Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

Oh, didn't you get the memo?
The school got a clear OFSTED verdict
CatGender was a myth.
A "Dead Cat" so to speak.
According to the left commentariat, there are no gender/safeguarding issues in schools.
Just Mumsnet culture war tropes.

They seem blind to this even though the issues keep arising

In which case presumably when they identify as the incredible hulk, a dinosaur and a train in the same afternoon, all that has to be formally enabled with a surgical transition planned too.

Any child who says, however fleetingly, they are proposing to change their sex is therefore a 'transexual'? If pre verbal, I presume this is where we get the unpoppering the all-in-one thing or removing hairgrips as proof of a very young child's transexual status.

'These feelings can surface as early as the second year of life, when a girl toddler frantically pulls the fancy barrettes out of her hair or a boy toddler wraps his blanket around his head to create long, flowing hair.'

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/we-trust-kids-know-what-gender-they-are

It's finally dawning on lawmakers that you can't make law around people pretending to change sex.

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.

If we follow through the logic that gender reassignment applies to all ages and the EHRC states that refusing to use a child's preferred pronouns is an example of direct discrimination with regards to this protected characteristic.....

Then any child identifying as a cat (reflexive pronoun is "catself" I think) needs affirmations as such. Presumably any teacher refusing to allow a nap under the desk or a wee in a litter tray in the corner would also be discrimating against that child cat.

And amongst the many other genders there must presumably be some other violations. What about a horse-gender identified child who isn't allowed out for a canter? A child who identifies as asexual (by definition all children until they have a feeling of sexual orientation, but let's not let details get in the way) may feel discriminated against if they are forced to learn about sex (the intercourse kind). And so on. Gender reassignment to any of the ever growing types of gender should be respected at all times...

Or....

Some common sense is used.

The law is most definitely a mess, with the words sex and gender jumbled up in both the Equality Act and the EHRC guidance on the protected characteristics of sex, gender reassignment and sexual orientation.

I'm also of the view that the guidance should come out now with "should" written in it and then we see how it all plays out. No politicians will take on the task of untangling the law until it becomes a very clear vote-impacting issue at a critical mass level. It's not there yet amongst the general public.

I've always said, in terms of longest lasting legacy, Blair trumps Thatcher, maybe even Churchill.
Maggie may have changed our ethos, but Blair set in motion the legalistic traps that have ensnared our whole future.
Legislation that got no media coverage at the time having mushroomed to the impotence we have today, where simple measures to enhance child safeguarding are so hamstrung by the 2003 act, as to be almost impossible to enact.
In terms of permanent change on society that reflects the leader who drove them, Blair handily beats Thatcher.
Farage gets an honourable mention.

The PC of gender reassignment absolutely applies in schools. There is nothing in the Equality Act to say it only applies to adults, and it has no connection with having a GRC. If we believe a 'trans child's a thing then it follows logically that they should be allowed to 'be' their PC in school. The EqA is a mess on this because it based a PC on an undefined fiction.

lostmytowel· 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?

Christine Burns and Stephen Whittle explain that this was deliberate, it was all done in back rooms away from the press.

This was all passed in 2003, yes?
I've always followed politics, and I have no recollection at the time of any debate, public engagement. Nothing.

I get what you're saying here but anyone who has been taught to think critically even a tiny bit would change course when the full batshittery and (in the case of children) safeguarding red flags of gender ideology start to be considered.

Most women on here started from a point of wanting to be inclusive. Kellie Jay was a Labour voter. It was only when she considered the logical consequence of the idea that men can be (indeed are) women on their say so - that there would be adult 'lady' penises beside her daughter in changing rooms, and that her daughter would not be able to speak up against this that she became active.

Most mothers, indeed I suspect most women, would put child safety and safeguarding above inclusivity. Either the professional classes are dimmer than the working classes or just more scared of rocking the boat and more willing to throw vulnerable adults and children under the bus for their own gain.

I mean if we're all about 'inclusivity' there are those who are lobbying hard for MAP (aka paedophiles) to be part of the + in the LGBTQ+ . Are we going to start saying that MAPs have to be included in school events? Whenever I get some waffly painfully simplistic pride presentation from the school about 'everyone is welcome' then I think 'really, everyone? Paedophiles really want to be included in schools, but one of the whole bloody points of safer recruitment, DBS checks and the whole expensive, laborious safeguarding framework in schools is to keep them away from kids. What about the county lines recruiters - are we including them? Are they welcome?

