National Governors Association

[handmademitlove]

I have just completed a training unit on equality and diversity for school governors. I was not impressed by the section shown. Aside from pointing out they are misrepresenting the law in the course evaluation, does anyone suggest what to do to get this changed? I think I need to find the specific section of the EA which refers to the exemption for single sex spaces.

I am sure others will be able to provide a more legal response but I would want to know how they plan to accomodate religious women (Muslim, Jewish etc) who cannot share these spaces with males. Their religious views are also protected by EA2010

presumably this is aimed at staff from than pupils?

Just as relevant for staff as it is pupils.

And against the law. Women (and men) are entitled to single sex facilities and may exclude transwomen from women’s facilities and transmen from mens’ facilities on those grounds.

*the school may exclude

Are they subject to FOI? You could ask who helped them put this part of the training together, and when it was last updated. Although fingers crossed it may be worth waiting for the EHRC report on single sex spaces and the challenge it that way.

2010

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination, for example in employment or the provision of public services, on the basis of protected characteristics, one of which is gender reassignment. However, this Act allows providers to offer single-sex services that exclude transgender people if it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

@SilverCatStripes

Just as relevant for staff as it is pupils.

And against the law. Women (and men) are entitled to single sex facilities and may exclude transwomen from women’s facilities and transmen from mens’ facilities on those grounds.

Indeed, it would just make a difference in how I would tackle it.

FFS is there nowhere in education that is not captured?

Safer Schools Alliance and Transgender Trend should have some links to the legislation and possibly template letters you could adapt.

Thank you for tackling them on this. Governors can be very helpful allies to concerned parents, so I can see why the misrepresenters might have targeted the NGA.

That statement is yet another example of these guidance documents, drafted by activists, which make these statements and leave schools to deal with the fallout of what this might mean in practice, or how on earth a school is meant to make this happen. @handmademitlove You should definitely ask where this information comes from.

So many of these bits of guidance just use sneaky inclusive-sounding buzzwords to hide what's actually being talked about, and get signed off without people thinking through the implications of what's being said here.

So, asking a trans person to use an existing gender-neutral facility would be 'not lawful' (why?), instead you must make a 'reasonable adjustment'. What might that be then? Presumably either reconfiguring the entire school building, or telling women and girls that they have to share facilities with male people and lump it? That would in fact be... not lawful under the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act, which allow for discrimination on the basis of sex where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end - privacy, dignity, safeguarding etc. It would also be against the school premises regulations. (See how in this case we can actually point to the way in which it is not lawful...)

I know this is focused on the children rather than the staff, but I think this guidance might be what you need OP: sex-matters.org/posts/updates/schools-guidance/ Pages 12-15.

As Foodfiend says: inquire for the source of their information and then check whether this source was qualified in all the protected groups, their needs and rights, or merely just one of them?

And then mention that 'fair access' applies to nine characteristics, not just one. And that the EqA2010 requires proactive anticipation of barriers and needs, not reaction after discrimination (direct or indirect) is experienced. And then mention impact equality assessments as good practice (and this applies to all users of female toilets not just TQ+ people who wish to use them).

And then mention the obvious and anticipatable needs of:

disabled women
neurodiverse women
women of cultures and faiths such as orthodox Jewish, Muslim, Gypsy Roma Traveller
women who have experienced CSA, VAWG, trauma, DV, DA
women with menstrual and other biologically based challenges they may not be willing to deal with in a mixed sex space

And that obviously female people cannot be 'outed' or made to disclose highly sensitive information in order to be permitted a facility that they find accessible. And the percentage of female employees affected can be estimated against the percentage of TQ male employees wishing to use opposite sex facilities. And if some female employees end up needing to go off site to be able to access facilities have they checked how that might go in a court case about equality, and are they permitting the time for female employees to go and do this? And have they considered that this is likely to be sex based discrimination by law, because there is no equal impact upon male employees in this way, so female members of staff are being treated less favourably on the basis of their sex? (And quite possibly their disability/culture/faith/belief at the same time)?

So the obvious thing to do is provide proportionate accessible mixed sex spaces, and female only spaces, and to expect that all employees recognise that everyone's access and individual needs and diversity is equally important. And that not every single facility will be accessible or for the use of everyone.

Brilliant post @Artichokeleaves

And obviously all equally applicable to girls, but at that point safeguarding has a number of other implications.

@Artichokeleaves That is excellent