Secondary School complaint about mixed sex changing rooms. Update, school response and request for help writing the escalated complaint to governors

[TangenitalContrivance]

Hello everyone. Some may remember I asked for help with a complaint to my daughter’s secondary school in Brighton which allows Males into female changing spaces. Including swimming, without informing either children or parents.

this is clearly a safeguarding issue, borderline illegal and must not be allowed to stand.

I’m going to have to take the whole thing through a governors complaint and even higher, which I am willing to do.

please, if you can, could you read my complaint and the schools subsequent response and give me pointers for what to say in my follow up.

feel free to use the original complaint at your own school. You will be surprised how many are doing this!

Protection under the 'gender reassignment' bit of the EQA 2010 starts as soon as they've decided to transition or even discussed it with anyone - it's almost unbelievably imprecise considering this is a piece of legislation. It's nothing to do with having a GRC. I also noticed that it doesn't say the child automatically goes to the opposite (desired) sex's changing rooms, so that's one avenue that could be explored maybe? Probably not really worthwhile as it sound like the Head is up their own arse.

We know from watching the FWS case in the Supreme Court that there is absolutely no doubt that a male without a GRC remains legally a male and, if this is a school, boys there won't be of an age to have a GRC, so they are legally and in fact male.

Good on you, OP, for not letting this go: it's totally outrageous that they are behaving like this.

they are fully assuming that draft means it could be ditched.

it could be strengthened.

IANAL but what’s there NOW is referenced in kcsie.

worth pointing out that a part of kcsie 2024 that is also draft is around prevent. (Search the word draft in the document.)

I would send all this to safe schools alliance.

Have sent a pm

Haven't yet read others' responses, so this may have been covered, and you'll have far better ideas from many vipers by now, but the parts that struck me (no legal expertise, but a very keen nose for fairness and weasel-words) was this:

The implication that trans students might pose a significant safeguarding risk if they were to use a changing room of the opposite sex is unsubstantiated and contrary to paragraph 205 of the guidance which states: “A child or young person being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not in itself an inherent risk factor for
harm, however, they can sometimes be targeted by other children.” (1)

and

The school must balance the impact of its decisions on all students potentially affected and have sufficient justification for the decision that has been reached. Any student who has a need or desire for increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason, will be provided with a reasonable alternative changing area. (2)

My suggestion - although these come from breathless anger at reading this, so may not match the exquisitely factual and professional tone of your draft! - is that such evasion positively invites the following direct requests as a follow-up...

1. I was confused by your inclusion of assurances that "a young person being lesbian, gay or bisexual" creates no increase in risk, as this has no relevance to my queries, and may indicate that you have misunderstood these somewhat. As such, I'd be grateful if you could provide me with the corresponding assurances that do address my actual concern, which is the increased risk posed by males, including trans-identifying males, to females. My concern is founded on the statistical evidence attached (*I'm sure, from your work on this, that you have ample!) I would be reassured to receive your equivalent assurances that there is an evidence-based consensus that male students, including those who perceive themselves to be female, present no increase in risk to female students.

2. I was reassured to hear that "any student who has a need or desire for increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason, will be provided with a reasonable alternative changing area". However, I would be grateful for a detailed explanation of how this would be managed practically in a way that safeguard such students privacy? Specifically, please would you explain how you will guarantee that no student with a history of sexual assault (perhaps include stats for number of students affected / rapes in secondary schools etc.) will experience or perceive any pressure from adults or their peers* to justify explain such a decision. It would, I am sure you will recognise, be unacceptable for a female student to feel obliged to disclose such sensitive, distressing and damaging personal information as a direct result of your policies.

Hope this helps. Such explicit requests for assurances they can't possible give may draw their attention to the issue at hand and their own vulnerability to further action, and their shockingly cynical reference to gay etc. students simply, rather foolishly, invites response 1) above - it implies they acknowledge you deserve such assurances, in which case great - let's have them with regard to the male students you're actually writing about, please!

Angry on your behalf.

Will read others' suggestions when time permits.

Good luck.

Protection under the 'gender reassignment' bit of the EQA 2010 starts as soon as they've decided to transition or even discussed it with anyone - it's almost unbelievably imprecise considering this is a piece of legislation

Not if they are still legally children.

No time to check but isn't if now agreed to be 18?

(And I dont think it is a lose as just discussing it once. It has to be shown that a decision has been taken to go down the path to transition. And if that included not wanting to go as far as getting a GRC, they wouldn't be covered as that is gender identity which is not - yet - a legal category)

Some drafting errors in my above I was too slow to edit out. But hope it helps.