@FrancescaContini

If “gender reassignment” requires a GRC and if this can only be obtained by those aged 18+, this area of the EA isn’t applicable to schoolchildren apart from those who have turned 18.

No, “Gender Reassignment” does not require a GRC. And almost anything counts as Gender Reassignment.

So if I have understood correctly, “gender reassignment” isn’t a category of the EA that schools have to comply with by virtue of the vast majority of school children being under 18, BUT they DO need to allow for freedom of belief in biological reality especially since the Forstater ruling.

Unfortunately, I think you have misunderstood.

See below, “other characteristics of sex”

Changing ”other attributes of sex” could mean a six year old boy wearing pink sparkly shoes, or having long hair, or wearing an Elsa dress.

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.

The law is appalling.

There is zero chance we're going back to "transsexual" as a label or definition. This makes it too easy to seperate children and adults.

The law which used the term 'transsexual' was passed only 13 years ago. 'Trans' and 'transgender' are very recent and only came into use because of campaigning by groups like Press for Change who wanted to broaden the 'trans' umbrella to include transvestites in the same group as transsexuals.

This is from their submission to Parliament in 2007:

Transgender is an umbrella term, coined in America, used to include people whose lifestyles appear to conflict with the gender norms of society. It includes many types of people and lifestyles. In the broadest use of the term, a transgender person crosses the conventional boundaries of gender; in clothing; in presenting themselves; even as far as having multiple surgical procedures to be fully bodily reassigned in their preferred gender role.

In this report we will normally use the term 'trans people' to describe those people who might be described as falling broadly within this context, as it has become the term of normal use since the coining of it by Press for Change for their 1996 mission statement: "Seeking respect and equality for ALL trans people"[2]. People who identify as transsexual are a small part of this spectrum and may or may not have had medical treatment to alter their physical appearance.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmpublic/criminal/memos/ucm39102.htm

This is a new term. It came into use due to this campaign to change the language. We can try to change it back. Use the appropriate term 'transsexual' and when people 'correct' it to 'trans' or 'transgender', ask them what the difference is.

https://open.substack.com/pub/peaked/p/the-trans-lobby-rolls-into-rural?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7vbcm

It is painful to read. We are reading it though. It's there in the public domain to read. The protagonists have an internet trail of commentary following them around now a mile wide.

Everything is documented and reported in in great detail. Activists can't fart without a substack going live before the air clears.

This level of scrutiny is making a difference which is why it's so hated and called a culture war.

Confusing children? Why, surely no adults would want to do that?

Oh we have plenty of options there... non binary, gender fluid, agender...take your pick!

You only have to read Roisin Michaux substack and Twitter feeds to see the extent of embedded activism. It's painful to read.

The "we" that you refer to here also includes a large number of people too afraid to speak up including public servants. It's not simply inertia.

We see this here daily. I'm not critical of those people individually but collectively as a society this isn't impressive either. Overcoming fear is going to obliterate inertia. As you frequently say we are at a tipping point on this.

Labour and Lib Dems in next concern me most.

They’re both fully subsidised to gender ideology

Agree with @Rudderneck on questioning the numbers.

I’m a really jaded Labour voter. But the answer for me to that definitely isn’t to vote Tory or to pretend that the Tories have not presided over this entire shit show and set the wheels in motion for self ID in the UK, then realised that was an electoral stink bomb and made noises popularly held to be about ‘knowing what a woman is’ but in terms of introducing concrete legal protections, have just sat on their hands

The gains for women in last 13 years have been made in the courts by judicial reviews and other legal actions crowdfunded by all of us.
Because when a government doesn’t listen that’s the only route. And because government doesn’t like judges to be able to critique policy, the Tories have even been trying to roll back on judicial reviews, sorry to ‘reform’ them. It’s really concerning.

I'm a really jaded Tory voter. Pretty much consider myself Blue Labour, not so much jaded re Starmer, but speechless.
I suspect Sunak would get a law change thru, but it would be very tight, and demonstrate the cross party alliance in the TRA camp.
The May/Mordaunt mindset attracts wider support in the Tory party than you might imagine.

Sunak has 12-18 months to sort this. Someone hold my beer.

I don't understand why you think Teresa May and most Tories would be against this, RealityFan. She's pretty much backed away from GI, as have most Tory MPs.

Yup.

But this isn't mainly a legislation thing, it's a scientific and medical question.

I think to make real progress on this, that is where the vital ground is. Everything else flows from that, and as long as there is a scientific set of myths being promulgated,policy changes are just about mitigation and tinkering.