Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

The authoritarian left and gender ideology and stamping down on dissent is the most sinister movement I’ve seen

Add in indoctrination of children and NZ / Aus / Canada style infomercials and media and political blind bias

And yeh it’s up there.

I, too, miss the days when I could assign all failings to the Tories. It was at least some small comforting reassurance that we knew who the baddies were.

I wish it was just the tories. The lack of care about safeguarding children from the other parties is incredibly sinister. The Lib Dems I know have a long history of dodgy adults but I did hope that labour might be different.

I find it strangely reassuring that there is no ill in this country that you cannot lay at the feet of the Tories.

This is the biggest threat to my self avowed "humanist" label. Ever since becoming an atheist as a teen and more and more a free speech champion as I've gotten older, I've always said to my friends who rail against this by, they either calling it demonic forces filling the void left by Christianity being marginalised in the West, or the atheist/uber nihilist take that the trans culture grab is the result of cultural Marxist/post modern march thru the institutions.

I've fought both opinions. Despite being hugely troubled by TRA, racialised politics and woke capitalism, I'm not moving back to Christianity anytime soon, and demons at work undermining humanity just doesn't appeal. But I can sympathise with the "chaos fills a vacuum" take.

My resistance to the theory of bad actors like Pritzker, pressure groups like Stonewall and Mermaids, activist legals like Dentons etc, plus gargantuan structure of academic post modern scaffolding for the TRA monster, pushing this edifice on relentlessly, is harder and harder to deny, especially when the quote above outlines just how hard the activists and bad actors worked, in the effective pre social media age, able to work the system pretty much unsupervised and uncontrolled, in the immediate post GRA 2004 pediod.

Once the foundations were dug and footings laid, and the superstructure was up after 2004, all that was needed was the legal/academic drive to flesh out the rules and penalties, and then social media, especially during lockdown, did the rest in creating the customers and chilling the temperature for dissenters. That we've all seen in the last 7-10 years.

However, I still feel this is too simple and sinister an explanation. Bad actors and academic intellectual firepower couldn't ever be near enough alone to create the unstoppable force we've seen rippling thru Western institutions.

It still needed a population unlikely to talk back, clever elites happy to stop questioning and eager to accept, the unique boiling pot that is social media, and the also unique suspension of people's normal tripwires and trigger points during Covid, to remove enough barriers to faster unravelling.

Where I question my humanism, is that I always railed against criticisms that humans were bad, stupid, complicit, cruel. Yes, some were. But I was also confident humans would bring it around, no need for God or conspiracy theories.

Today? I'm really struggling to positively feel a humanist, as societal change hurtles towards an unknown destination for which there are so many warning signals of. It's as if our ruling classes, academic intellectual class, our artists and media, have switched off all their skepticism, all their self questioning, all their trip wires and trigger points, to en masse bunker down, and take humanity down with them. Even that this toxicity affects children directly seems immaterial.

Either I'm still a humanist and these people who were have moved away, or it wasn't ever a label worth proudly applying to myself.

Exactly. Where we are is ridiculous and we have Starmer looming in full gender ideology mode.

I don’t care if it’s court case or vote just clarify and imo protect dc more

So what’s the alternative do a Labour and just go with gender ideology

How is that better?

Those who want that can enjoy it.

No thanks. I’ll never vote for it and if it all gets worse they can take the responsibility

"What we want would be illegal so we'll do nothing /fight costly court battles instead" has become the Tory government's go to excuse.

Wake up and smell the bullshit folks.

I hope I'm being unnecessarily cynical, but this sounds more to me like a kick into the long grass. 'We'd like to fix it but we can't.' And the BBC article on this ends with a line which suggests that if this ever does make it out of government, the teaching unions will then kill it on the grounds of being unreasonable and unworkable.

If we do not have a government with the stomach to deal with political capture at the heart of all this then it's endless stamping on sparks and ignoring the roaring fire itself.

Good thread on twitter about this
https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1681619724034080770?t=R1R4W8A1trJ03CcXLyt-Eg&s=19

First some background. The Equality Act covers a list of protected characteristics. Gender reassignment is one of them. It’s not tied to the Gender Recognition Act, you don’t need to be in the process of obtains a GRC to be protected and it almost certainly covers minors.

This means that children who are experiencing gender distress are likely protected from gender reassignment based discrimination. There is a lot of confusion and misinformation about what being protected under GR means and this is likely affecting how guidance is being drafted.

Some advocates argue it means you are entitled to be treated as if you were the sex you identify with unless the policy passes a proportionality test. That’s incorrect. If you’re protected under gender reassignment you’re entitled not to be discriminated against on that ground.

The test for determining discrimination is called a comparator test: whether you would be treated less favourably than another person who is identical in all relevant respects except the protected characteristic in question.

We know from Green v Secretary of State for Justice that if you don’t have a GRC (no children have GRCs) your sex is your biological sex. So a trans boy is female for the purposes of the Equality Act. The comparator then is a girl without gender reassignment.

