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 )

I have indeed, few pages back. It’s a long and twisting time line :) think that was Monday?

Ah, great!

I think at this point it's clear that they are not going to be convinced by anything you say, so all you are doing is creating a paper trail so that when they finally get a bum rap they can't possibly plead ignorance.

I fully intend to FOI internal and external emails of both the school, the LADO office and the wider council.

thats part of the reason for such long winded emails which repeat the key points each time!

UPDATE FROM GOVERNORS

I write further to your email dated 8 May 2025 which was in response to my email of the same date.

The Governors have given careful consideration to your request that your complaint be put before a Stage 2 Governor’s Complaints Panel. However following the receipt of further legal advice we have decided, on an exceptional basis, that a governors panel is not the proper forum to deal with a complaint of this nature which involves complex legal issues. Governors are lay individuals and cannot be expected to interpret complex and potentially conflicting legal arguments. As we have previously advised, we consider it entirely reasonable to wait for updates from both the EHRC and central Government, before considering whether any policy changes might be required. Additionally, we are aware that the Local Authority is currently considering the implications of the Supreme Court judgment both generally and in respect of schools, and we therefore also wish to take any Local Authroty guidance into account. Adopting this approach will ensure that the school is able to make fully informed decisions which take advantage of all updated and relevant guidance available.

The school is in the process of undertaking an impact assessment of our current approach which includes consideration of the potential impact on affected students within the school. It will also incorporate an assessment of any of our current policies which may be directly affected by this issue.

Kind regards

"It seems to me that the head, chair of governors etc will simply state that as laypersons they are awaiting formal legal advice and or guidance from the department of education. Government etc."

"Governors are lay individuals and cannot be expected to interpret complex and potentially conflicting legal arguments. As we have previously advised, we consider it entirely reasonable to wait for updates from both the EHRC and central Government, before considering whether any policy changes might be required."

Entirely predictable.

Ask to see the written legal advice.

Just how 'complex' are the arguments? Don't seem that complex to me. And surely the Local Authority won't want to poke their head above the parapet, so it'll be more "awaiting the updated advice from the EHRC".

I would be asking the governors to check their legal insurance...
The governors still have legal responsibility - whether they are lay or not - the only factor to note is that generally they can only be sued as a body and are liable jointly as a body for which they can take out insurance and can protect the individual governors - unless you can show that an individual governor has acted outside the law...

that doesn't give them a reason to not go through with the complaint system:

• individually they are lay people
• jointly they hold legal responsibility
• they can bring in legal advice as necessary to help them
• It is not complex law - it is clearer than almost any other law out there
• It has been law for c.15 years
• Interim guidance is already in place

Their responses are getting weaker and weaker...

So they haven’t previously done an impact assessment?

What's the betting their impact assessment only includes the students identifying as trans, not all the students.

• It has been law for c.15 years

And in that time Ofsted will have inspected them multiple times including their safeguarding procedures...

Things have been clarified / recently as you are aware...

You can’t it’s covered by legal privilege.

FFS, how more explicit does the EHRC have to be!
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.
An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC

I'm in the 'keep it short and snappy' camp, so I'd be inclined to reply by quote the above about changing facilities, ask what part of it they find 'complex', and noting that they are pursuing their own course of action which clearly ignores both the ruling of the Supreme Court and the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance.

I'd take this as there being at least one or more governors who are rightly concerned about legal liability and lack of insurance if they are breaking what is a very clear law with very clear existing interrim guidance.

There is a very slight (almost imperceptible) movement away from their former position in that they are accepting an impact assessment is needed.

Meanwhile, girls are still being forced to get undressed in front of boys.

Watch out for any governors 'standing down' in this period. If I were a governor on a board of captured governors willing to break very clear law, I'd be resigning over it. One thing the school should have is an up to date list of governors on their website, but sometimes it can take a while to update it. You can ask the school office for an up to date list in a couple of weeks and see if there's been a change.

This has shades of the RCN "realising" - after a decade or more of law breaking - that existing law that they should have known about and should have followed exists. I seriously doubt this faux naivety would stand up in court under scrutiny from Naomi Cunningham or Ben Cooper. They really should be thinking through to this conclusion. If I were governor of this school I'd do some research and that is what I'd be thinking about - how I'd defend my actions or inactions in court.

