Secondary School mixed sex changing rooms complaint: Update from school (again)

[TangenitalContrivences]

Hello everyone - Have just received a further update from my daughters (14) secondary school (Brighton) regarding my complaint - which is at stage 2 - go to governors complaint, and my further email to the school asking them to comply with the EHRC interim guidance.

I'll copy both responses below, redacted.

I would very, very much appreciate specific feedback to include in my responses to the school, it's been people here (and elsewhere) who have helped me put together really powerful letters that have clearly rattled the school.

However - there is still a male in the female changing spaces at this school. Therefore it is mixed sex.

(link to the last discussion if you want context https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5309038-secondary-school-complaint-about-mixed-sex-changing-rooms-update-school-response-and-request-for-help-writing-the-escalated-complaint-to-governors )

Stage 2 complaint response, sent from clerk to the governors:

I write in response to your email dated 29 April 2025.

Although the school’s complaints policy provides that Stage 2 hearings should normally be set within 15 school days of receipt of the complaint, the policy also recognises that in some circumstances this timescale cannot be adhered to. The Governors are of the view that this is the case here.

Following the recent Supreme Court judgement and interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission the Governors wish to give the issues raised in your complaint very careful thought. Given the far reaching nature of the issues the Governors have decided that before considering your complaint at Stage 2 it would be reasonable and appropriate to wait for the updated version of the EHRC Code of Practice to be published. As you are no doubt aware the EHRC have advised that a short public consultation will be undertaken in mid May with the expectation that an updated version of the Code will be provided to the Government for ministerial approval by the end of June. The Governors have therefore decided to delay consideration of your Stage 2 complaint until publication of the updated Code and the legal position in relation to school communities has been fully clarified.

I will contact you following publication of the Code in order to arrange a hearing.

Kind regards

Response to request for immediate update post EHRC guidance. Sent from Head.

I write in response to your email dated 29 April 2025 entitled ‘Immediate Update Required Following Interim Guidance on Supreme Court Ruling.

As you are aware the school is currently giving very careful consideration to the issues raised in the recent Supreme Court Judgement and subsequent interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is important to be clear about the status of the publication from the EHRC; it is an update and does not purport to be formal guidance. It does not therefore have binding effect as suggested in your email.

Given the far-reaching nature of the issues raised in the judgement the school considers it reasonable and appropriate to wait for the promised update to the EHRC Code of Practice which should be in place within the next two months. The EHRC have advised that a short public consultation will be undertaken in mid-May with the expectation that an updated version will be provided to the Government for ministerial approval by the end of June. Once published the school will be in a position to give further consideration to the issues raised in your email.

Yours sincerely,

I feel like there are a lot of places - including obviously your school - that are placing a lot of weight on the EHRC guidance and not on the SC ruling itself. The ruling clarifies the law. It is very clearly written and easy to understand. Hiding behind “let’s wait to see what the EHRC says” seems to be a wiggling out of obeying the law tactic.

All of which is just to say: I’m pretty sure Akua Reindorf and other knowledgeable lawyers have posted things on Twix and other places about how schools and organisations must behave post-SC ruling. Not that I think the school will pay any attention to you pointing this out to them, given their track record.

Are you in touch with, eg Sex Matters about this? Akua is actually an advisor (there’s a different word, but I think that’s the role) to the EHRC. Is it time to bring in bigger guns?

I agree the status of the EHRC code of pracrice is a distraction. Whether or not the interim guidance has a binding effect is irrelevant, because the law does have a biding effect - and is perfectly clear.

thank you both hugely

yes - main point - the EHRC is guidance, and the law, which has now been clarified, is the most important thing to pay attention to. That is incredibly clear and the school are not meeting the law now.

I am not in touch with sex matters directly, though if anyone here works with them please make yourself known! and I have spoken to safer schools alliance but I can't remember their account here!

Well the guidance is going to say the same thing as the interim guidance which is extremely clear about schools and says this:

Schools in England and Wales must provide separate single-sex toilets for boys and girls over the age of 8. It is also compulsory for them to provide single-sex changing facilities for boys and girls over the age of 11. The law in Scotland requires schools, irrespective of pupils' age, to provide separate toilet facilities for boys and for girls. Toilet cubicles are required to be partitioned and have lockable doors. Pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls’ toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys’ toilet or changing facilities. Suitable alternative provisions may be required.

So they're breaking the law if they don't do this immediately. There is no justification for not following existing law and EHRC interrim guidance.

An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC

Personally I would copy this to them with the link and ask them to confirm that they intend to continue to break the law and refuse to act according to EHRC interrim guidance by allowing male bodied children into spaces labelled as single sex for two months until the new guidance comes out.

I would ask for information about their insurer (so you can write to them with a copy of this response), and ask if they have informed their insurer of this intent. Note that if any girl is harmed as a result of their policies, given they are breaking the law it is your understanding their insurance company is unlikely to pay out however as you are not a lawyer you advise them to ask their insurer this question directly.

Then I would ask Sex Matters if they can help with free legal advice and a lawyer's letter. This is a completely unacceptable delay in complying with the law (and protecting girls).

This is putting activism above child welfare. They can be TRA activists in their own time, it's breaching their safeguarding responsibilities to ALL children do it in school. Poor kids in that school. I wonder what the homeschooling / attendance rates are.

Safer Schools is @2fallsfromSSA on here.

Good advice.

But I think I'd put it in stronger terms and say something like, "You have been breaking the law this whole time. Until the Supreme Court judgment you had an argument that you didn't know you were breaking the law. But now you no longer have that excuse. The EHRC guidance is just guidance. The Supreme Court judgment is the law and it is not optional. What is your justification for knowingly continuing to break the law?"

