School in hot water over transgender debacle

The parents of a transgender boy are suing a primary school in the Equality Court, alleging discrimination after their child was barred from wearing a male costume and using the boys’ toilets. The Sunday Times reports that Beaumont Primary School in Somerset West last year told parents that the eight-year-old pupil referred to as ‘OM’ in court papers should wear a ‘unisex swimming costume’ that ‘covers the top half of his body’. The parents also want the Constitution and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act to be altered to include ‘gender identity and gender expression’, as well as an ‘unconditional apology’ to the boy from the principal and school governing body (SGB). They are seeking R100 000 as ‘compensation for the impairment of his dignity, as well as the emotional, physical and psychological pain and suffering’. The child’s and the parent’s names have been redacted in the court papers filed in the Equality Court, sitting in the High Court in Cape Town, to protect the child’s identity.

‘OM is just a boy, who asked for nothing other than to live his life and express his identity as a boy,’ the father’s affidavit reads. ‘His gender identity had no effect whatsoever on his peers or the teachers at the school. Yet, despite initially allowing him to express his gender identity fully in grade one, (the SGB and the principal) for no good reason, sought to diminish OM’s gender identity and to "other" him among his peers.’ The Sunday Times notes that the father said the school’s conduct had ‘led to the drastic decision to remove OM, not only from the school, but from the country’. In the court papers, the boy’s mother said the situation had forced them to remove the child from the school and relocate to Switzerland at the end of 2023. ‘OM has generally performed well academically and enjoyed going to school. When the school’s attitude to affirming his gender identity changed, in the form of preventing him from using the boys’ swimming costume and threatening him with disciplinary action if he used the boys’ bathroom, his attitude towards going to school changed,’ the mother’s affidavit reads. The mother said the toilet ban had resulted in the boy’s reluctance to use the school toilets resulting in a urinary tract infection from holding his urine in.

The head of the department, the MEC and the director of inclusive education argue in responding papers that the declaratory relief sought by the parents regarding the conduct of the SGB and the principal ‘will have no practical effect and is arguably moot’ because the boy had left the school. However, they conceded the apology will have ‘a practical effect for OM regardless of where he resides’. ‘The damages claim remains alive,’ the court papers read. ‘However, if the remaining issues are moot, it would be more appropriately brought as action proceedings due to the likely disputes of fact. This court will have to decide if it is willing to hear a damages claim by means of application, particularly in the circumstances where the other relief sought in the application is moot.’ The Sunday Times notes that the Commission for Gender Equality and Access Chapter 2 Law Clinic have applied to be admitted as friends of the court. The matter is pending.