Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

Great posts. If I may I'd add the deliberate undermining of education law and safeguarding of children in & out of schools. In plain sight and funded to the tune of millions by the bloody government.

Looking at the ECHR summary of the Goodwin case, it states the following:

Since there [we]re no significant factors of public interest to weigh against the interest of this individual applicant in obtaining legal recognition of her gender re-assignment, the Court reache[d] the conclusion that the notion of fair balance inherent in the Convention now tilt[ed] decisively in favour of the applicant.

It is astonishing that a case which overturned a number of previous ECHR Article 8 and Article 12 cases was judged on the basis of public interest, and that no public interest was noted.

Perhaps it's time for another case.

It's been a really horrible lesson to learn as a society.

It has, as a woman with a dd, been awful to watch society do this. I think we’re still in a danger zone but hopefully some respite coming soon.

Other countries have fully adopted the position and closed ranks and stamped on any challenge.

I think we might get there but I look elsewhere and see how easy it is for us to just have no power. I look forward to being on the other side of this.

Yes. Another example of badly made, badly thought out law that's had a raft of unintended harmful and negative consequences and spilled worms everywhere. Although in fairness, those drafting had no idea they were being played by a political lobby who were very much not acting in good faith and intended to exploit things to the nth degree in their own interests without the capacity for conscience or care for others.

Sunak's 'explicit protections' for example is a stable door closing when the horse left years ago and is on palliative care for old age at this point. But it rather blasts a hole in Stonewall's decree this week that the EA enables men to use the facilities of their choice regardless of women's needs, wishes, inclusion or experience, with a nasty little rider that the very, very few cases where men are forced to stay out, the women wanting a men-free zone are such nasty bitches and it's such evidence of their evilness, that good and decent men wouldn't want to be with them anyway.

This lobby is something else. Laws to protect others from them must be watertight and there can be no reliance at all on presumption of good will or fair play or citizenship. It's been a really horrible lesson to learn as a society.

So the EA said being transsexual is not a medical condition, any attribute of the other sex a person of any age adopts ( or has foisted on them by a parent or teacher), or even a thought, can mean they really are transgender. It is a self-ID process which can work on any level. Children are included.

Though we now know that the social transitioning of children leads to a life changing pathway that 4 out of 5 would NOT have taken if they had been left alone, this is too bad because of some idiot law drafting in 2010.

I’ve just heard on the radio that Rishi Sunak plans to tackle the issue as part of renewed focus so it’s looking likely

Thank you Pencils for the Michael Foren article explaining why children are included in gender reassignment (which can indeed mean as little a change of ‘gender’ as a new name, different hairstyle, or a passing thought).

It is worrying that this legal judgement endorses the potential transing of children by recognising them as gender reassigned on the basis of their childish feelings. This seems to mean that the judiciary itself has established the social transitioning of children.

“Not every child referred to the children's GID service will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Dr Cass in her report describes those being referred as "gender questioning children and young people" who "seek help from the NHS in managing their gender-related distress". Some of these may present with symptoms of gender-related distress, for which they may in due course receive psychological help. They may not, at the time of referral, have taken any settled decision to undergo any part of a process of changing any attribute of sex (to use the language of the 2010 Act). This is particularly likely to be true in the case of very young children.

1. But there is no reason of principle why a child could not satisfy the definition in s. 7, provided that they have taken a settled decision to adopt some aspect of the identity of the other gender. Many of the children referred to children's GID services will have taken such a decision. Determining whether any particular child has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment will involve a case specific factual assessment.
2. In this case, there is good evidence about the position of the two child claimants. AA's circumstances are set out in para. 36 above. She has changed her name to a girl's name.
3. She attends school as a girl. She has now been living as a girl for more than 2 years. She wishes to receive medical treatment to delay the onset of male puberty. She has taken a decision to adopt some aspects of the identity of the other gender. At the present time, it would be an abuse of language to describe this decision as other than settled.
4. AK's circumstances are set out in para. 37 above. At the age of 10, she expressed the desire to be known as a girl, have a girl's name, wear girls' clothes and have her hair long. She has been referred to the children's GID service and the thousht of ooing

Well it's also not a claim I made. My point is that you are focusing only on the positives of legislation which you see as inextricably interlinked and not the great human cost. If the ECHR genuinely does require us to dismantle women's rights by pretending a man is a woman then of course its completely unethical and dangerous and perpetuates a misogynistic world view which contributed to the regular horrific murder and assault of women. In no other circumstances would we accept an anti true human rights stance because of the benefits which may go hand in hand. What we'd look to do is create legislature which keeps the benefits but does not keep the costs. This is not a reason to throw all women under the bus and just tell them to sick up their oppression.

