Eight Midlothian schools face review after gender court rulings
Eight schools in Midlothian face having to change their toilets in the wake of recent court rulings over gender rights.
Midlothian Council said it is awaiting national guidance following a ruling at the Court of Session in Scotland which ordered another local authority to install single sex toilets for pupils while the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that a woman is defined by biological sex under the Equalities Act, leading to the European Court of Human Rights to issue interim guidance that trans women should not be permitted to use women's facilities.
East Lothian Council has already said two of its primary schools which were unisex only are having new signs put up to designated boy and girl facilities with disabled toilets also available for use.
In Midlothian a spokesperson said eight schools were fully unisex alongside disabled toilets and it said they, and future projects, would now be reviewed in light of the rulings..
A spokesperson said: 'Eight schools have fully unisex toilets. We currently have no projects 'under construction'.
'All projects that are being planned will now be reviewed, and any necessary amendments as a result of the Supreme Court ruling will be considered and action taken where necessary.
'We are taking cognisance of the legal ruling and are awaiting national guidance on next steps to address the ruling.'
They added all public buildings and council facilities would also be reviewed to 'ensure compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling came after a challenge by campaign group For Women Scotland over Scottish Government claims that a trans woman who has a gender recognition certificate (GRC) should be treated as a woman by the Equality Act.
However For Women Scotland argued protections provided by the act should only apply to people that are born female.
Following the Supreme Court ruling the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued guidance that pupils should use toilet facilities corresponding with their biological sex.
Last month council leader Kelly Parry moved to address concerns raised over a new £120million high school replacing Beeslack in the county, amid claims it would have unisex toilets.
She told a meeting of elected members: 'I want to clear up one issue that is the email campaign claiming there is only unisex toilets in the new Beeslack school.
'I want to assure people that the new building will include open plan, full height, closed individual cubicles, separate toilets and accessible toilets and are therefore not unisex only. Additionally if people prefer a more private toilet facility these will be available and positioned around the school.'
By Marie Sharp Local Democracy Reporter
Like this:
Like
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
NHS chiefs forced to rip up trans guidance
NHS chiefs have been forced to rip up their pro-trans guidance after it was rendered illegal by the Supreme Court ruling. The NHS Confederation, which represents trusts, has quietly withdrawn guidance telling hospitals that they should allow trans people to use their chosen toilets and changing rooms. The group told The Telegraph it had taken the guide down from its website because it had become 'dated' since the Supreme Court judgment that the word sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. Reached in April, the decision means trans women, who were born male, should use men's toilets and changing rooms, contradicting the previous stance of a string of public sector organisations. The confederation's advice is now being updated in line with the Supreme Court ruling and new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and will be published later. On Thursday night, women's rights charities demanded that the confederation apologise for the guidance, which they claimed may have led to unfair decisions, such as the case of Darlington nurses who were disciplined for demanding single-sex facilities. They said that rather than deleting the guidance, the confederation should actively inform all trusts that it was now null and void. Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, said: 'Its guidance encouraged a hostile, humiliating and unsafe environment for NHS workers and patients. It was published with much fanfare but withdrawn by stealth. 'NHS Confederation should now apologise publicly for undermining women's rights and the culture of care. It should also undertake to contact all NHS trusts, telling them that its guidance was flawed and that policies based on it should now be torn up.' A growing number of public bodies are changing their guidance in light of the Supreme Court judgment, including the Football Association, which has said trans women would be banned from women's sport. However, neither NHS England nor the NHS Confederation have put forward new guidance. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has said he wants the new guidance in place by the summer. The confederation's now-withdrawn guidance stated: 'In all types of workplaces, trans and non-binary people should be supported to use the bathrooms they feel most comfortable using. At no time is it appropriate to force staff to use the toilet associated with their assigned sex at birth against their will.' It also tells management, senior healthcare leaders and human resources directors to take a 'zero-tolerance attitude' to transphobia. The confederation also promoted individual trusts' guidance, such as Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, which said: 'You are entitled to use single-sex facilities in accordance with your gender identity. 'For non-binary people, this may mean using gender-neutral or accessible facilities, or using a combination of different facilities. A non-binary person can choose to use facilities they are most comfortable using, if gender neutral facilities are not present.' 'Will not change our commitment' A spokesman for the confederation said: 'We have withdrawn our guide from our website as elements of it were dated following the ruling of the Supreme Court in April and interim guidance from the EHRC. 