That's uniform. Schools are entitled under the Equality Act to use it's exemptions to preserve single sex spaces. They don't have to abandon that to accommodate someone's acquired/chosen gender identity, whether staff or pupil. We've discussed this a hundred times.
And you've had replies on each occasion.
In a nutshell, Braverman had used her role as an activist and had been speaking outside of her remit. While AG her remit should have been to work behind the scenes to give advice to government as required by them. Instead Braverman was agitating, giving speeches and offering her interpretation of law publicly. Instead government should have been using the advice to prepare Bills to put before parliament to consider.
To outsiders, it may have appeared to them that these were the judgements of the person most supreme to give legal interpretation. However she was not, that role falls to the Supreme Court, and then on to the ECtHR. Braverman was using her position as an agitator by-passing the legislative and judicial processes of the UK. This is undemocratic, and possibly a breach of the ministerial code (though I haven't bothered to look at that to see).
On the face of it, people may tend to think that what Braverman said was and remains 'the law', but many of us consider that her advice was unsafe since she blatantly held and continues to hold an anti-trans rights attitude, and we know that she likes to throw red meat to some factions in the pursuit of her own political ambitions.
I've been a retired person for a few years now. Therefore the latest guidance doesn't just come across my desk anymore, and I may not be aware of the latest provisions. However, I am aware of the relevant legislation at the point of my retirement. Further more, a quick search and chats with former colleagues makes me think that other in some updates to safeguarding, things haven't changed too much. The updates seem more related to grooming for terrorism, so let's agree to set those aside.
The single most important act pertaining to children is the Children's Act. This contains a form of words which state that 'the welfare of the child shall be paramount'. The important thing to note is that part of the wording 'child' (singular). In the case of considering the rights of an individual trans child, this applies. Since the wording of the act is such that parliament agreed that the act uses the word 'paramount', most consider it supreme.
In the case of schools, the public sector duty act applies. Schools also are required to safeguard an individual not just from discrimination under the EqA but also safeguard them from other harms such as bullying, including cyber bullying.
In the judgements made by Braverman she makes no attempt to balance the various laws to reach a valid judgement. Instead she chose one law, and chose to make a convincing sounding reading of the law. Again her reading was flawed. Where Braverman states that it is not unlawful for a school to exclude trans children from their schools or include them in certain activities, she uses a form of words to disguise her single-sided reading.
Saying that there is no breech of the EqA if a school refuses to accommodate a trans child within that school, is not the same as saying that there is no legal breech in doing so.
Clearly Braverman's view is not balanced. The Commission have been asked for their advice. Aside from the fact that the chair of the Commission is a political appointment to what should be an independent body, the commission in placed in an invidious position. This is because its remit is to interpret rights under the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act - but not the Childrens Act.
There are two Proper routes available for the government to correctly act, either through the production of a bill put before both houses of parliament, or by listening to judgements made by the Supreme Court and/or the European Court of Human Rights.
Under our uncodified constitution and parliamentary traditions (see Erskine May) there is the basis of our democratic procedures. However it is reasonable to argue that Braverman was never elected to her position as AG or Home Secretary. Johnson was elected by the people of his constituency. He hadn't said too much about trans rights, it was not a manifesto issue, and not in the Queen's speech. It became the policy of Braverman with some support from Johnson. Braverman was elected by the people of Fareham to act as their constituency MP, not to the position of AG. It is clear that she setting herself up as supreme ruler. This is authoritarianism on stilts and steroids.
Throughout this thread I've carefully setting out my stall. Where errors have been made with regard to the law and legal opinions I have always done my best to correct the false claims of others.
I declared an interest for the sake of honesty, I raised my niece, a trans child. So yes I have an interest. I also declared that I am not a lawyer, therefore an amateur with a keen interest, and that my niece and other family members are in fact lawyers.
There have been allegations that I am a 'trans activist'. This is false. There have been claims from you that I clearly 'do not care for women and girls'. This is not just false, but mendacious; a clear attempt at smearing the character of someone who does not agree with your incorrect interpretation on points of law. These have not been single issues, but ongoing abuses from the time I entered the thread. But how you complain when low-level abuse is levelled back, simply by me calling you 'an idiot' when you contradict yourself, and then so often.
I reclused myself from questions on sport, because these are issues where I have no helpful knowledge. And yet, you've persisted with all manner of character attacks on me based on assumption and presumption. At one time I happened to say that I felt British Cycling had treated Emily Bridges unfairly, and I gave my reasons.
It doesn't matter what evidence you are presented with, no matter its source or quality, it is simply batted away without consideration if it does not suit your single-minded agenda with no consideration for nuance or balance.
You have this habit to simply hijack threads to make further mention of what is clearly an obsession.
These things taken together demonstrate, despite your assertions to the contrary, you act from prejudice alone.
[Added to edit] ... the correct source of advice in the circumstances to act upon was the advice of all party select committee. In my opinion Theresa May was thoughtful and acted democratically in deciding that the decision should be made by placing a bill before parliament.