Or to put back in place a universal protection, rather than the case-by-case basis, no “day to day” protection, male-access-to-all-areas approach which Stonewall has imposed via its award scheme.

plans to change the Equality Act to introduce explicit protections for biological women in same-sex spaces such as changing rooms and hospital wards

So not necessarily clarifying the EA to make clear that sex is biological, but just clarifying that it is biological in some of the exceptions?

Michael Foran thread on Twitter:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1682347029849071616.html

I may be clutching at straws but as we've worried that the government "can't be bothered" with the hassle, it's a positive to see it reported as something that'll happen.

After the glorious debacle of the Beth Rigby / Stonewall incoherence, it's an open goal for the government. They know that every time politicians have to argue that men should be in women's sport, children should be set on a path to infertility & life long drug use or middle aged males need the right to undress beside 12year old girls, they disappear into a sea of meaningless derisory waffle looking both foolish and frankly, predatory.

There's just a paragraph:

Sunak is also expected to put a renewed focus on transgender issues. As well as pursuing stricter guidance for schools, the government is also expected to press ahead with plans to change the Equality Act to introduce explicit protections for biological women in same-sex spaces such as changing rooms and hospital wards.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7b1d1576-2805-11ee-b92f-f3b1bf190fd2?shareToken=c69c1e4dc683898eb27ce23e15ffae71

Ok this is good?

Does it look solid

I hope so

I was interested to see in the Times this morning that Sunak IS going to change the Equality Act to clarify the issue about sex meaning biological sex. No doubt seeing it as a way of flushing out Labour / Starmer's weasel words about women. Presumably that would then enable the school guidelines to be completely clear about single sex spaces etc.

There was a survey a few months ago which found that one in ten 16-18 year olds wanted to change their gender.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12082949/Damning-report-finds-one-ten-schoolchildren-want-change-gender-so.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/14/gender-poll-trans-school-teenagers-civitas-parents/

Given these numbers, I'm imagining that a lack of guidance is going to make lots of parents very angry. Obviously some parents will be supportive of their children transitioning and some won't. But either way, both groups would want guidance for teachers (although the parents who are supporting their children may find it less pressing because the current confusion and fear among teachers works in their favour).

This could end up becoming a very hot political potato. I hope so. The more it is forced in to the open, the more the debate is accessible to a wider audience. At the moment the whole subject is still too niche to interest a critical mass. But if it can be shown to the general public that children are at risk of being on a pathway to harm ("social transition is not a neutral act") and schools are facilitating this without proper guidance, underpinned by poorly written laws, that could bring it right out in to the full sunshine.

I still believe there is a place for people to be free to express their belief in gender identity and to have support of they feel gender dysphoria. But this is belief-led. The harm that is being done by teaching it as fact and enabling it within schools needs to stop. At school everything should be sex-based, not gender-(identity) based.

Yes, please take this discussion elsewhere now.

This is a thread about guidance for schools.

If the price of leaving the ECHR is ripping up the Good Friday Agreement - and it is - then that is a very relevant reason to stay.

You don’t get to throw Northern Irish women under the bus.

Honestly I don't think it matters whether one of these things resulted in more deaths.

Being a member of an organization that locked us into unjust, foolish laws can't be justified on the basis that by leaving, some other people might react violently.

So that’s a no in the evidence then?

It’s a pretty big claim that the GRA cost more women’s lives than the troubles. One you should be prepared to back up or retract.

When misogyny is celebrated. Women pay the price.

So talking about the harms to children from being put on a puberty blockers + cross-sex hormones pathway, and the surgery regrets of detransitioners gets reported and deleted.

Makes you wonder who’s monitoring the thread.

Are you really claiming that the GRA has somehow contributed to women being killed by their domestic partners?

Do you have any evidence of this?

Would it be possible to take this onto its own thread so that the discussion of the OP can continue? This really is a different conversation and it's obviously one people want to have in depth.