In a way, I can understand organisations wanting to wait for the guidance (it is statutory guidance after all) before they flesh out the totality of their policy. But I can't understand why they don't say that they are committed to complying with the law and have put in temporary arrangements - in line with the SC ruling and interim EHRC guidance - to apply between now and when the new EHRC guidance is issued. Especially given the risks that their insurance won't cover them if something happens in the time between now and the updated guidance being formally issued. Unless, of course, they don't actually care about safeguarding and the dignity of their female students...

I would wholly agree with MissScarlets suggestion above.

This ridiculous stalling of 'until the full guidance comes out we can't know' is ridiculous. The judgment is written in very clear language, the interim guidance was even clearer, the guidance will not be able to say anything different to the law. This hope that the eventual guidance might not insist on single sex spaces is as insane as all the rest of it, but continues to be happy to put girls in awful situations for the benefit of boys until the last possible second. The misogyny is beyond depressing now, it is sickening. No boy needs to be 'respected' by seeing a girl made to undress.

Agree.

Then ask if they care about the safeguarding and dignity of ALL their female pupils? Ask that direct question and ask specifically for an answer to that. Because their actions suggest not.

This is ridiculous.

as pp say, it’s THE LAW.

kcsie should be updated soon and I note that it’s due for a larger update than previously (they have said somewhere)

the gender questioning guidelines should also be cemented soo. Hopefully the SR will make it into kcsie for the stubborn heads but if not it is STILL THE LAW.

not should, must.

I have read your first thread 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Well done OP. It's so nice to have a man in our corner too. Thanks for powering on

What does the complaints policy say to do now? I personally wouldn’t be satisfied as it is the law now (as it was before) and they are continuing to break it. I’d tell them such.

I would escalate externally now.

You could try writing to the children’s commissioner. Check the policies, perhaps Ofsted and the DfE.

Though be careful you do not get accused of circular communication so that they can block communication!!

Just seen @MissScarletInTheBallroom, yes. They are breaking the law.

quote the law.

definitely write to Cc and DfE now

I'm here @TangenitalContrivences

i think you need some legal advice. Feel free to DM me here and we can talk more.

I think in terms of communication with the school you should follow up saying you think this level of delay is unacceptable and do not agree such a delay is reasonable and appropriate as it may put children in the school at risk. The law will not change as a result of any consultation or new guidance, the interrim guidance is extremely clear on what schools should do (quote fully) and that you do not believe this is an acceptable reason to delay clearly stated guidelines for complaints process.

In this communication I'd request they inform their insurers of their intention to break existing law and interrim guidance whilst waiting for full guidance from the EHRC.

If the school is not complying with their own policies next steps are here. Complain about a school: State schools - GOV.UK I think Ofsted is next step - stating they are unreasonably breaking the rules around complaints and delaying the process in a way which may put children at risk. Complain about a state school to Ofsted - GOV.UK

I'm assuming this is a state school?

I agree with MissScarlett in asking why they are continuing to break the law. I'd couch it as:

The law is clear and the older guidance isn't I'm conflict. Please explain why you have chosen deliberately and wilfully to ignore the law in this case?

Apologies if duplicates or doesn’t offer anything g you do t know, I’m a bit bogged down with all this toilet shit right
now, but if this is useful to anyone on the thread at all, please share or use.

www.womensrights.network/school-toilets

I would infer that the Head doesn't have a very strong knowledge of law and is depending on Stonewall advice rather than competent legal advice.

Headteachers work their way up from the classroom, they don't have training in the legal system to necessarily understand how common law works and therefore if they trust the wrong organisation can easily be led astray. The judgment is easily readable, but if you don't understand case law would you read it? Or think you needed to? Or know how to?

Or would you continue to trust your previously trusted advisor who's telling you that it's not law yet and don't worry?

The fact that the Head spelt judgment wrong and clearly doesn't understand the implications of the SC judgment are indicative of this. Alongside their previous stance on the issue and the fact that they now seem to be regurgitating Stonewall guidance.

I would probably approach it from the assumption that the people involved are attempting to act in good faith but genuinely don't understand the legal position.

It says you can complain to DfE only once schools complaints process is complete, which it's not, but perhaps you could contact them saying they are unreasonably delaying the complaints process. However, the Ofsted route definitely fits:

Use this service to complain to Ofsted about a state school, including academies and free schools.
You can use this service if:

• you’ve complained to the school and the problem has not been resolved
• your complaint is about things that affect the whole school, not individuals

Complain about a state school to Ofsted - GOV.UK

It beggars belief that these fuckwits are in charge of running a school.

What PPs have said is right. The Supreme Court ruling is crystal clear. The interim guidance is crystal clear. There is no excuse at all for waiting for final guidance, because they are breaking the law, and more importantly, have always been breaking the law.

I'd be tempted to send a very stern letter from a lawyer at this point. Or take your daughter out and put her in a school that isn't run by fuckwits.

I do wish that was an option but all Brighton schools follow the Brighton Council Trans Toolkit - if you want together angry, have a look at that.

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/schools-and-learning/support-school/trans-inclusion-schools-toolkit-2024#tab1-introduction

Section 4.2, toilets, should be aye opening.
"a policy of requiring a trans child or young person to use toilet facilities that do not align with their gender, might amount to prima facie indirect discrimination that would need to be justified. "

@countrysidedeficit - it's worse than stonewall law, its Brighton Council law which is even less suitable for girls as you can see...