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 )

Another stonking letter. It may be worth considering Naomi Cunningham's response today on the other thread to see if you find anything useful, as it talks about proportionality and that it is certainly not proportionate to give entry to one man at the expense of the privacy and dignity and so on of every single woman user.

In fact you could argue very reasonably that to permit a boy into girls' spaces is based in sexism and the prioritisation of the boy's interests over the girls on a sexed basis that sees the girls' needs as subordinate. And that his needs could be perfectly adequately met in a third space; to continue to subordinate the girls' interest and rights in law is a heavily biased gesture, possibly rooted in adult politics of staff, which has absolutely no business coming into safeguarding.

Great letter OP.

Unfortunately it's entirely possible that the LADO will say that they don't have a role to oversee this at a whole-school level i.e. that their role is where a concern relates to the specific safeguarding of one child or the specific actions of one adult. That doesn't mean you shouldn't send it - I think you should - it's just worth being ready for more frustrating accountability ping pong.

True. Perhaps I should be specific about my child and specific about the safeguarding lead?

I think tying it to a specific example of a safeguarding failure is good if you can, however if you feel that puts too much pressure on your child, I'd understand.

You could perhaps say you know that there are female children in the school (without specifying who) who feel they are being forced, without consent, by the teachers to get undressed in front of the opposite sex and use toilets alongside the opposite sex. You can say you do not consent to your child(ren) or their peers being forced to get undressed in front of the opposite sex. You think this is a real safeguarding risk that is not being addressed. This is the safeguarding issue. Privacy and dignity are issues too but they're not quite safeguarding in the same way, but I would mention them alongside the safety point because they are all interrelated.

By the end of primary many children will have started to go through puberty and it is inappropriate for them to be changing in mixed facilities for privacy, dignity and safety.

There are also issues around whether parents are aware of this - this is a (lesser) safeguarding issue because parents have responsibility, along with the school, for safeguarding and a key principle of good safeguarding is information sharing with all those responsible for safeguarding. I'm betting there are a lot of parents who don't want their children sharing with the opposite sex once they start to go through puberty.

Another safeguarding issue is attendance (or at least all local authorities seem to be framing it as such - I had a local authority officer tell me about a year ago that low attendance and homeschooling were both safeguarding issues - I did say that sometimes parents are homeschooling or keeping their kids off school TO SAFEGUARD their children against things like sexual assault in mixed sex toilets and got blanked after that).

Girls who have started puberty / menstruation may stay home (with the consent of their parents) if they are otherwise forced to share spaces with the opposite sex whilst menstruating. I'd let my daughter stay home if she only had mixed sex spaces in school. I think it's frankly utterly cruel and despicable to expect girls to cope with the start of menstruation - which is stressful enough thank you very much - in mixed sex toilets and changing rooms in school. I've probably posted this before but some good statistics here and it's frankly racist if they're implying these are only African problems and the fact is we know they're not. Bathrooms and Girls’ Education in Africa - The Borgen Project

This bit of course applies equally - we know it does - in UK schools:
"When girls begin to menstruate, they are faced with many barriers. These may include temporary social ostracization, missed school days and sexual violence by peers.
One in ten girls misses 20% of school days because they cannot attend during their menstrual cycle. This largely due to the fact that – if they have access to sanitary products – they do not have a place to change them once at school. This discourages many girls from attending in the first place, and too many missed days ultimately leads to higher drop out rates because they can end up falling behind"

I bet if the stats were collected in the UK it would be the same figures.

This is actually a human rights issue too as children have the human right to access education but girls access to education is restricted if they cannot access single sex facilities.

8 is not considered precocious any more for the start of menstruation and most primary schools will have one or more girls who have started by the time they leave. I know this because a GP friend I was talking about puberty blockers to told me 8 was no longer considered precocious and the risks to health of giving puberty blockers would mean that he would not give them at this age (he noted the potentially severe side effects and went on to say 8 is no longer considered particularly early but at the lower end of normal).

