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 )

Yeah, they do. People need to man up, as the saying went, (without prejudice 😀), and accept their responsibilities.

OP,
Not sure if you're up to date with this case - a teacher who was unbelievably put on the DBS list - (Disclosure & Barring) after being sacked for raising safeguarding concerns about a College not telling a parent their child was socially transitioning.
I'm not certain of all the details but he's finally having his day in court.
I can't link to his crowdfunder (which has all the details of his legal challenges) but was interested to see he's alleging that it's the adults at the college - (detailed in his latest update) that pose a safeguarding risk to children because of their capture by transgenderism and failure to implement safeguarding measures.
Google Kevin Lister Fight transgender madness in the Education System and you should find the details

just seen update; they’re stalling and shitting themselves.

Draft email response. Sorry it's along, I know the argument to make it short, however this means I can always FOI everything and they have no way to deny anything at all.

Dearxxx,

I write in response to your email dated 21 May 2025. I must be absolutely clear that the school’s decision to suspend the Stage 2 complaint process, and to wait for further guidance from the EHRC, central government, and Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC), is both unlawful and unacceptable.

It is not reasonable to wait. Harm is being caused now. The law is already settled and has been since 2010. The EHRC interim update (April 2025) exists precisely to explain how the law should be implemented pending any updated Code. And it does so unambiguously.

The school’s governing body—not BHCC—is legally responsible for safeguarding and equality compliance. BHCC’s position is irrelevant. The governors’ duty is to ensure compliance with existing law, not defer action in the hope of future political guidance. It is entirely unjustified to suspend the complaints process in these circumstances.

1. Legal Compliance Must Not Be Delayed
The Equality Act 2010, as clarified by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland (2) [2024] UKSC 5, defines “sex” as biological. EHRC guidance now states 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. Suitable alternative provisions may be required.”

This reflects longstanding obligations under the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012. Section 4 requires “suitable” changing and toilet provision for children, having regard to sex, age, and special requirements. “Separate facilities” are mandatory for children aged 8+ (toilets) and 11+ (changing). This is not new. The law has been clear for over a decade.

2. Governors Cannot Delegate Legal Duty
Governors may be laypersons, but they are still the responsible body. They have joint and several responsibility for safeguarding and statutory compliance. This cannot be delegated to the Local Authority or postponed indefinitely.

If governors feel they lack the competence to address safeguarding and legal compliance, they must obtain professional support—not delay the process. The DfE Governance Handbook states governors must “understand their responsibilities” and “ensure the school complies with statutory guidance.” Waiting is not compliance.

3. Impact Assessment – Urgently Required
The school now states that an impact assessment is “in progress.” This is a chilling admission: it implies that male access to female changing rooms was implemented without any prior assessment of risk, dignity, or harm. This represents a serious and ongoing safeguarding failure.

I now request immediate disclosure of the following:

• Start date, lead officer, and planned completion date of the impact assessment;
• That it includes and accounts for all protected characteristics covered in the Equality Act 2010;
• That your school operates the legal default position of single-sex changing rooms while your assessment is pending.

Girls must not be forced to share changing rooms with boys while you consider whether it’s harmful. The legal and moral default is clear.

4. Insurance, Liability, and Risk Register
You have now stated your intention to delay legal compliance. I therefore request:

• The name and policy reference of the school’s liability insurer;
• Confirmation that your insurer has been informed of this non-compliance;
• A copy or summary of the relevant risk-register entries maintained by the Governing Body on this issue.

Governors are collectively liable. If your insurance does not cover breaches of statutory safeguarding obligations, individual governors may face personal exposure.

5. Stage 2 Complaint – No Basis for Suspension
Your complaints policy clearly states that Stage 2 is the next step unless a complaint is vexatious or out of scope. My complaint is:

• Within scope (statutory compliance and safeguarding);
• Not vexatious (supported by law and evidence).

Please quote the precise section of your Complaints Policy that empowers the governing body to unilaterally suspendthe Stage 2 process. Otherwise, I will assume you are acting outside policy, in breach of natural justice.

6. Legal Advice Disclosure
You stated that your decision follows “further legal advice.” Under the Nolan Principles of public service (especially Accountability and Openness), I now request:

• The date and provider of this advice (e.g., BHCC Legal or external counsel);
• An executive summary of the conclusions (respecting privilege if necessary);
• Confirmation whether the advice explicitly states that a case-by-case mixed-sex changing policy may lawfully continue in light of the Supreme Court ruling and EHRC interim guidance.