Have read the rest - ofc what stood out to me has to everyone. Agree that this is particularly powerful.

Sorry, one more thing. Cass on social transitioning. Are they requiring a doctor's note from the trans student? Irrelevant to their right to use female spaces regardless, of course, so you may not want to risk giving the impression you think this would legitimise that in any way... but if worded carefully, it could be interesting to ask how they define trans: this would necessitate a direct, written admission from them that they're actively engaging in the potentially harmful interventions against which Cass warns.

I remember your first thread. I’m so glad you are taking it further. Knowing the head, the ridiculous response, completely missing the point, doesn’t surprise me 😂
Solidarity from a local.

Catiette

The school must balance the impact of its decisions on all students potentially affected and have sufficient justification for the decision that has been reached. Any student who has a need or desire for increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason, will be provided with a reasonable alternative changing area.

Cynical me thinks that the reply will be (faux wide eyed innocence)
"But she doesn't want extra privacy, she is happy to be with the other girls."

Do you think their response is ignorance, cynical evasion or total capture, Lofty? If ignorance, just... wow. Not that the others are any better!

Cynical evasion, as a result of capture would be my conclusion.

At which point my recommended response is... to scream into a pillow?

It's like Naomi said in last week's? tribunal - it's been made virtually impossible to express our concerns.

Infuriating.

Me, too...

Cynical evasion and arrogance Catiette

Schools down here, and the council, are on very thin ice and they know it. Most people are captured so don’t push the issue as they see no problem. However it only takes one to open the floodgates.

Protection under the 'gender reassignment' bit of the EQA 2010 starts as soon as they've decided to transition or even discussed it with anyone - it's almost unbelievably imprecise considering this is a piece of legislation
Not if they are still legally children.

this is incorrect @IwantToRetirethe protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the EA covers all ages and isn’t directly related to the GRA. The PP is correct.

No, it isn’t dependent on having a GRC.

Well done OP, you need to take this all the way through the complaints process but I suspect they won't back down. Have a look at the SSA website and go to legal and look at the OCC case, you may find some legal language there you can use. Do get in touch if you think we can help

One thing to note about the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which, as others have said applies to any age and is not dependent on a GRC) is that courts have stated the comparator for someone with the characteristic is someone who does not have the characteristic but is of the same sex. So a trans identified boy who is treated differently from other boys would be being discriminated against, the legislation does not require someone who is male but identifies as female is treated the same as women and girls.

Have you seen the case in Oxfordshire where a 13 year old was all set to take the county council to Judicial Review and was expected to win? OCC withdrew their school toolkit and backed down. There might be useful information in their about legailities - but otherwise I agree with the pp who said to reply thanks but your points don't address my concerns / LGB is not T and there is a risk. You have misunderstood case by case - which is an assessment of the facilities and not the individual. I would like a governors hearing. Then get on the phone to Sex Matters asap! good luck

From the EHRC:

The Equality Act says that you must not be directly discriminated against because you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

• A wide range of people identify as trans.
• However, you are not protected under the Equality Act unless you have proposed, started or completed a process to change your sex.

Under age children being protected by the characteristic Gender Recognition has not yet been confirmed in law:

this approach suggests that children who are not old enough to acquire a gender recognition certificate, may fall within the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they have stated that they wish to live and identify as the opposite sex. This does not necessarily mean those that are gender questioning will be protected but as the law stands at present, it is a possibility, and ultimately it will be a decision for the courts and would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

And as part of the process (whether leading to surgery or not) is to have "lived as the opposite sex" for 2 years.

Which raises the question of whether schools should be allowing children to be registered with them as being the opposite sex whilst under 18.

The wide definition of gender reassignment, the uncertainty of whether those who are gender questioning will be protected under the Equality Act 2010, and the difficulty of balancing different protected characteristics and views are likely to pose an issue for schools when preparing such a policy.

From Gender questioning children: a summary of the legal position for schools

Here is the link you need, the same case that @KnottyAutyrefers to: https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/legal-action-against-oxfordshire-county-council/

It has nothing to do with age. It’s not based on having or applying for a GRC. So if children are considered to be in any stage of “transition” they are protected under the Equality Act pc of “gender reassignment”. This doesn’t give them the legal right to use the spaces of the opposite sex, of course.

Glad to see you on the thread @2fallsfromSSA