This is very important. It means that you need to ask whether other females would be required to wear the girls uniform or be referred to by she/her pronouns. They would be, so it’s not direct discrimination. Where this gets complicated is indirect discrimination.

Indirect discrimination occurs where persons who share a protected characteristic are put at a particular disadvantage and where there is no legal justification for doing so. I’ll return to that later.

So, continuing the background. Being protected under gender reassignment doesn’t entitle you to be treated as the sex one identifies with. But some very prominent advocacy groups have argued that it does. This has led to a lot of confusion.

Added to that, some have argued that the structure of the Equality Act is the reverse of what it actually is. The default is equal treatment. There are then exceptions built in that reverse this presumption in order to allow for single sex services, associations and schools.

But there is an exception to the exception which says in very rare circumstances, it may be disproportionate to have a single sex service - for example a men’s only barbers that refuses to cut the hair of a short haired woman.

So here’s the structure:

1. In general equal treatment
2. Some areas where presumption is revered to (in general) unequal treatment to allow single sex services
3. In very rare cases, an exception to the exception.

But some have argued very persistently the exact opposite.

Some have argued that Gender Reassignment means you’ve a right to be treated as if you had changed sex when you haven’t and they have argued that 3 (The exception to the exception) is actually the norm: that it’s the default when it isn’t. This has caused so much confusion.

So anyone drafting guidance for schools is going to be cognisant of the fact that if you say ‘X is the general rule but in very rare circumstances Y can be done’ there will likely be a concerted effort to make Y the general rule when it is suppose to be the exception.

I suspect the guidance has tried to avoid this because it wants to provide guidance and not add to more confusion. Add to this the fact the Cass report has indicated that social transition is a medical intervention that should be carefully considered before any action is taken.

Against that backdrop the guidance likely sought to provide clear rules with no exceptions. The problem is that rules without exceptions run into problems with proportionality and proportionality is triggered if a policy has a particular impact upon kids who share a PC.

So there’s an issue of indirect discrimination and a question of justification for blanket rules. It’s not impossible for them to be justified as proportionate, blanket rules have been proportionate.

But the fact a rule has no exception is very likely a black mark against it in proportionality analysis. And this is probably what the legal advice from the Attorney General concluded.

So there will either be new advice issued that tires to make it clear that the exceptional case really is the exceptional case and not the norm, or legislation will be introduced to make it clear that schools can have blanket rules here.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1681619724034080770.html

Surely this is the best thing that could have happened because it can now be tested in court, and either laws clarified, or new ones proposed. Instead of us all living in this vague, gaslighting alternative universe. It needs to be sorted, and sorted once and for all

The Equality Act talks about purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex*.

ie they are talking about physical change, nothing what so ever to do with social transitioning (that is just letting the TRA skew the discussion)*

Nope. The Act is very clear that it also includes a person's 'intent' to transition.

'In the Equality Act, gender reassignment means proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex. To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender.'

(my bold)

Which is to say, a feeling in one's head.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

This is incorrect as the GRA recognises only male and female genders - so NB identities along with neo-gender are not protected characteristics.
GRA being written presumably with old school transsexuals in mind.

I've been thinking about the whole thing too. It was more or less pre-internet. Or predates anything we now recognise anyway. Long gone are the days of dial up and waiting for ages to load a page you've carefully selected (because the connection was so poor).

So the days when men and those without caring responsibilities would still definitely have had more time on their hands. More time to make long distance calls. More time to go abroad. More time to connect with other like-minded people.

And now that many of us have pretty good access to information, we are digging through what happened. What evidence there was for the GRA. What submissions were made to Parliament afterwards as just recently on this thread. What's happened elsewhere in similar timeframes.

And it is either all a massive, unconnected coincidence. Or...it isn't.

I haven't had time to read all this thread, and this article was on another thread.

So I am probably repeating.

The Equality Act talks about purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

ie they are talking about physical change, nothing what so ever to do with social transitioning (that is just letting the TRA skew the discussion)

I understood you couldn't apply for or start the process of re-assignment before 18 (that is why Scotland's GRR wants to lower the age to 16 ie to start the process earlier)

I think the Government was absolutely right to get legal guidance because it is obvious that Stonewall and others would mount a legal challenge.

And they need to know what could be said to undermine what they (well some of them) want to say to schools.

None of this however will have any impact on what is going on in schools, where social campaigns and influences have led people such as teachers, let alone the children, thinking it is about "gender identity".

Its a shame that "gender identity" hasn't been treated like yet another youth cult, such as skin heads, Goths, etc.. Why have adults colluded with this "fad".

And earlier on someone said the EA was the problem. Yes it is bad, but the real problem is the GRA. Why should this one (originally a medical matter) be a protected characteristic. Because the GRA which was a temporaty solution to a problem we no longer have (same sex marriage). We need to repeal the GRA.

