Normally I think we should consider parents wishes that a child be treated as the opposite gender to be deeply suspicious. Hints at the potential for abuse. But do such things legally qualify for abuse? Consider the following.

"'by the requested name and pronouns [because] I think it is harmful'."

Now the pronoun bullshit or what have you I'll give as nonsense. But is it "harmful" legally? In a way that you can argue before a judge? The name is most certainly not. If a girl wants to go by Jim or Bob or what have you I think it's weird as fuck, but it's hard to say that it's harmful in and of itself. It is just a name and to say words are inherently harmful is the same bullshit argument you get saying that "misgendering" is genocide. The parents I think do get some say in how their child is addressed? Arguably we should be using legal names names here as the easy workaround and if the teacher won't call you by your preferred nickname that's a very "ok so?" Type of complaint, but I can't argue it's harmful, works both ways here.

She continued to challenge the school's 'transgender affirming' policies, which included allowing the child to wear boys' uniform and use the boys' toilets, before she was sacked earlier this year.

So the uniform I honestly don't give a fuck about. But again it's a hard argument to make that mere clothing is harmful, in the same way it's hard to make the argument that having to wear a uniform at all is harmful. The whole point of uniforms is to remove clothing choice.

The last point is where I'll draw the proverbial line in the sand. The toilets are segregated by sex for a good reason. What's going to happen if and when eventually someone gets pregnant from a bathroom rape? I'm not saying that it's going to be a particularly common occurrence but the potential fallout from opening this can of worms greatly exceeds the emotional wants of any particular student in question.

So that's the reality with this case, I think it can either be a win or a loss depending on how it's argued and how the judge interprets it, as well as the mitigating factors behind the schools decision to fire her. I think she's ultimately right that encouraging and validating a child's social transition can be harmful to them, but it's a much deeper issue than anything to do with clothing or name, and if you get hung up on that then you're going to get easily trounced in court I should think.

I think the real issue at play here is this whole identity issue in general. Who decides your Identity? You or someone else? Personally I'm of the opinion that any sort of internally decided Identity is really of little to no meaning beyond yourself regardless. I might think of myself a certain way but other people don't. I might go call myself a doctor but unless I've gotten that identity validated by a trusted medical institution it's somewhat worthless isn't it? Should everyone who says they are something get automatic validation without having to prove it? Where's the line for what are and are not reasonable parental requests to follow? Where's the line for what is or is not the schools responsibility to enforce the parents wishes?

If the parents of a child are Muslim and request the child fasts during the holy month, it's reasonable for the school to honor that request by allowing the student to sit out lunch. But if the child should say "I am not a Muslim, I wish to eat." is it right for the school to enforce the parents wishes? Is it right for the school to lie to the parents about it? Ethical quandaries abound between what exactly is the schools role and what exactly is the role of the parents. There's good arguments to be made for both cases. And I very much doubt you'll find that situations are similar enough that a single best practice can ever be decided upon.