Christian parents to sue school that allows boys to wear dress
A CHRISTIAN family is preparing to sue their sons’ Church of England school after boys were allowed to come to class wearing dresses.
Nigel Rowe, 44, and his wife Sally, 42, removed their six-year-old son from the unnamed primary school after a male classmate was allowed to attend in a dress.
They intend to educate him at home on the Isle of Wight alongside his eightyear-old brother. The older boy was pulled from the same school – which has a uniform – a year ago when a boy in his class also started wearing dresses.
The couple plan to mount a legal challenge, arguing the school has not respected their rights to raise their children in line with biblical values.
One option open to the couple is a judicial review at the High Court, which could have wide-reaching implications for schools’ responsibilities to transgender pupils. Mr Rowe told The Sunday Times: “A child aged six would sometimes come to school as a girl or sometimes come to school as a boy. Our concerns were raised when our son came back home from school saying he was confused as to why and how a boy was now a girl.
“We believe it is wrong to encourage very young children to embrace transgenderism. Boys are boys and girls are girls. Gender dysphoria is something we as Christians need to address with love and compassion, but not in the sphere of a primary school environment.”
The school said transgender pupils were protected under the Equality Act of 2010, and that it had policies in place to tackle transphobic behaviour. It defined transphobia as including a failure to use a person’s adopted name or to accept he or she was a “real” boy or girl.
Guidance from neighbouring East Sussex County Council states that transgender pupils should be seen “as an opportunity to enrich the school community and to challenge gender stereotypes and norms on a wider scale”.
The couple are expected to instruct Paul Diamond, a barrister who specialises in cases of religious discrimination. He could call for a judicial review of the application of the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 in such cases. The case would be heard by the High Court and discuss whether the precedents laid down by the Act, which imposes strict criteria for a change in legal gender status including an age limit of 18 and a medical certificate, were being correctly applied in cases involving children of school age.
The alternative would be to take the school to an education tribunal and argue it was failing in its responsibility to balance the needs of transgender pupils with the rights of others.
A spokesman for the Diocese of Portsmouth, which the school falls under, said its schools were inclusive, safe spaces which respected diversity of all kinds.