify as male?

A. No.

Q5. Can a girls school refuse to admit a girl who identifies as male?
A. No

Q6. Can a girls school refuse to admit a boy who identifies as male.

A. Yes.

What about:

Can a girls school refuse to admit a boy who identifies as a female?

@PamDenick

Schools DO discriminate in the grounds of age. You can’t be 33 and ask to join Year 7.

I'm sure that Stonewall will have that as their next campaign

A recognised example of this is a single-sex school that admits children of members of staff irrespective of sex.

Where does this happen?

@Datun

Is he trying to get this in before the EHRC clarify their advice on single sex facilities?

I really don't think that his authority over how to uphold the equality act is going to trump theirs.

You can discriminate on the grounds of sex, and also gender reassignment. Of course.

It must be both fair to people with the other protected characteristics and justifiable. Which isn't really very hard.

Absolutely this

Even though GLP doesn't have authority over EHRC, given the past record of SW bulldozing their law through, it stands to reason GLP are trying to do the same thing but under a different name and using different words - as Morecombe and Wise might say