I know I keep going on about this but I'd love to see a study on the attendance of girls in schools that only offer mixed sex toilets (and it doesn't really matter whether that's honestly or by stealth, the girls will know) vs schools with truly single sex facilities / changing. I bet it would make for interesting analysis.

Oh and the letter is already great - you are doing fantastic work here. However, I do think if you can tie more specifically to the safeguarding concern of girls being forced to get undressed / change menstrual products in front of opposite sex children past the ages when single sex facilities legally required, I think that would make it more difficult for the LADO to dismiss it.

Children can't consent at this age, it would be coerced consent, and they of course have not asked all children and parents anyway they've just allowed the boy with a special identity in.

The LADO is specifically named as being responsible for managing allegations against professionals working with children.
It may be that in order to "succeed' you'll need to name the Head as being responsible for the safeguarding failures? Or maybe the Chair of Governors as they've got strategic responsibility while the Head is responsible for day to day management? Heads & governors are sometimes removed for Ofsted failures - so why not for safeguarding failures?

Just thinking aloud - not sure whether naming them specifically is the correct approach. But it would certainly wake people up if they're personally held responsible for girls being compelled to undress in front of males.

Could do with an informed education legal view on this?

In addition to the excellent points on safeguarding above, I'd suggest 2 small tweaks.

Maintains a “case-by-case” approach to toilet and changing room access, directly contradicting the law.

The law does permit 'case-by-case' in the sense of 'facility-by-facility', but not 'person-by-person'. So I'd clarify that the school is using case-by-case assessment of individual pupils.

October 2024–April 2025: Numerous safeguarding concerns raised with the school around mixed-sex facilities, compelled pronoun use, and safeguarding risk to my children.

I'd not mention pronouns. It's not directly relevant to the safeguarding point (at least not in a way that will be obvious to non-expert readers) and increases the risk of you being filed in the bigot bucket.

If only legislation was scrutinised with as much care as letters from MN posters!

[not a criticism of above posts, obviously]

Awesome letter!!!

Compelled pronoun use for hundreds of small children over long periods of time, undermining their belief that they are allowed to say what they see, is a huge safeguarding failure, mental health disaster and clearly meets the definition of emotional abuse in KCSIE in my opinion.

If we thought Covid had a mental health impact, I personally think this insidious coercive control of small children and undermining their trust in both adults and the truth will be worse over the long term. Though there will be a lot of people very keen not to look too closely at the impacts.

There was a horrific article (Telegraph I think) where a group of 3 girls were lied to about their friend's sex and of course eventually realised he was a boy (when he started acting out waving his willy around in the toilets IIRC) and it had huge mental health impact on them because all the adults had lied to them for quite a long period of time. Absolutely shocking beyond belief. Undermining literally all the assemblies they'd been given about truth and being honest. Those children will probably never ever trust a teacher again. And not kind to the boy himself either - impossible ultimately not to 'out' himself to his friends and presumably lose his friends, Being forced to live a lie every day. Generally speaking friendship based on lies doesn't last, and you can't force kids to be friends. And some of the parents didn't know either and were similarly unimpressed with the deception. IIRC the little girls weren't very receptive to all the adult bollocks about 'oh but he feels like a girl inside'. Nope, they'd been lied to and it wasn't acceptable. And they were right.

But I would agree that the single-sex space issue is the much more pressing immediate safeguarding concern and is more likely to get a positive response. So would agree to focus on that in this letter.

I might have gone further and mentioned the Clerk of the Board of Governors as having deliberately declined to provide email addresses for the other Governors and copied them in.

As always this is great feedback and tips from everyone. I’ll send it some time this morning, after tweaking and any further feedback. Huge thanks as always

This is a very good point. The clerk is making a decision to gate-keep information from the governors. It's important to call this out.

Is it worth paraphrasing and playing back the clerk's words to get confirmation of his/her position in a separate email first and then putting this in to your letter? Something like this to the clerk:

Please can you confirm that your position as clerk is that:

"Although the board of governors holds legal accountability as a body and, in certain circumstances, as individuals (under 2.7 of this statutory guidance), it is not necessary for the governors to be made aware of this safeguarding issue."

