A concerned father has threatened to take his daughter’s school to court after they allowed a trans girl to use the female toilets.
He alleges that the unidentified school in Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, has breached safeguarding rules and equality laws.
This week he sent a pre-action letter threatening legal action against the school over claims it had breached safeguarding rules and equality laws by letting trans students – biological males who ‘self-ID’ as the opposite sex – use female-only spaces like toilets and changing rooms.
The father said the school had breached safeguarding rules and equality laws.
Lawyers representing the father said he wishes to keep his name and that of the school anonymous to protect identities of the young people involved.
The row commenced this year in January when his 15-year-old daughter told him that she believed a male of the same age who identified as female was sharing the girls’ changing room.
He made contact with a safeguarding lead at the school to find out what the policy was on pupils wanting to use the changing facilities of the opposite sex.
According to the legal letter, he was told that those types of requests were handled on a “case-by-case basis”.
Pro-trans protesters gather outside the Supreme Court | PA
It is alleged in the correspondence that the school is allowing children who identify as the opposite sex to use facilities corresponding to this identity.
As well as toilets and changing rooms, this also includes sharing single-sex accommodation on residential trips.
The letter also claims the school allows young people who identify as the opposite sex “to utilise the self-ID policy confidentially”.
This would mean the school will not inform parents about students who identify as the opposite gender using the corresponding toilet facilities.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that biological sex forms the legal definition of a woman | PA
Between January and May this year, the father submitted five safeguarding complaints to the school.
He called on the school to update its policy to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in April that the terms male and female under the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex.
In a written reply sent in June, the headteacher maintained that it was “perfectly reasonable” for the school to hold off on any changes until the Equality and Human Rights Commission released its revised code of practice — guidance ministers have been criticised for delaying.
Following this, the father contacted the school again in November, seeking clarification about where pupils would sleep on his daughter’s forthcoming ski trip and whether accommodation would be organised along single-sex lines.
He says the only reply he received was confirmation that the trip leader had spoken directly with his daughter, who reportedly had “no questions or concerns about the arrangements”.
In a pre-action letter, the father’s lawyers argue that the school has not “meaningfully engaged” with his safeguarding concerns, nor taken steps to address them since the Supreme Court ruling.
“The school’s current practice is placing girls at significant safeguarding risk and the situation is intolerable,” the letter states.
Speaking to The Times, the father said he was “shocked” to discover that the school had been running fully mixed-sex toilets and changing facilities without informing parents. He described it as a serious breach of trust and said it “cannot be described as safeguarding”.
He added that such policies amounted to “gaslighting girls”, teaching them that they were not entitled to single-sex spaces or basic privacy.
“I don’t understand how the school arrived at this point,” he said, “and I certainly can’t see why any further delay was necessary after the Supreme Court judgment in April.”
Despite pursuing legal action, the father emphasised that he felt “nothing but sympathy” for children who identify as transgender.
“I wish them no harm at all,” he said. “They deserve privacy, dignity and safety just like anyone else.
“But that shouldn’t come at the expense of other children’s rights. Everyone’s needs matter, and appropriate alternative changing arrangements should be provided so that all children are properly supported.”
A spokesperson for the school said: “As this is now in pre-action legal proceedings it would not be appropriate to comment, other than to say that the school has had extensive correspondence with the parent on this matter and we will be challenging the factual inaccuracies stated through the legal process. We can reassure all parents and carers that the safeguarding of every child in the school remains our utmost priority.”