'Our intention remains to provide our members with information that helps them best support their staff and patients, and so we will update and reinstate our guide as soon as the EHRC has updated its Code of Practice, which will need to be approved by the UK Government, and when NHS England has then updated its guidance for what the changes mean for NHS organisations. 'The withdrawal of our guide does not change our explicit commitment to support our members to reduce the unacceptably high levels of bullying, abuse and discrimination at work that trans and non-binary staff and patients face.' The spokesman said the guidance had not been taken down immediately after the Supreme Court ruling because the initial response had been to keep it on the NHS Confederation website with acknowledgements that certain elements of it had become dated. It was later decided that to avoid the risk of any confusion, it was best to remove the guide in its entirety and update it later. Ms Forstater said: 'NHS Confederation's now-withdrawn guidance on trans issues is among the worst we have seen. Not only did it encourage hospitals to break the law on workplace facilities, it directed NHS managers to regard anyone who correctly cited the law as a 'transphobe' and to treat them with a 'zero tolerance' approach. 'This is the approach that led to NHS staff such as Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses being disciplined in their workplaces simply for asserting their right to safety, dignity and privacy in single-sex facilities. 'Hospitals should always have been places where staff understood that sex matters. But NHS Confederation has been dragging its feet since the Supreme Court judgment was handed down.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Landmark Supreme Court ruling sides with Marlean Ames, a straight woman who was 'passed over' for jobs for gay colleagues
The Supreme Court has sided with a straight woman who alleged that she was passed over for positions that went to her gay colleagues. Marlean Ames said she was the victim of bias in an agency overseeing Ohio 's youth correctional facilities, with her case being decided in a rare unanimous ruling as all justices agreed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the opinion for the court, agreed that a ruling used in almost half the nation's federal circuits that forced people who are not white, male or gay to meet a higher bar to prove workplace discrimination. Brown wrote that it was unconstitutional for courts to have different standards for different groups, and said ' Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.'
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Trump's new ban dodges pitfalls faced by last attempt, experts say
US President Donald Trump has issued a sweeping new travel ban for people from 12 countries, revisiting a hallmark policy of his first term in are some key differences, original travel ban suffered a series of legal defeats. This time, the policy appears to have been designed to avoid the same predecessor, which targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries and was dubbed the "Muslim ban" by critics, was ordered just a week after Trump took office in 2017, during his first term in the White ban was amended twice to overcome court challenges, after opponents argued it was unconstitutional and illegal because it discriminated against travellers based on their religion.A scaled-back version was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018, which this new ban closely experts told the BBC that it appeared Trump had learned lessons from his first Jackson, an expert in US immigration law at the London firm Laura Devine Immigration, said the new ban was more legally robust as a the first lacked "clarity", the new restrictions were "wider in scope" and had "clearly defined" exemptions, she there are some similarities in the nations chosen by the 2017 ban and the 2025 ban, Muslim-majority states are not the express target of the latest McQuade, professor of law at the University of Michigan and former US attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told the BBC World Service's Newshour programme that, on this basis, it seemed likely to win the approval of the Supreme Court, if it was ever referred up to that level. Trump's travel ban: Follow live updatesEverything we know about the ban so farWhy are these 12 countries on the list?Trump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard The 12 countries subject to the harshest restrictions from 9 June are mainly in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean, including Afghanistan, Iran and will be partial restrictions on travellers from another seven countries, including Cuban and Venezuelan said the strength of the restrictions would be graded against the severity of the perceived threat, including from besides Iran, none of the 12 countries hit by the outright ban are named on the US government's state sponsors of terrorism a video announcing the ban posted on X, Trump cited Sunday's incident in Boulder, Colorado, in which a man was accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at demonstrators attending a march for Israeli alleged attacker was an Egyptian national. However, Egypt does not appear on either list. Trump also specified high rates of people overstaying their visas as a reason for listing certain Steven D Heller, an immigration lawyer based in the US, said there was a "lack of clarity" over what threshold had to be met by a country's overstaying rate in order for that country to be placed on Trump's ban list. That could be the basis for a successful legal challenge, he suggested."If they're relying on this notion of excessive overstay rates... they have to define what that actually means," he told the the first ban, which was to last for only 90 to 120 days, today's order has no end has been met with dismay in the targeted countries. Venezuela has described the Trump administration as "supremacists who think they own the world", though Somalia has pledged to "engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised".The original ban spurred mass protests and sowed chaos at US airports. It was repealed in 2021 by Trump's successor, President Joe Biden, who called the policy "a stain on our national conscience."