And then in your letter you can say "The clerk confirmed to me that in his/her opinion... <paste words>"

IMO it's more important that the clerk isn't forwarding anything on to the governors than that he/she won't give you their email addresses. If it transpires that your concerns have been forwarded on, sending something like that above will draw that out. The clerk doesn't have the same legal liability, but it would be very hard to defend a position that he/she is not accountable for making the decision to withhold important information about a safeguarding risk from the governors. If it transpires that the clerk has forwarded your concerns on, that's also useful to put in your letter ("the clerk has confirmed that the governors are aware of this situation..."), to point back to in any legal case if necessary regarding the governors' liabilities.

Although not applicable to your situation, anyone in a similar position to you where the school is an academy or independent school might also be interested to know that AFAIK it's the DfE which is responsible for making sure that the school follows safeguarding (as well as being responsible for making sure that schools follow their complaints process) under 7a and 7b of this legislation. I don't know if the DfE's responsibilities include maintained schools though - and if it's not the LADO or the DfE, I don't know who would be responsible/accountable for making sure that the school follows the law on safeguarding. As MrsO suggests above, it might be worth getting some legal advice on this side of things.

Just seen that you're going to send it this morning, so the above suggestion re a pre-email to the clerk wouldn't work.

Regarding whether or not to mention your own children, this was a great piece of advice (italics and suggested removal are mine):

You could perhaps say you know that there are female children in the school (without specifying who) who feel they are being forced, without consent, by the teachers to get undressed in front of the opposite sex and use toilets alongside the opposite sex. You can say you do not consent to your child(ren) or their peers being forced to get undressed in front of the opposite sex. You think this is a real safeguarding risk that is not being addressed.

It provides a good focus for future action if needed - you, rather than your children. You have parental responsibilities under the law, so this sounds like a great way to word it.

Great letter. And some useful suggestions by PP, esp about the “case by case” issue and focusing solely on SS spaces rather than the pronoun issue.

One other thought: linked to your point about (the absence of) risk assessments, is it worth mentioning the apparent absence of equality impact assessments under the public sector equality duty, specifically looking at the impact on girls?

Superb letter. I agree that being specific about girls getting undressed in the presence of boys is useful

I'd remove "new" from the final line of this paragraph:
Most disturbingly, the school has not confirmed that:
• Male pupils are currently excluded from female toilets and changing rooms.
• “Case-by-case” policies have been suspended or replaced with sex-based safeguarding policies.
• Staff have been appropriately updated and trained on the new legal requirements.

It may also be useful to add the school's responses to your emails into your timeline, currently it looks more like you're badgering them, rather than being stonewalled.

I don't have anything to add to your drafts and the excellent advice you're getting here but I just wanted to register my admiration for the brilliantly clear and tenacious job you're doing.

More power to your elbow!

Thanks again everyone

am going to FOI their insurers as well as safeguarding assessments today as well

I'd remove "new" from the final line of this paragraph:

Staff have been appropriately updated and trained on the new legal requirements.

Good catch @LiveshipParagon 👏

If only legislation was scrutinised with as much care as letters from MN posters!

Fully agree @moto748e 👏

Good luck OP... 💪

Looking forward to seeing the final edit and the response from the school🍿

Compelled pronoun use for hundreds of small children over long periods of time, undermining their belief that they are allowed to say what they see, is a huge safeguarding failure, mental health disaster and clearly meets the definition of emotional abuse in KCSIE in my opinion.

I absolutely agree, and should have said 'not directly connected to the changing rooms safeguarding issue'. In the OPs position I'd defintily want it dealt with - but it does take more explaining, so I think needs a separate conversation.

Fully agree with all the above.

If the OP chooses to progress this aspect (separately as suggested above), it's worth referring to the Nolan Principles regarding objectivity and Teaching Standards regarding teachers promoting their own beliefs to children who are vulnerable.

