Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

Or is the fear that social transition early on will lead to more serious medical interventions? I understand that that is a problem.

What’s the issue with children socially transitioning? My understanding is that social transition is changing your name (unofficially), pronouns, and presentation. I don’t know what the problem is with that. Isn’t it the same as just being gender nonconforming, and asking people to call you a nickname? Banning, social transition for children seems like it could be misapplied to very effeminate boys and very masculine girls. It seems like a step in the direction of making girls wear dresses and boys wear pants.

For all we know Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, thinks she is advising on one understanding of "social transitioning" while the Cabinet thinks something else, and clearly schools must be thinking something else again as presumably they wouldn't be party to social transitioning when the NHS has said "it is a form of psychosocial intervention and not a neutral act"

Yeah as you said, you don't know any of that is all different interpretations, you are just guessing. It's equally as likely that they are all using the NHS version.

Oh blimey you have adopted the ally language! How sad!

Has just made me realise that this whole process by the Government may in fact legitimise schools enabling "social transitoning" whereas technically it doesn't exist as a process.

More unintended consequences of not being clear what language means to everyone involved.

There is another article in the times and from that it makes it clear that the legal advice given is about social transitioning - but as I understand it social transitioning is not a recognised process.

So why are schools or the government even talking about "social transitioning" in schools let alone how it is covered by the EA?

This is the only reference (apart fro Stonewall gobbledigook) to "social transitioning" and it is NOT recommended by the NHS!

" ... The new NHS guidance recognizes social transition as a form of psychosocial intervention and not a neutral act, as it may have significant effects on psychological functioning. The NHS strongly discourages social transition in children, and clarifies that social transition in adolescents should only be pursued in order to alleviate or prevent clinically-significant distress or significant impairment in social functioning, and following an explicit informed consent process. ... "
https://segm.org/England-ends-gender-affirming-care

I was talking earlier about holding the line on language, and not letting the trans narrative distort our understanding of words. And now it seems the Government and legal advisors are also getting sucked in:

" ... The government then commissioned legal advice from Prentis about whether a ban on social transitioning in schools was possible. Last week she concluded that such a move would be unlawful and said that the government would need to pass new legislation if it wanted to go further. ... "
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kemi-badenoch-trans-school-guidance-gender-transition-uk-2023-q0g2bgmlk (also on archive.ph)

Are any of us having the same conversation.

Recent guidance from NHS says that social transitioning should be discouraged and yet people are blandly talking about schools (not health professionals) allowing social transitioning!

At this rate an conversation in the future with anybody will have to be halted after every second word while you check that you have a shared understanding of what words mean.

For all we know Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, thinks she is advising on one understanding of "social transitioning" while the Cabinet thinks something else, and clearly schools must be thinking something else again as presumably they wouldn't be party to social transitioning when the NHS has said "it is a form of psychosocial intervention and not a neutral act"

What a complete morass of mutual misunderstanding.

Most of which has been generated by Stonewall and Mermaids etc., so that emotion and potential public backlasn are taking precedent over rational thinking and facts.

They become impossible to differentiate.

Secular humanism is internally unstable. The problem, as you identified in an earlier post, is this idea that human beings ultimately will come through, are good, even have meaningful lives. But this is a statement of faith.

Humanism did not develop as a secular philosophy. It developed a a particular Christian philosophy. In that school of thought, the confidence in humanity, in some kind of objectively good values, and meaningful lives, is based in the fundamental goodness of God and creation (which is a metaphysical statement mainly,), and the redemption of fallen creation through Christ (which is arguably a faith statement but one supported by a larger theological structure.)

Once you remove that part of the system, all that confidence in humanity, the assertion of a good, and sense of meaning, is very easily displaced. There is no foundation. And what it collapses into is nihilism. Humans are just collections of atoms, or animals. There is no meaning beyond the mathematical equations that govern the physical universe, and the only thing that we could describe as a good is nature red in tooth and claw. Progress is a meaningless concept, an illusion for people foolish enough to believe evolution is progress.