But we are so far down the rainbow path that the GRA has led to the concept that what for many (apart from those with genuine gender dysphoria) in the past would have been a passing trend (social transition), has now become something that has to be validated by authorities and parents.

Ironic to think that in the past adopting the then current fad for clothing, etc., was to say you dont conform to authorities and parents, but now children are desperate to get parents and schools to say that their "rebellion" isn't rebellious at all and should become the social norm.

So if this is about the EA then lets be clear it has nothing to do with social transitioning.

Althuogh I think I am right in saying that the EHRC (pre Falkner) may have allowed this concept to be taken as valid.

So the GRA was passed in 2004 and within 36 months of that Whittle’s campaign group had started its campaign to change the language, as the next step in their long term strategy to change public perception?

And crazy,, the same shit was going on in other western countries.

It makes you feel like the tin foil hat people might have been right all along.

“The law is about transsexual people. Not 'trans', not 'transgender', but 'transsexual'. The effect of using the words 'trans' and 'transgender' and then declaring that children can be 'trans' has been (in the words of one TRA) to 'desexualise the trans experience'. Can we go back to using 'transsexual', and then challenge those in favour of applying the term of 'trans' to children to explain exactly what makes a child 'transsexual'.”

This is such an important and useful point OldCrone.

How many 14yo old girls, distressed at puberty, would decide to “come out” as transsexual, if that were the terminology being used? And particularly if it were the terminology associated with middle aged males wearing their wife’s or daughter’s clothes and with drag queens? They wouldn’t.

So the GRA was passed in 2004 and within 36 months of that Whittle’s campaign group had started its campaign to change the language, as the next step in their long term strategy to change public perception?

Spot on.

'Protection against discrimination is now extended to pupils who are pregnant or have recently given birth, or who are undergoing gender reassignment.'

Protected characteristics 1.9 It is unlawful for a school to discriminate against a pupil or prospective pupil by treating them less favourably because of their:  sex  race  disability  religion or belief  sexual orientation  gender reassignment  pregnancy or maternity

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.

3.4 Gender reassignment is defined in the Equality Act as applying to anyone who is undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo a process (or part of a process) of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes. This definition means that in order to be protected under the Act, a pupil will not necessarily have to be undertaking a medical procedure to change their sex but must be taking steps to live in the opposite gender, or proposing to do so. A glossary of terminology related to the transgender field can be found on the Gender Identity Research and Education Society website.

3.5 The protection against discrimination because of gender reassignment now matches the protection because of sexual orientation in schools. That is protection from direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation, which includes discrimination based on perception (see 1.11) and on association (see 1.10). Schools need to make sure that all gender variant pupils, or the children of transgender parents, are not singled out for different and less favourable treatment from that given to other pupils. They should check that there are no practices which could result in unfair, less favourable treatment of such pupils. For example, it would be unlawful discrimination for a teacher to single out a 18 pupil undergoing gender reassignment and embarrass him in front of the class because of this characteristic.

3.6 It is relatively rare for pupils – particularly very young pupils – to want to undergo gender reassignment, but when a pupil does so a number of issues will arise which will need to be sensitively handled. There is evidence that the number of such cases is increasing and schools should aim to address any issues early on and in a proactive way. Further guidance is available from the GIRES website – see paragraph 2.19 for links to their bullying guidance. In addition, a partnership of bodies in Cornwall have produced a useful guidance document for schools and families'

All the above taken from 2014 DofE Guidance, I think that's the most up to date?

The Equality Act 2010 and schools Departmental advice for school leaders, school staff, governing bodies and local authorities

ArabeIIaScott · Today 16:34
Well, it doesn't exclude them.

So children are included as transsexuals, otherwise known as any person who adopts any stereotypical attribute whatsoever of the other sex - because no one thought to exclude them from the legislation?

If the government does not change the law it will be effectively be endorsing the untimely transing of children.

I may be misremembering, but I'm pretty certain there's an example of discrimination against a school child because of gender reassignment in the EqA itself, or in a supporting document. I'll try to find it.

Well, it doesn't exclude them.

ArabeIIaScott · Today 16:12

“ScrollingLeaves” · Today 15:55

lostmtowel . Today 08:34
It seems absolutely extraordinary that legal advice says that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic for primary age children.

Have I misunderstood?

Do we think this would be because little children would be covered by “is proposing to undergo” gender reassignment if they identify as trans?

“I have not read all the thread but am wondering this too. Has anyone explained on what basis it is that the legal advice says children are included in the Equality Act for Gender Reassignment”?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

Thank you ArabellaScott I had read that and realised that virtually anything could constitute gender reassignment but I am specifically wondering where it says children are be included?

Is it because under Section 212 of Tge Equality Act
A man is defined as a male of any age and a woman as a female of any age ?

So a newborn baby girl counts as a woman, and a newborn baby boy as a man?