A Brighton family says it is delighted Dorothy Stringer has confirmed it is changing its single sex facilities policy following a legal case it brought against the school.
A teenage girl and her father first launched the case last year, when the Brighton secondary school was allowing transgender pupils to use opposite-sex facilities on a case-by-case basis.
This meant the girl discovered a biological boy had been sharing a girls’ changing room without her having been consulted or prewarned .
They jointly launched High Court proceedings against the school and Brighton and Hove City Council – but withdrew them this week after the school said the policy had now been changed.
When the father discovered the policy early last year, it had been in place for about three years. In April of last year, the Supreme Court ruled that laws around single sex facilities referred to biological sex, and the father wrote to the school asking it amend its policies accordingly.
However, even after the threat of legal action, the school defended its case-by-case approach. It instructed the campaigning legal firm Good Law Project, which crowdfunded for its defence.
The teenage girl said the policy made her feel increasingly uncomfortable. She said: “I was conscious that he was there, and that affected
how I changed.”
She said she covered herself more and positioned herself so that less of her body could be seen.
She also said she had not felt able to complain because she feared being labelled “transphobic” or simply “shut down”.
In September, final government guidance on Keeping Children Safe In Schools (KCSIE) came into force and the school said it intended to comply with this, having made physical alterations to the changing rooms and toilets.
The family’s law firm, Conrathe Gardner LLP, says the school provided the assurances which the claimants had been seeking in October, and a decision was taken to withdraw the claim.
The father of the teenage claimant said: “Girls should not have to find out by accident that a biological boy may be using their changing room, and my daughter’s privacy, dignity and safety should never have required a protracted legal battle.
“We trusted Dorothy Stringer to protect her. Instead, our family paid in time, money and emotional strain to secure protections she should have been able to take for granted.
“Having a policy which allowed biological males into girls’ changing rooms without telling pupils or parents was a profound betrayal of trust, affecting thousands of female pupils at this school alone.
“Changing the policies now does not erase that betrayal. Schools must listen to girls and safeguard them. No child’s protection should depend on her family’s ability to fight a legal case.”
The teenage claimant added: “This has taught me to think twice about teachers and schools who I used to trust. It’s taken so long just to keep boys out of my changing room. Why aren’t girls’ voices heard?”
Paul Conrathe, representing the claimants, said: “My clients are delighted. With an utter disregard for safeguarding, the school allowed biological boys into the girls’ changing rooms and toilets on a case-by-case basis for several years, but now they have finally dropped this practice.
“The father’s numerous safeguarding complaints went unheeded and as a result he and his daughter had no choice but to commence proceedings in the High Court to force the school to abandon its unlawful policy.”
Council leader Bella Sankey said: “We stand behind our schools’ commitment to supporting all students in their communities.
“Every child has the right to feel safe, respected and able to participate fully in school life and that includes girls, boys and trans and gender questioning children.
“The school has always followed the law in considering the individual circumstances, needs and safety of all students.
“The school gives all students the option for privacy and dignity in its facilities.
“This legal case has had no impact on the school’s approach and was entirely unnecessary, despite the claims now being made otherwise.”
Misgenders the trans child in her statement, which is a discriminatory breach of the equalities act 2010, section 7.
Trans women are women!
Given that you can’t even get the name of the legislation right, I have my doubts that you know what constitutes a breach of it either. Hint: section 7 just outlines the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, it doesn’t say anything about misgendering. And as the Supreme Court confirmed, for the purposes of the Equality Act, transwomen are male.
I appreciate that is your view and in many circumstances I agree with you. However, it is dependant on context and that includes girl’s toilets. The Supreme Court in fact ruled references to “woman”, “man”, and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer strictly to biological sex (the sex assigned to a person at birth).
No such thing as a trans child
Oh james you’re wrong
How on earth did it take two years and a court case for Dorothy Stringer to keep boys out of the girls changing rooms and toilets? Surely the headmaster should be resigning and the Governors investigating how this absolute disgrace happened?
Basic safeguarding – should surely be at the core of any school, how dare they just *not tell* the female students there was a male in their changing room?
Taking away an entire female cohorts privacy and dignity is shameful.
I bet they teach girls to shut up and not question things, to ignore the most basic of senses. That will cause those girls so many issues in the future.
97% of sexual assaults are carried out by males. Being trans identified does not reduce that risk profile at all. Who signed off on the risk assessment for this decision? Are they still there?
Who will take responsibility?
No one, as its all about appearing woke aka women and girls come last.
Sankey: “This legal case has had no impact on the school’s approach and was entirely unnecessary, despite the claims now being made otherwise.”
What an insult to this family. According to their solicitor, the father made five safeguarding complaints about his daughter’s privacy. Dorothy Stringer defended allowing pupils to use opposite-sex changing rooms on a case-by-case basis. The family took legal action and withdrew it only after the school changed its arrangements and gave them the assurances they had been asking for.
Girls should be able to get changed in privacy. When a girl raises a concern about that, the adults responsible should listen. Calling the case “entirely unnecessary” after this family went all the way to the High Court before getting those assurances is breathtaking.
If Bella Sankey is so certain the case had “no impact”, she should publish the dated decision to end opposite-sex access and explain what the school told the family in response to those five complaints. Where is the evidence for her claim?
Sankey says, ‘The school has always followed the law in considering the individual circumstances, needs and safety of all students…..The school gives all students the option for privacy and dignity in its facilities.’ Clearly neither of these statements are true as the school (like others) was not acting in accordance with the law, hence the change in guidance, and the claimant’s evidence states that there was a complete disregard for her privacy and dignity in allowing a boy to change in the girl’s changing rooms.
Exactly. What was this supposed “option for privacy” worth to a girl who says she found out by accident that a boy was using her changing room? She says she started covering herself more carefully and was afraid she’d be called transphobic if she spoke up. Why was the burden on her to protect her own privacy?
If Bella Sankey is confident the school considered the needs of **all** pupils, let’s see what it recorded at the time. How did it assess the impact on girls who used those changing rooms? What were girls and their parents told? A blanket assurance from the council leader is a poor substitute for answering either question.
That trans child is not a boy and you are discriminating against them by saying so.
That trans child is a biological male, therefore a boy. It is not discrimination to tell the truth
@Bella.
Who’s law have the school always followed?
The lies in the statement from the school are concerning – the law on single sex changing has not changed. They were unlawfully allowing some boys to change with girls without the girls or their parents knowledge or consent. This would prevent some religious children from attending the school. So much for ‘inclusion’. They obviously are unwilling to admit their mistake nor reflect upon it, and it took legal action for safeguarding to be restored. Surely someone should be held accountable for this massive safeguarding failure?
What a snide response from Cllr Sankey, calling the family’s years of campaigning unnecessary. If it was so unnecessary the school wouldn’t have had to change its policies to comply with the law would it?
Well done to that brave father and his even braver daughter. It takes a lot to stand up for the truth these days, especially around here.
The Cass review concluded that social transition is not a neutral act and can lead a child onto a pathway to medicalisation. A child that is confused about gender is a child that needs neutral therapeutic support. This is a good result for the girls, who should never have faced a male child in their changing room. It is also a good result for all the children at that school who are confused about gender and need therapy, not affirmation.
The father is a courageous man. Well done! Stringer, its governors and management are a disgrace.
The school allows boys who believe they are women into the girls bathrooms? Do girls have no right to privacy and dignity? I don’t understand how the school headmaster allows this, it makes no sense.