Sorry hit post too soon.

Most of what is going on in schools is self identification.

It has nothing to do with the characteristic as outline in the EA etc..

This is the big difference.

So even if schools have a policy of letting children "identify" as the other sex, or a cat, or a cartoon character, self identification is not part of the protected characteristic.

And this may sound a bit harsh but if the schools are implying to children that this is a legal route to getting a GRC, and parents dont need to be involved, how would that work as you have to have "lived as the opposite gender for 2 years" and that doesn't mean only during school hours. ie if the child isn't living as the opposite "gender" at home.

f) by subjecting the pupil to any other detriment.

I think not allowing pronouns and general acceptance of a pupil’s claimed identity as being one of the opposite sex, or making them use the lavatory or changing room of their sex, might be said to be subjecting them to detriment.

There could be an argument that it does, anyway.

Sunak is a coward. Sunak is no ally of women.
Sunak is no ally of girls or boys.

The Tories are now a clear and present danger.

It's the job of leaders to lead. Sunak is not a leader.

As a conservative since 1983, it pains me to declare I don't recognise this lot.

The Equality Act says that you must not be directly discriminated against because:

• you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. A wide range of people identify as trans. However, you are not protected under the Equality Act unless you have proposed, started or completed a process to change your sex.

What is it that the Attorney General thinks is unlawful? - Sex Matters
The sticking point is whether children “should be allowed to socially transition with the consent of their parents” or possibly with a doctor’s supervision. The Times states that this “social transition” means “choosing another pronoun or name and wearing the uniform of the opposite sex”.
The Times said the government commissioned legal advice from the Attorney General “into whether there could be an outright ban on social transitioning in schools”.
This is simply the wrong question.
There is no need for new legislation to allow simple clear guidance Children may have the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” in the Equality Act, but this does not mean that children who adopt a transgender identity must be treated differently from other children. It just means that they must not be discriminated against by the school, as Section 85 of the Equality Act states:
(a) in the way it provides education for the pupil
(b) in the way it affords the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service
(c) by not providing education for the pupil
(d) by not affording the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service;
(e) by excluding the pupil from the school
(f) by subjecting the pupil to any other detriment.In other words, a child who is gender-questioning or who adopts a transgender identity should be treated in the same way as other children.
Calling a boy a boy and “he” and a girl a girl and “she” is not a detriment. Not allowing them to use opposite-sex facilities is not a detriment.

Read the full briefing from Sex Matters here https://sex-matters.org/posts/schools-and-safeguarding/why-is-the-government-getting-in-such-a-mess-over-the-schools-guidance

PencilsInSpace · Today 21:57
The explanatory notes say:

This replicates the position in previous legislation and in, addition, extends protection because of gender reassignment and pregnancy and maternity to pupils in schools.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/6/1/1

So it seems clear to me that the intention was for the PC of gender reassignment to be applicable to school children. It is now clear that however well-intentioned, it was a disaster for safeguarding

This makes it very clear.

Yes, that's how I read it - new in the original Act, not a 2014 addition. The EA was a patchwork of dozens (from memory about 90) of bits of previous anti-discrimination legislation, plus the odd new thing or extention of exiting protections to extra groups - so this was one of the things that hadn't been part of the previous Acts that were combined to form the EA.

LoobiJee · Today 20:05
@ScrollingLeaves

“that suggests that a section about gender reassignment for school children was added to the EA in 2014? Does anyone know where it specifically adds that in the EA?”

It’s been explained at various points in this thread, but if you read my post at 19.38, it sums it up.

It’s the result of the definition of gender reassignment in EA2010 which goes wider than being in possession of a GRC and applies to all ages.