If privilege is claimed, governors must still disclose the advice’s headline effect (DfE Governance Handbook, para 6.2).

7. Circulation to Full Governing Body
I insist that this correspondence be shared with all members of the Governing Body except those directly involved with the complaints panel, due to the liability risks and potential legal exposure arising from the school’s stated non-compliance.

Please confirm this has been done.

8. Required Actions
I require the following, in writing, without delay:

• Immediate confirmation that you have reverted to full single-sex provision in changing rooms, toilets, showers, and other intimate spaces, pending the outcome of your impact assessment;
• Written confirmation of the insurance and legal-risk management arrangements outlined in Section 4;
• A direct response to each section above, numbered 1 through 7;
• Confirmation that this letter is being formally minuted as part of the governing body’s records on this issue.

9. Escalation
I will be forwarding a copy of this correspondence and your reply to Ofsted, the Department for Education, and to press contacts where appropriate. The public has a right to know which schools are actively choosing to disregard settled safeguarding law in pursuit of activist-led policy.

If you believe any statement I have made here is factually incorrect, please respond immediately. Otherwise, I will treat this letter as part of a formal paper trail, which may be subject to further regulatory review or legal challenge if necessary.

Yours sincerely,
xxx
Parent of two pupils at xxx School

Their absolute commitment to boys being able to access girls with their clothes off is staggering. Jaw dropping.

The most sensible, basic thing to have done would have been to have immediately provided third spaces. Hence the whang-in-the-gold comment you make in your most recent response about activist led policy. Those girls are being sacrificed on the altar of staff personal political belief systems, which are not objective or diverse in any way, and which those staff are using their position of trust to enforce on an entire population of children and parents.

Bravo OP! You are just brilliant. Your daughter is very, very lucky to have a Dad like you standing up for her. She will be able to assert boundaries as an adult and her life will be better for it. If only all fathers were the same. I know it's difficult, and you're demonstrating such bravery against a system designed to deflect, obfuscate, avoid responsibility and shut down any parents who complain.

I would be very very surprised if EVERY SINGLE governor has completely drunk the kool aid to the point of being personally liable. Some of them at least will privately know that sex is real (duh) and is important for safeguarding and will just be going along with the prevailing culture out of cowardice or laziness.

OP is taking the action required to change the risk assessment for individual governors, and this is what's needed. Up to now, for those governors who are willing to sacrifice girls (shame on them) to stay in with the prevailing culture of the school and governing board, there's really been no down side to them personally of silence. There's been a big down side to sex realism and standing up for girls (and indeed the gender questioning children who the school is socially transitioning against Cass recommendations). Now there's a down side to staying silent, let's see how long it takes before they break ranks to protect themselves.

I missed a third reason why some governors up to now may have stayed silent. I do think it's entirely possible that some governors may really not have known - up to the point that OP has enlightened them - that girls were being forced to undress in front of male children. It's quite easy to be ignorant on a governing board if the Head and Chair form a team that does not share information. As a governor yes, you can (and should) visit the school, scrutinise documents, and question the Head and SLT but if they lie and refuse to disclose relevant documents or have documents that are word salady enough not to really be clear, and it's not your area of focus, it is possible some of them may not have known. However this is even more evidence against the Head and possibly also Chair if true.

If the governors who will either be rightly horrified now you've spelt this out, or simply unwilling to be exposed to personal risk, are willing to stay on the Board and put this right, you will have allies OP. I think you're doing all you can to make it easy for them to do the right thing now. Let's hope some of them step up, I think the latest response suggests some of them may be taking tentative steps to do so.

Oh how I'd love to see this aired in a court of law. They have put the noose around their own neck and are still happily tightening it. Their words drip with arrogance. They really do think they're above the law, don't they?

You must be absolutely infuriated, OP. I am infuriated on your behalf and on behalf of all the children who are being harmed.

3. Impact Assessment – Urgently Required

The school now states that an impact assessment is “in progress.” This is a chilling admission: it implies that male access to female changing rooms was implemented without any prior assessment of risk, dignity, or harm. This represents a serious and ongoing safeguarding failure.

Ouch! You've essentially written the judge's summing up, in part!

All power to your elbow OP.

if you have not yet sent it please can I suggest two small tweaks.