In the latter, the vulnerable children are the ones who are at risk of conflating their feelings about potentially being LGB, autistic children's distress/confusion about their bodies changing (and the sensory issues with this) etc with a belief that it's possible to "be" the opposite sex.

It's a massive issue in itself, affecting

• the whole school regarding compelled belief through preferred pronoun enforcement or coercion
• vulnerable children, as defined in paragraph 206 of the KCSIE guidance

Making this anonymous is getting harder by the day!

this is now SENT - I could polish it forever but the school governor meeting is today / tomorrow :)

To: Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) xxxxxCouncil

Dear xxxx
I am writing to formally report a series of safeguarding failures at xxxx in Brighton, where I am the parent of two pupils. These failures relate to the school’s refusal to act on binding legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 as recently clarified by the UK Supreme Court, and further supported by interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). I believe these actions – and inactions – constitute a serious breach of the school’s legal safeguarding duties, placing children at unnecessary risk.

1. Legal Background: Supreme Court and EHRC Interim Guidance

The Supreme Court judgment (For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 5) has made it clear that the term “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. This ruling is definitive and immediately binding. Schools are legally obligated to provide single-sex facilities for pupils over the age of 8 (toilets) and 11 (changing rooms), as per the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued an interim update on 24 April 2025 which reaffirms that: “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.” xxxxxSchool continues to ignore this guidance, claiming it is not yet formal. However, the EHRC guidance exists to help schools comply with binding law, not to create it. I have contacted the school extensively. The following is a high-level summary: • October 2024–April 2025: Informal emails and requests followed by a formal complaint • 26 April 2025: I submitted a formal Stage 2 complaint to the governors detailing 13 urgent safeguarding and legal compliance failures. • 29 April 2025: I wrote to the Headteacher and Senior Leadership Team, citing the EHRC’s interim guidance and the Supreme Court ruling, requesting immediate compliance and written confirmation of five specific safeguarding actions. • 8 May 2025: I wrote again after receiving a dismissive response from the school. I reiterated that the school is bound by law and cannot “wait” for new guidance. I also asked if the school had informed its insurers of ongoing non-compliance. • 15 May 2025: No reply was received. I informed the school that I would be contacting the LADO and Ofsted due to continued refusal to address the safeguarding breach. All of these emails are fully documented and can be provided to you upon request.

1. Safeguarding Failures and Named Professionals

The safeguarding lead at the school, xxxxx, has failed in his statutory duty under Keeping Children Safe in Education (2024) to act on known risks. He continues to allow or support a "case-by-case" policy of pupil access to opposite-sex spaces, which increases the safeguarding risk to girls and fails to meet the threshold of "suitable" provision as defined by law. The Headteacher, xxxxxx, is also responsible for day-to-day safeguarding compliance. Despite repeated and legally grounded correspondence, he has chosen to defer action until after future guidance is issued – despite the fact that the law is already clear. The Chair of Governors has failed to ensure the school meets its legal duties. The school’s clerk has refused to circulate legally relevant material, the EHRC interim guidance, to all governors. This raises governance and safeguarding concerns in itself.

1. Nature of the Risk

There are girls at the school who are being placed in positions where they believe they are required to undress in front of male pupils, and to share toilet facilities with the opposite sex. I do not consent to my children, or their peers, being subject to this practice. Nobody, not a parent, a child or a teacher can ever, in any way, consent to this. This is a gendered safeguarding failure. The vast majority of sexual assault victims are female. Almost all perpetrators are male. Girls deserve single-sex privacy, dignity, and protection – not as an abstract principle, but as a live and ongoing safeguarding right. The school's current approach prioritises the feelings or desires of male pupils over the rights of female pupils, which is a breach of both legal and ethical standards. Furthermore, to offer a boy a right to change with girls (based on his self-identity), when his needs could be met with an alternative private facility, is discriminatory. It elevates the boy's interests above those of the girls and exposes the girls to unnecessary risk. This is not safeguarding; it is ideology.