Thank you for your answer Loobijee. I had read that definition of gender reassignment in EA2010, but I had been specifically wondering
about this phrase (my bold)

Gender reassignment
3.3
Protection from discrimination because of gender reassignment in schools is new for pupils in the Equality Act, although school staff are already protected. This means that for the first time it will be unlawful for schools to treat pupils less favourably because of their gender reassignment and that schools will have to factor in gender reassignment when considering their obligations under the Equality Duty.

Now I realise I misunderstood the wording in the 2014 guidance: It did not mean some later change to the 2010 act had gone on to include school children for the first time.

It just meant the EA 2010 had introduced pregnancy and gender reassignment to discrimination legislation for the first time .

Well they should, but on this issue, all too often they don’t

Schools should be giving precedence to clinical advice.

Yes, as I'm discovering. We're they ever humanists?9

They are not Humanists.
They are Nihilists.

I completely agree Pencils Just keep it as the attorney general suggested and use “should” instead of “must” and drop the idea of a blanket ban (which needs clarification as to the exact details) for now while they sort out any legal issues to go further in the background.

Miriam Cates seemed very upbeat, saying Sunak was on it, and the delay is purely over getting the wording right to maximise the chances of the new guidance holding and not being challenged successfully.

No change is better than a bad change.

I agree with PP who said the important thing is to get some decent guidance out now, that complies with the law as it is now.

Stopping schools from transitioning children behind parents' backs is urgent. Making it crystal clear that schools are obliged to safeguard all children, and that is what the EA single sex exceptions are there for, is urgent. Saving girls' sport is urgent.

We can have guidance that does all of that with the law as it stands and we can do it in the time that's left for this government (18 months max). It's not perfect but it's possible. I'm not sure any change to legislation would make it through in time. We could end up with nothing.

The law still needs to change. No child is transsexual. As soon as a child is described as 'trans' they are placed outside of normal safeguarding. This must be stopped even if parents give their enthusiastic, messed-up consent.

Section 84 of the EA deals with how the Act applies in relation to schools:

84 Application of this Chapter

This Chapter does not apply to the following protected characteristics—

(a) age;
(b) marriage and civil partnership.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/84

The explanatory notes say:

This replicates the position in previous legislation and in, addition, extends protection because of gender reassignment and pregnancy and maternity to pupils in schools.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/6/1/1

So it seems clear to me that the intention was for the PC of gender reassignment to be applicable to school children. It is now clear that however well-intentioned, this is a disaster for safeguarding.

It would be straightforward to amend section 84 to:

This Chapter does not apply to the following protected characteristics—

(a) age;
(b) gender reassignment;
(c) marriage and civil partnership.

But for now, let's get the best guidance possible under the current law. Children can't wait for perfect laws because childhood is very short and they only get one shot at it.

NHSE have already said in their new service specs that not all children who are referred to them will come under the PC of gender reassignment- they will need to be assessed first- ie you can’t do a blanket coverage for this cohort. This is based on AA & others vs NHS.

This means that as things currently stand, schools following the EHRC Technical Guidance for Schools are already out of step with the NHS. You could well have a child at school where the school is supporting their social transition but where the NHS has not yet determined in their opinion whether or not the child comes under the PC.

even further than that, as the NHS consider social transition to be a treatment which should only be supported under certain conditions, you could have that child supported in their social transition at school with the school insisting to not do so would be discrimination according to the EHRC, while there is clinical advice against the school doing so.

Its the most almighty mess.

You’d have to check with the poster. I thought it might be on the canvassing thread but a quick scroll didn’t find it

Hopefully they will see this thread and can clarify

What we have seen happen is a classic example of "build and they will come" in law.

The approach taken by GENSPECT for example and health authorities is key to this isn't it, we know how a cross sex identity forms and more sophisticated approaches to that are the more effective than law changes.

Middle of the road people worldwide want this contagion managing better. Legal fights have been good for getting the freedom to speak the truth back slowly and that's going to be the critical dampner on the pipeline.