Gender critical groups said the leadership would protect and protect all children. Photo: Daily Telegraph
Teachers who make misgender mistakes towards transgender students are not guilty. discrimination, the equality body says in new guidance.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published updated guidance to replace the previous document published in 2014.
The new guidance removes a section that indicated it would be discriminatory for a teacher to call a trans girl a boy.
The clarification was welcomed by gender-critical groups, who said it would help end gender transition in schools.
A spokesperson for Transgender Trend said: “We are very, very pleased to see that this has been completely removed.”
“This is the moment that has caused the biggest problems in schools since 2014: the surge in social transitions children, often behind their parents' backs. So much harm has been done.”
The EHRC guidance also clarifies that schools should provide separate toilets for children over eight years of age and changing rooms for children over 11 years of age.
It states that where toilets or changing rooms are shared, they should be biologically segregated gender — meaning transgender children cannot use them.
The old guidance stated: “Unless a specific exception applies, segregation related to gender will be illegal.”
Private facilities for trans children
The new guidance states that schools should provide private changing facilities for trans children.
On the issue of misgendering, the 2014 guidance provided an example of a student “who was previously female » who began living as a boy with an adopted male name, and the question was asked whether the school should use that name and refer to the student as a boy.
The answer was: “Not using a student's chosen name just because the student has changed gender would be direct gender reassignment discrimination.”
“Don't call this student a boy. it will also lead to direct discrimination against gender reassignment.»
The new guidance, published on Thursday, removes this section entirely.
A spokesperson for Sex Matters said: «This removal appears to be recognition that refusing to call a girl student a boy will not be direct discrimination against gender reassignment (so-called “misgendering”).
“Furthermore, the ECHR is not trying to raise the specter of indirect discrimination here, apparently recognizing that referring to boys as boys and girls as girls is not indirect discrimination for gender reassignment.”
“The result is still not ideal.”
Helen Joyce, advocacy director at Sex Matters, said: “It is very helpful that after years of pressure from campaigners, the ECHR has finally removed this legally flawed example from its technical guidance.”
< p>“The outcome is still not perfect, but the improvements will make it easier for the Department for Education to develop clear guidance for schools that protects and protects all children.”
Education Secretary Gillian Keegan has promised formal guidance from her department. on trans issues for months.
On Thursday, EHRC chair Baroness Kishwer Faulkner urged her to hurry up.
“We have revised our technical guidance because we recognize that this complex area of policy and legislation has changed since it was first published in 2014,” she said.
“We have now reviewed some areas to ensure that guidelines are legally correct.
“It is important to avoid confusion on this important topic. Our technical guidance for schools focuses on the practical implementation of the Equality Act.
“The ECHRC has additionally provided advice to the Department for Education on equality legislation and, where possible, human rights. We have called on them to present their advice to schools in England as soon as possible to help provide further clarity for schools and families.»
An EHRC spokesman said: «This cannot be direct discrimination.» a school should not name a child by their preferred gender if this is different from their legal gender.
“However, schools should carefully consider how they justify and consistently apply their policies on this issue to avoid any risk of indirect discrimination.»
Свежие комментарии