1. Misapplication of “Case-by-Case” Policy

The school continues to apply the term "case-by-case" inappropriately. The law allows case-by-case assessment of facilities – not of individual children. A school may determine whether a type of facility is appropriate based on age, number, sex, and specific requirements. But it cannot determine that a biological male should enter a female-only space based on his individual belief or behaviour. This misapplication of the law is not only unlawful; it constitutes a real safeguarding failure. There is no written risk assessment. There is no Equality Impact Assessment. There is no parental consultation. Yet the school maintains this approach.

1. Compounding Safeguarding Risk

Further compounding the safeguarding risk are the following:

• The school has failed to disclose whether its insurers have been informed of its non-compliance.
• The school is not providing written assurances that its staff are trained in the legal duties clarified by the Supreme Court and EHRC.
• The delay of my Stage 2 complaint by the Clerk to the Governors, on the grounds that the EHRC guidance is not final, places the entire school in legal jeopardy.
• Female pupils are placed in a humiliating or degrading position in order to accommodate the identity preferences of male pupils, which contradicts the school’s safeguarding obligations.

1. Attendance and Hidden Harm

Attendance disruption is increasingly treated as a safeguarding issue by local authorities. It must be said: some parents may be avoiding school because they do not feel their children are safe. I am aware of children within xxxx who do not want to change for PE or use toilets due to the risk of mixed-sex exposure. These children are suffering in silence, unreported, unsupported, and unheard. This is a safeguarding risk of its own.

1. Request for LADO Intervention

I am therefore asking the LADO office to:

1. Initiate an investigation into the conduct of:
2. xxxx, Designated Safeguarding Lead
3. xxx, Headteacher
4. xxxxx, Chair of Governors
5. Seek immediate disclosure of:
6. All risk assessments concerning mixed-sex changing policies
7. Policy documents and training records relating to single-sex facilities
8. Board-level minutes regarding safeguarding concerns
9. Offer clear advice and formal recommendations to the school on:
10. Ending its unlawful "case-by-case" policy
11. Immediate implementation of sex-based safeguarding in line with legal obligations
12. Circulating EHRC and legal updates to all staff and governors
13. Final Remarks

I raise this complaint not in anger, but out of profound concern. Schools exist to educate and protect. When ideology takes precedence over safeguarding, and when the law is ignored to appease controversial agendas, we are placing vulnerable children at risk. I ask the LADO to act now to prevent further exposure, and to hold those responsible accountable. Yours sincerely, xxxx

@TangenitalContrivences

!!!

You probably ought to ask MN to take the school's name out of your post

FOI regarding risk assessments:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please provide the following:

Copies of all risk assessments undertaken by the school since 1 January 2021 regarding the decision to allow or potentially allow any pupil to access toilet or changing facilities that do not correspond to their biological sex.

If such risk assessments do not exist, please confirm whether any such assessments have ever been conducted, and if not, the reason(s) why.

Copies of all Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs), or equivalent internal analyses, conducted by the school that relate to or reference:\

Use of single-sex spaces by trans-identified pupils;

The school’s application of “case-by-case” policies for access to toilets or changing rooms;

Safeguarding implications for other pupils, particularly female pupils or those with protected religious beliefs.

A list of any external agencies or consultants (including legal counsel) who were consulted when forming or advising on the school’s current policy or practice regarding trans-identified pupils and the use of opposite-sex facilities.

Any recorded training materials, meeting minutes, or internal policy briefings given to staff regarding the risks or safeguarding implications of allowing biological males to use female facilities, or vice versa.

This request is made in the public interest given the implications for safeguarding, compliance with the Equality Act 2010, the Education Act 2002, the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012, and the obligations placed on the school under Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) statutory guidance.

Please note: I am not seeking information that would identify individual pupils or staff and am happy for any such personal data to be redacted.

I would be grateful for confirmation of receipt and look forward to your full response within the statutory 20 working days.

Yours faithfully,

xxx