Mixed sex changing rooms in a Brighton secondary school - part 3 - we're really cooking now

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Hello friends.

I'll let the press do the talking...

https://www.gbnews.com/news/trans-school-court-changing-rooms

I wanted to donate £1 to share my views on the fund raiser but couldn’t give all my financial detail to a bunk of crooks.

They are up to £10k of which £1k is going to cover the notGood Law Project. So £9k raised to ensure boys get their wispy haired giblets our in front of girls as part of a cosplay performance.

That’s not my definition (or indeed the factually incorrect blurb) of Good Law.

Good point, I wonder if that's the tactic they will take? "Although our policy is that we require the female children to get undressed with anybody who says they're a girl, so long as you can't prove that this actually happened, there's nothing to see here and therefore our policy shouldn't be scrutinised."

(And of course they all collude to be wilfully blind, deaf and tight-lipped about male people-of-gender in female changing rooms).

Gosh this is so relevant to the NHS stuff. Its gender self ID policies mean whole scale population level sex discrimination. We don’t have to actually experience a male in the SSS to be affected - just the thought of that being possible affects our behaviour/emotions and is a negative impact. The worst part of it is that the NHS false advertises Single Sex spaces - so like OP’s school - it’s only once you're in the space and it’s too late, that you find out that you’ve been deceived.

Hmm. That is a bump I wonder why

Looks like they're panicking.

Desperate hope of winning some case law that means girls have to submit to providing their undressed body to staff-selected teenaged boys with problems.

This is the tactic they try with everyone, OP. Look what they dug up about Sandy Peggie's WhatsApp messages.

It was a blip, and didn't limit her support.

How are you feeling about it?

It’s a classic case of playing the man not the ball.

If that’s all they have as their defence then it’s to your advantage in the long term. I hope you still have that email from the head teacher discouraging you from standing as a governor because the head thought it would be a shame if your kitten kicking tendencies became public knowledge wouldn’t it.

Oh yes, that would be very handy......

I need to tread on egg shells here. But those following for a while may recall - there isn’t a written policy that says girls in the boys. There is a policy of “case by case”. And because a policy of “case by case” by definition includes the possibility of NOT letting girls in the boys, the policy itself, it is said, is valid.

Personally I think that sort of cowardly lawyering speaks volumes.

I really don’t want to jeopardise anything by going into too many details. But I wouldn't have taken this so far and got so far without there being clear evidence.

Good point I’ll remind those in charge about the incident.

I am, was, and always will be, my daughters advocate in any and all circumstances. There is nothing that will break my focus for a moment.

I’ve had way more mud sling at me than this 🫡

So the school will be defending itself against a "kitten kicker" by using a "fox clubber"?
Has the RSPCA been informed?

I'm sure there's a joke about "furries", but I just can't see it...

Good to know.

You didn’t come this far to only come this far. Sounds like you and your daughter have resolve aplenty.

If you have their arguments, will you get a date soon? I’m sure some of us would happily come along to help you kick kittens provide staunch moral support, amusing signs and cups of tea

Yes, I mean, ‘case by case’ means sometimes we will. It means, ‘we reserve the right to do as we please’.

Case by case they decide whether to make the single sex spaces mixed sex by stealth by not writing it down. Wowsers the ignorance of the law knows no bounds!?

Once the legal case is over there must surely be a Professional Conduct case to answer here. This is a horrendous safeguarding failure. Quite amazing the Head is hanging their career on this very poorly founded argument. It seems they’re also a victim of the BBC’s poor reporting?

I really would love to hear, in open court, them describe the criteria under which the boys are admitted to the girls' on a case by case basis.

We think he's uber feminine? We don't think he's a threat? All the girls love him?

We've heard these excuses year in, year out. Especially the last one. Which would mean the school expects the girls to safeguard themselves.

Always a winner!

There really does appear to be quite a few people who think they 'can tell'.

It never occurs to them that no women would fall in love with, marry and have a family with dodgy men, if they 'could tell'.

Why would it be case by case. If the boys say they're girls, then they're girls, and their entry to girls' spaces should be unimpeded.
I mean, I thought it was #BelieveThem?

Your legal team will have this well handled, but "case by case" without more isn neither policy nor guidance. Guidance and policy are what are used to determine one case from another. They are what determines "yes" or "no" in each case-by-case.

"Case by case" alone means nothing more than "we will decide on the basis by which we make our decision." And if there is no further guidance on how to decide each case, then it is arbitrary, which would be clearly unlawful.

Guidance says "in this situation, do as follows. In that situation, do this other thing." This is the real policy. And if the real policy says that in this situation, or that situation, a boy is admitted to a girl's facility it is unlawful. If the policy lists factors to be considered when deciding when to admit a boy to girl's facilities - then it's unlawful. It would be unlawful to list any such factors, because there are none that can be taken into account.

OK, they say, but we don't have a written policy. No, maybe not, but there is still a policy, unwritten, unspoken, on the basis of which this case-by-case decision is to be made. It is not done by tossing a coin.

because it’s a tacit acknowledgment that some males will say or do things which aren’t true to access females in a state of undress! What they are saying is that they are weeding out those disingenuous ones who want to use the girls for their pleasure. But they don’t mind letting in other males who want to use the girls for a different reason (affirmation) without their consent snd to their detriment. It makes my blood boil

What pisses me off especially is that the school will be making this assessment (even if it's just in their own minds and not documented.... I can guarantee that there would be at least one boy in the school they'd say "no" to, should they declare girl-ness) but the girls aren't ever involved in this decision process. They aren't even allowed to know any such decision making process exists! They're just told "Roxy is using the girls changing rooms because Roxy IS a girl". With the underlying coercive message that only a bigot could object.

Even if you believed case-by-case to be fair, how is it ethical to not just exclude the girls whom the decision affects from the decision making process, but to essentially deny to them that any decision making process even exits?

And has "Roxy" always been a girl or does "she" become a girl at the point at which the school decides "she" can use the girls' changing rooms?

Not to mention, the truly nauseating, appalling thought, of adults awarding a boy the undressed bodies of non consenting, distressed girls because it's in their gift to do so if he meets certain criteria.

Girls bodies are not fucking star charts for boys.

Edited to add: the man just charged for sexual assault of a women in a women's prison was 'carefully risk assessed' (for non acceptable risks, if I remember the SNP policy - there is apparently an 'acceptable' leve of risk to subject women to), had plenty of days where he did not decide to use his access to hurt a woman. And then one day he did. Because he wanted to, and he could.

I would add, the fact he has been charged says that the level of assault will turn out to be very significant sadly. Because we all know that anything less than absolutely impossible to hide would have been buried and hidden. He has probably escalated through many more minor incidents against women through his privileged special access before he did something they couldn't cover up. How much did those women around him suffer, and for how long, before he finally did something awful enough to be removed?

It IS nauseating.

The undressed bodies of girls are a prize to the boys who they think deserve it.

i'm completely genuine when I say I'd love to see a smart lawyer force them to describe what kind of boys deserve the prize of naked girls.

And what kind of boys don't. And how they can tell.

Because if they've found a way to distinguish predators from non-predators, they're going to make an absolute bloody fortune.