Sandie Peggie is bad enough faced with Dr Upton- imagine the press attention if it's about girls being forced to undress in front of boys? That's a whole other level of coercion, and failure of adults to do their job resulting in harms to children.

And honestly, in terms of children in schools, this school's position / Brighton schools' position is not fair on the trans / gender questioning children either, nor compliant with Cass (as social transition is not a neutral act). They're harming ALL children, I see no redeeming features of what they're doing at all.

With Dr Upton it seems clear to me having seen his testimony that he wanted to bully Peggie and get her sacked. In school, it's likely any gender confused male child IS confused and vulnerable too. Forcing girls to undress in front of him is NOT going to make him friends and result in party invitations, quite the opposite. The adults giving him special treatment will NOT endear him to his peers or their parents.

These adults - teachers and governors - are failing both girls, boys and gender questioning children by pushing their ideology - they're using children to service an ideology which is emotional abuse as defined in KCSIE. It would be far fairer on the gender questioning child to enable a third space - this would also give them a way back if they decided to desist / detransition later - how could they possibly change their mind with these adults in charge? They're a pawn in the political activism too.

The current situation enables social transition which, if it's without medical oversight, is against Cass recommendations for gender questioning children. Even the most pro-affirmation psychiatrist I'd imagine would still understand that social transitioning in this way - knowing there are girls and families who object to their daughters being used as unconsenting validation tools without any concern for their wellbeing- will only cause harm to the gender questioning child's social life and experience.

And it's so easy to have an alternative arrangement that protects all children. A third space for changing and perhaps using staff toilets. They should be making it clear girls are NOT being forced to get undressed in front of boys nor share toilets and that they'll make third spaces possible until the EHRC guidance comes out. It's actually relatively simple to protect themselves and yet they won't. Pure swivel eyed zealotry is the only possible answer, that or utter stupidity.

I've just read all your posts OP and want to say you're so impressive and keep up the good work. I look forward to the next installment...

I can't edit my previous post now - but if I had to guess, there's one or two governors who've voiced concerns about the approach, who are being bulldozed by the rest / Chair / Head but the 'impact assessment' is a very tiny concession to them (without really changing anything) to try and stop them making more of a fuss.

Could be entirely wrong, but that's my guess. What is needed is more of these people - who've gone along with this out of ignorance and / or cowardice rather than true belief - to realise the consequences of their inaction and step up.

OP is indeed doing excellent work here.

Wow - that's a legally foolish response. The school is clearly breaching the terms of the Equality Act 2010 as clarified in the judgement from the Supreme Court. Every single time that the school compels girls to undress in front of a male pupil, the governors are failing in their legal responsibility to safeguard those children as detailed in the complaint.

The governing body cannot opt out of its legal responsibilities because it feels a bit difficult. This is a matter of safeguarding, adhering to the Equality Act and fulfilling the Public Sector Equality Duty. Governors are legally responsible for ensuring that these legal requirements are met. They can't avoid them - they're responsible.

I'd suggest this refusal should be urgently escalated to Ofsted as additional information that the governors are completely failing in their legal responsibilities for safeguarding.

More than anything I am shocked they admitted they have done no risk assessments.

swiftly followed by their belief the governors aren’t informed enough to make a decision nor liable. Wrong on both counts.

But... it's literally the law 🤯

Yes, that part leapt out at me, too.

"Consideration of the potential impact on affected students" should start with recognising that girls are the largest group affected. But I'll bet a shiny new penny that it doesn't.

Complex? It's bloody black and white.

No boys in the girl's facilities. It couldn't be simpler.

I suspect the HT and governors believe this is complex because:

a. They have all drank the kool aid
b. They know how litigious the parents of the trans identifying pupil(s) are
c. Both a. and b.

They have no idea what a world of litigious pain I am bringing them.

actually they letters may have tipped them off. I want scalps.

my daughter, then 12-13, shared a changing room with a male. This continues school wide.

the senior leadership team will never be forgiven. I will end this.

I really, honestly think that those in charge, with safeguarding responsibilities, ought to be personally liable, in these cases. They can huff and puff as much as they like and pretend that they didn't know; but they could and should have known.

It's literally their duty and responsibility to know anx acg accordingly.