Tried to read the document but (not being a lawyer ?) was unable to understand the narrative that GLP are trying to develop, to me it reads like throwing stuff at a wall hoping that something sticks. Some parts surprised me
31. The Claimants do not offer any attempt in the SFG to overcome their flagrant delay, and the years’ old expiry of limitation. For this reason alone, the entire challenge is unarguable and permission should be refused.
Part of the TRA mantra is that you can't tell. To talk to other parents about a trans child would be outing so unless you as a parent had read every policy, how would you know what the school authorities were up to?
54. The Claimants’ position is extreme. It is unarguable for the same reason that their case, more generally, is unarguable
Apart from the English itself, I have read the second part a few times and I am still not 100% sure what it means, I would have thought that the respondents position that young children can change sex or have no sex at all or can oscillate between the sexes is pretty extreme in itself.
60.2. The case-by-case approach is rationally connected to the aims specified because it provides the School with scope to make decisions that protect the welfare of trans children, and avoid unlawful gender reassignment discrimination, as necessary. This is given that trans children face higher than normal marginalisation (including in social and educational settings and in respect of health and safety). The School has already explained this.
I'm not sure how you balance the rights of trans children and others if your policy means that you only discuss what is going on with one child's parents?
It's back to the hierarchy of rights, some rights are more equal than others.
It would be interesting to know if the school ever had a case-by-case decision where the trans position was not upheld?