Brighton school SCRAPS allowing biological boys to use girls' changing rooms following court battle

A school has scrapped its controversial policy of allowing biological boys to use girls' changing rooms following a High Court challenge.

Dorothy Stringer Secondary School in Brighton, East Sussex gave a teenage girl and her father assurances last month changing rooms would be strictly single-sex. This came 21 months after he first complained.

The school insists it changed its policy in response to new Government rules rather than the legal challenge.

But court documents reveal it was still defending the practice in June, which is more than a year after a landmark Supreme Court ruling the word "sex" meant biological sex at birth and not a person’s acquired gender.

The case raises questions over how many other schools have adopted similar policies without telling parents.

The teenager described how the presence of a biological male affected the way she got undressed.

She said: "I was conscious that he was there, and that affected how I changed."

She described covering more of her body and positioning herself so less of it could be seen.

She said she had not felt able to complain because she feared being labelled "transphobic" or simply "shut down".

She 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?"

Her father accused the school of a "profound betrayal of trust".

The row erupted in January last year after the teenager discovered she appeared to have been sharing a changing room with a biological male.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Labour sets out plans for 'truly phone-free' classrooms
• Society must now act to help white working-class pupils, inquiry declares
• Labour apologises to young Ukrainian refugees after 'pushing' them to learn Russian

Neither she nor her parents had been informed, according to the family's lawyers.

By May, her father had lodged five safeguarding complaints about the practice, which his lawyers say had been going on for around three years.

He demanded the school comply with the Supreme Court ruling in April last year sex under the Equality Act means biological sex.

But the school defended its policy of allowing transgender pupils to use opposite-sex changing rooms on a case-by-case basis.

The father launched High Court proceedings in March this year against the school and Brighton and Hove City Council.

That same month, according to the family's lawyers, school governors agreed to follow forthcoming Government safeguarding guidance but still envisaged keeping their case-by-case approach.

The school enlisted the Good Law Project, a campaigning legal organisation which had branded the Supreme Court ruling a "transphobic decision".

In June, the school's lawyers confirmed in court documents: "There has therefore, currently, been no change to the use of a case-by-case approach."

The school argued its policy was lawful, risk assessments were carried out and legal advice was usually obtained.

It said pupils could be required to use shower cubicles or change at different times.

But new Government safeguarding rules published in July and introduced on September 1 explicitly ban pupils from using opposite-sex toilets and changing rooms, with "no exceptions".

Schools are advised to consider providing alternative facilities for transgender pupils.

Dorothy Stringer announced plans in July to refurbish its changing rooms over the summer holidays.

In October, it confirmed to the family no pupil would be allowed to use opposite-sex changing rooms or undress in front of pupils of the opposite sex.

The precise date the practice stopped is unclear.

The father and daughter withdrew their legal challenge ahead of a High Court hearing scheduled for Tuesday.

The father 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."

He added: "Schools must listen to girls and safeguard them. No child’s protection should depend on her family’s ability to fight a legal case."

Paul Conrathe, of law firm Conrathe Gardner, who represented the family, 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."

The Good Law Project yesterday commented on the withdrawal of the case as a victory, insisting the school had acted lawfully and considered the needs and safety of all pupils.

Today it closed its crowdfunding appeal after raising more than £15,000 to support the school's defence.

The row also puts the spotlight on Brighton and Hove City Council, which endorsed the case-by-case approach in its controversial "Trans Toolkit" for schools.

It states: "The use of changing rooms by trans children and young people should be assessed on a case-by-case basis in discussion with the individual child or young person."

That advice is at odds with the new Government rules.

Neither the teenager nor her father can be named for legal reasons.

A spokesman for the school said: “It’s important to note that the claimant withdrew their legal challenge. Our school has always complied with the law, considering the individual circumstances, needs and safety of all students, and we stand behind our commitment to support all of them. We continue to provide facilities that give every pupil the option of privacy and dignity in compliance with statutory guidance.”

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter