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 )

OP, something to watch out for...

There was a poster on another thread (related to a Nottingham college) who was similarly contrary.

As BettyBooper says, it seems odd to be continuing to put forward reasons why males should be changing with females. Although it wasn't on the issue of changing rooms, the contributions to the Nottingham thread were similarly odd, where reasons to uphold safeguarding were being picked apart.

"Why are you arguing for girls to be forced to change in front of boys? Seriously?"

I'm not arguing any such thing.

I'm saying writing this letter won't have any impact on how quickly/ slowly this school changes it's policy because no one will enforce the interim guidance while the full guidance is still awaiting publication.

The law is clear as day and the rules they are following are illegal and it is now clear they are illegal. They are discriminating against the vast majority of the students in the school. Many prominent KCs have set this out publicly as have the EHRC. Their interrim guidance is clear.

If any boy is permitted to change with any girl they will be committing sex discrimination and can face legal sanction. Not to mention sexual harassment charges etc.

Bring on the court case as I will donate the hell out of this one, as would many on here and elsewhere. Bring on the publicity. I bet Naomi Cunningham / Ben Cooper and the like would be extremely keen to take this one on. And parents the country over will be peaked beyond all recognition and will rise up in the name of safeguarding children and in favour of good child mental health, not the gaslighting and coercive control currently operating in many schools.

The person on here arguing that girls should be forced to undress in front of any boy who claims a trans identity is making it so clear what this is all about. Parents will be horrified reading this.

I also wonder if schools are legally compliant to operate if their insurance is void due to intentional lawbreaking?

I’m not trying to enforce the interim guidance.

im trying to enforce the 2010 equality act.

But intentional lawbreaking - and it is intentional when the guidance and law is so incredibly clear - is probably a sacking offence. Especially if it's safeguarding law. Doesn't matter if 'it's policy'.

Saying 'it's policy' as an excuse in a court of law is never going to be a valid reason for breaking the law. It doesn't matter what the policy says. The policy can say the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't mean that will stand up in a court of law. The policy is not legally compliant and a 5 year old could understand it as written in the EHRC interrim guidance regarding schools.

That's not to say the process of sacking might take some time. But it will happen.

Yes, it is a civil case: judicial review.

The reason that the timing is pertinent is that judicial review cases have a 3 month timeframe. They need to be raised within 3 months of the issue that is being challenged.

The "charge" is that the school has made decisions which are unlawful. The school wrote to the OP this week making it clear that it intended to take no action to follow the law i.e. this week it has taken decisions which are highly likely to be unlawful.

Edited for typos

AND the law about single sex toilets over 8. Sorry can't remember that one, it's late.

Your posts at 20.15 and 20.25 seemed to be saying the school were correct in allowing this transgirl into the girls changing room…

Indeed. This is a very similar pattern to what happened on the Nottingham thread.

"Your posts at 20.15 and 20.25 seemed to be saying the school were correct in allowing this transgirl into the girls changing room…"

Many posters were saying that this is a clear safeguarding breach that Ofsted would act on.

But if the school assessed the safeguarding procedures as acceptable ( both to them and ofsted) pre the SC judgement then the day after the safeguarding risk hasn't changed ( only their compliance with the clarified law has).

Insurance for governors and their liability is unlikely to be valid if they deliberately choose to ignore / break the law.

i would in parallel be writing to them all individually stating the law and inviting them to comply, or be aware that they may hold personal liability if this is taken to court…

most governors are amateurs who tend to go with the crowd or on the advice of the chair / head as they have little legal knowledge - if they suddenly realise that they can have personal liability they may rethink rather rapidly.

I am trying so hard to speak to the governors but am being stonewalled and cannot get their email addresses

The clerk has a responsibility to make sure that governors are fully informed so that they can perform their legal obligations. Apologies if you've already covered this but if the school publishes the clerk's email address (I think they have to do so..?) this might be the route in to the governors. I think you wouldn't need their email addresses in that scenario, just confirmation from the clerk that your email has been sent to all of the governors, marked "urgent legal issue" or similar.

Yes tha is :) the first email is to the clerk of governors. They have refused to pass on my emails to the governors themselves.

Apologies. It's a fast moving thread* and I missed that you had covered that.

*peppered with random misdirections and obfuscations of the issue at hand (the issue being the school failing to follow the law and therefore putting girls at increased risk in mixed-sex changing rooms)..... where now apparently we're supposed to believe that the timing of a) the school marking its own homework re its policies and b) the SC judgement is relevant. FFS 🤦‍♀️ If the school had created and then evaluated its policies prior to 2010, maybe. But it's far more likely that its policies and practices date from after 2010. The SC judgement in 2025 clarified the law that has been in place since 2010.

As long as the number of boys claiming to be girls are allowed into the single sex girl's facilities, that is too many, by law.

Walkden · Today 20:53

Because they are probably drafting a new policy based on the interim guidance and might have to change it again once the full guidance is published?
Because they may also have to ensure they comply with DoE guidance which hasn't been published yet?

But the law has been the law since 2010 and they are flagrantly and wilfully breaching it, because of their ideology.

The interim guidance already says, "No boys in girl's facilities." With the SC ruling, the new guidance absolutely will not change that, will it?

The school is deliberately flouting the EA 2010, as well as the current, interim guidance. I'm mystified as to why you are defending them.

Organisations/schools should be using the ECHR interim guidance to put in place their own interim or temporary measures to bring them into line with the confirmed law. There are various interim measures they could put in place similar to the options they offered to girls who didn’t want to share facilities with boys.

It could be argued that it’s reasonable to wait for the ECHR to publish their fully revised framework before committing £££ to implementing changes but it’s negligent to do nothing especially when the SC ruling and ECHR interim guidance is written in such clear language. Not wanting to follow the law is not the same as the law being unclear.

Just popping on to say your letters are amazing.

Another one agreeing that your letters are fantastic. Clearly addressing every point they make with clarity on the law and not emotional. And kudos to all the posters that contributed too.

There has been quite a few references to school's insurance. I am not sure that I fully understand what is being insured and if non-compliance in one area would cause the whole policy to be invalidated.

Are the governors being insured against liability for things that their decisions might impact at the school?

Is the school being insured against things that might happen to pupils at the school?

If a school is found to be non-compliant with regards e.g. single sex changing facilities would this impact the day to day running of other areas of the school?

Hopefully someone is able to provide a bit of background

Sex Matters' Maya Forstater is on LinkedIn

Print letters?
address to each governor
post to school with signature required / hand deliver so there is proof of delivery.
Address envelope as private and confidential - addressee only etc.

alternatively - some schools will provide school email addresses to governors - use an online email checker to run through different formats (follow the head’s format possibly) first.surname / initials / etc. the online checker will test whether they are valid email addresses

do online research to see if you can find the same people - many governors will also have other roles which are shown online where they may be more contactable - eg LinkedIn

you only need to get through to a few to start to have them contact each other…

write an open letter to all governors and send to the local press… / print out as a banner and hang on school gate! 😀

I tried the guessing emails approach and failed unfortunately! The printed letters will be intercepted. It’s not a home address so they don’t have to give the post to the person. And I don’t want to get accused of harassment either otherwise I would do the other stuff as well!

Fair point - it is always a shame that they can play dirty and you have to be honourable - but Incompletely respect that you are…

if you want to send me a message with the school name I would be happy to see if I can track down any contact details…