UK Supreme Court judgment – what does it mean for schools?

from Transgender Trend

The UK Supreme Court judgment on April 16th confirmed that the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biology, not to ‘certificated sex.’ In other words, a male person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) saying he is female is not counted as female for the purposes of the Equality Act (EA2010). The judgment also clarifies that the protected characteristic ‘sexual orientation’ is based on biological sex. A lesbian is protected as a same-sex attracted woman, and not as a heterosexual male who is in possession of a certificate.

The For Women Scotland v the Scottish government case at the Supreme Court was about whether possession of a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. As a GRC can only be issued to those over the age of 18 it was not about children.

So does the Supreme Court judgment have any relevance for children in schools? It shouldn’t be necessary to use it, because separate provision of male and female toilets is already a statutory requirement in schools. Operation of single-sex services on the basis of self-identification of sex was never lawful anyway, and children don’t have a GRC.

Children’s privacy and dignity and the safeguarding of girls requires that schools separate the sexes in toilets, changing-rooms, overnight accommodation and sports. The question of GRCs has never arisen, so there has been no confusion there.

But of course many schools haven’t been doing this. If they have followed Stonewall (or another trans or LGBT lobby group) guidance they have been operating policy on the basis of ‘gender identity’, not ‘sex.’

So yes, the UKSC judgment is relevant for schools and this has been confirmed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in a brief Interim update. The critical point of the judgment is that it clarifies the meaning of ‘sex’ in the EA 2010. It means (and has always meant) biological sex, not ‘gender identity.’

The Supreme Court judgment further clarifies that a single-sex service for females (in line with the exemptions set out in the EA 2010) must exclude ALL males, including those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment:

Read here