First, in your opener, I would be inclined not to state that delay is unlawful but rather to ask them on what basis they consider it not unlawful to delay further. While I don’t disagree with what you say, they could argue that you don’t have authority to tell them what is or is not unlawful. They can’t argue that you don’t have the right to ask the question - and they then have to do some legwork to produce a defensible answer.

Secondly, where you refer to the risk assessment (& fucking hell that they did not do one earlier!!!) I suggest two tweaks:

(a) ask them which protected characteristics they are assessing against, rather than asking them if they are looking at all of them - obviously they should be looking at all of them but your question invites a yes/no answer and it would be helpful to establish that they know what the protected characteristics are and are not substituting “gender” for “sex”. Make them spell it out.

(b) I can’t remember whether you KNOW or “just” BELIEVE that they are currently operating mixed sex changing rooms (sorry, long thread), but assuming the former, would the third bullet point be more impactful if you added something to the effect of “or confirm that the school’s earlier decision to permit mixed sax changing rooms was made without any risk assessment”. For any naive readers who had not realised what was happening, I think you need to keep ramming home that, at some point, they changed a single sex provision to a mixed sex genderwoo policy and did so without any thought of the consequences. Otherwise, it could be easy for those who wish to spin it to present the issue as only requiring a RA now to work out a trans-friendly response to the SC ruling rather than that they always had a duty of care to their female students.

excuse typos. Texting while travelling.

Sorry that was three not two.

Great response OP.
The school's position is indefensible.

Imagine being so committed to insisting that girls must get changed in front of boys. Much as I hated PE and PE teachers at school, none of them would have stood for this kind of shit.

If you believe any statement I have made here is factually incorrect, please respond immediately.
I love this - if they can't form a coherent response to this, they're essentially admitting that you are correct...

That’s excellent, OP.

I just want to say bravo OP

Done and sent. So glad it went before they will all go home....

Thank you everyone for your kind words I really appreciate it. It's very tiring, but it helps when people remind me this is the right thing to do even if it's not the easy thing.

Have been following this from the start and cannot applaud and thank you enough for this. Your letters are an absolute joy to read. Would love to be a fly on the wall when the school reads them! 😂

Oh I also got a reply from the LADO today:

I am responding to your further e mail to the LADO sent on Wednesday 21st May.

Following your e mail I have made additional enquiries and confirmed that xxx school have sought, and are continuing to seek, legal advice about the impact of the recent Supreme Court judgment and EHRC update on single sex spaces in the school.

The LADO is satisfied that the school are seeking the appropriate legal advice and does not intend to take any further action on this issue .

I note you have referred to Ofsted – the LADO intends to send this e mail to Ofsted to advise of the LADO enquiries following your e mail to the LADO .

Please note that the LADO does not intend to take any further action .

Regards

Presumably being the LADO in a trans captured LA means that you're not bothered or not allowed to acknowledge that girls being compelled to undress alongside teenage boys by adults is abusive. Because once one senior safeguarding person acknowledges the bullying, intimidation and coercive control exercised by adults abusing their authority over children in this way, the whole bloody edifice crumbles.

Thank you again OP for doing this. Until parents drag these people into the public eye and make them explain why they're misusing their authority over children in this way, nothing will change.

I will be FOIing the LADO decision to not take action....

Yes - make them spell it out why named adults in a school compelling girls to undress in front of boys is not a safeguarding concern.

Well it's a desperate claimed belief that the boy is in some way a girl, and that it's discriminatory and wrong to see him as a boy like other boys.

Which is now against the law, as well as being a niche adult political view that an adult in a position of trust has absolutely no business inflicting on children. Particularly when it involves them requiring girls to expose their bodies to boys to validate them and denying the girls any power to escape.

This is exactly why it has to be illegal and with very strong boundaries: insane adults insisting this is all fine and incapable of thinking beyond this even with obvious issues and children they supposedly care about, should not be allowed to bring their politics to work.

I think there comes a point where the school should be named. MNHQ might have a view as to whether they would be OK with this.

Remember the OP has children at the school. Which of course is why this predatory behaviour hasn't been stopped before. Because all parents are concerned for their child's welfare and not wanting to see them bullied or targeted by adults or peers because of their parents.

Maybe an enterprising journalist will do an expose? It's a big story to discover that a Headteacher, Chair of Governors, safeguarding lead and countless members of staff are forcing compulsory undressing for girls in front of boys and refusing to stop.