Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

Interesting. Im still going with pressure from very powerful foreign actors.

@PriOn1

Indeed. The “precautionary principle” (which is a well established principle in public health) should apply.

Whatever my views on what I would like the guidance to say, ultimately I think it’s important that it reflects the actual law (and doesn’t get “ahead of the law”). Otherwise you end up on the slippery slope to Stonewall Law.

If they’ve taken legal advice from the AG, they would be hard pushed to justify going against her professional opinion.

A government source said: “We have consistently said that this is about protecting children, empowering parents, and supporting teachers and school leaders by providing guidance for them to implement. It’s a complex and sensitive area and it’s right we get it right. More information is needed about the long-term implications of allowing a child to act as though they are the opposite sex and the impact that may have on other children too.”

This is the same as all the handwringing over men in women’s sports. If you’re not sure whether something is harmful or not backed up by science, the waiting position ought to be the neutral position: i.e. the position that existed before the potentially harmful new changes were brought in. Hand wringing while the damage is ongoing is negligent.

Thanks @ArabeIIaScott

“She said gender reassignment didn't cover children”.

@RoyalCorgi Looking at that article Suella Braverman said that GRCs can’t be issued to under 18s (which is in the GRA 2005). That isn’t the same as under 18s not being covered by the EA2010 protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Under 18s can’t change their legal sex. But they could start on “a process of” gender reassignment.

Totally agree which goes back to my earlier point as to why the Children Act or even the Education Act does not seem to come into play. Why is everything about the Equality Act?

It's not the only legislation and it's not even a priority one when talking about children. The Equality Act when devised was primarily about employment and the provision of services.

But surely as the PM he surely has more clout? It just concerns me that he is saying " we need more info". Surely if he was serious he'd already have all of the info to hand?

Theresa May is a strange one.....very 'Church of England'

I think this too.

It should be possible to make this very clear about schools. They have no role in making any kind of decisions like this for families. It should also be clear about dealing with practical issues like sports and change rooms. I suspect if this was all done, some of the interest in child transitioning might evaporate.

As far as the general question, I am not sure that schools are the right target. If they are out of the picture, the people transitioning kids are the medical profession, and parents, often who have been influenced by doctors or activists and have poor information. And, arguably, activists and such on tictok etc who are contributing to social contagion.

These are the things that really need to be addressed, it's not really about the school. The supposed medical basis of the trans child is the real issue, and the idea that people have that transgenderism is some kind of medical phenomena people are born with like being diabetic.

Trying to address that stuff through pressure on schools isn't going to be effective, and risks undermining parental rights around medical issues.

Haven't RTFT so sorry if it's been said before although I think it bears repeating:

Children are not adults.

Safeguarding law trumps the equality act.

I.e. a child's right not to be discriminated against does not trump another child's / all the other children's right to safeguarding / safety.

Also, one child's right not to be discriminated against on one characteristic does not give the school free rein to discriminate on the grounds of sex or religion, which current social transition often does.

Social transition which forces compelled speech (pronouns) on other children or the forced imposition of mixed sex spaces is clearly a safeguarding red flag and often illegal. Compelled wrong sex pronouns could be argued to meet the definition of emotional abuse in KCSIE, the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools.

We know the rates of sexual assault are higher in mixed sex spaces, girls have been assaulted in mixed sex toilets in school, the majority of parents and students want schools to comply with the law and have single sex toilets. The law says schools should have single sex toilets.

I despair at how the debate is all around the law in only one tiny area (equalities) and not about safeguarding law which surely should be more important when we're talking about children? It's unacceptable.

If there was no stomach for it they wouldn’t bother to start with, as I’d expect Labour not to

They should keep going. And it’s possible they will, Sunak has had a few difficult paths with other laws but kept going.

I don't think he's the problem, there are clearly people in the government who are trying to get something through, and I suspect he's one.

But it's getting a lot of pushback I think from different quarters, and he can't handwave that away. In this instance perhaps more because there is concern what they do will be challenged and get bogged down there.

Reading the comments, the Times readership - who have been at the forefront of challenging all this - are very aware that the government was in thrall to the queer theory groups and entryists in the civil service etc and are 100% responsible for this shitshow.
Now what matters more than anything in all this is that the toxic claws of trans extremist groups are removed from education and that safeguarding children once again takes priority. We shouldn't be distracted by all the political squirrels designed to distract women and parents from safeguarding children.

Up to a point. But if a school is challenged and has ignored non statutory guidance, they need to have a shit hot defence as to why. And "we were being kind" just won' cut it.

LoobiJee Yes, and also worth bearing in mind that even the Scottish Govt admits there is no law obliging schools to affirm a child’s identity and trust me, if there were, the ScotGov guidance would have been all over it!

Completely. And open to interpretation by sexist adults.
I remember one bit of TRA guidance saying that baby girls who pull their hair clips out may be showing early signs of being trans. This is the level of ridiculous and dangerous readings of ‘intention’ we are up against.

“This does not mean (or at least we haven’t been told) that the attorney general feels that all children must have their social transition supported by schools. There will be a whole range of competing rights and safeguarding points to be considered for individual cases.”

I suspect parental consent will be the key “rights versus safeguarding” point being debated before the guidance can be finalised.

And whilst the lawyers and the politicians argue the children suffer.

Any chance they can sort out this shit show before the new school year in September?

I am assuming that the “leak” came from someone in the Attorney General’s communications team. People expect the Government to move quickly on this. Indeed Rishi had promised. But the lawyers, reluctantly, have said no. The law needs to be changed.

The leak/briefing then provides the reason to tidy up the law, and hopefully can be included with sex/biological sex amendments. Which would perhaps bring the whole gender divide before Parliament before the GE. This should not be political, and the Government will say that the changes are needed for clarification in order to protect women and children and in line with public opinion. Tidying up of existing legislation happens all the time. As for Labour….their choice.

“Who leaked it and to what end?”

Having read the article, it’s clearly No 10 who’ve leaked it. The purpose is to enable the PM to get his defence in first as to why he hasn’t delivered on / won’t be delivering on the commitment which the article says he has made.

I note that the article seeks to prevent the Attorney General from being accused of personal bias in favour of social transitioning by stating she personally favours a ban but the law doesn’t permit.

Whether any of the presentation of the position in that article is accurate is any one’s guess but that - “we would tackle this, honestly we would, but our hands are tied” - is the message which is being put out to The Times’ readership.

Yes, this is important.

What this article seems to be saying is that the advice is that the govt cannot implement a blanket ban on social transition.

This does not mean (or at least we haven’t been told) that the attorney general feels that all children must have their social transition supported by schools. There will be a whole range of competing rights and safeguarding points to be considered for individual cases.

I find it astonishing that laws with actual legal effects are based on such vague, waffly language, with ill defined meaning and no actual way of proving or disproving them.

Anyone could feasibly have 'intended' to 'change gender' at any moment, from minute to minute. It's law based on a hypothetical thought in someone's head. Wild.

While a child can't get a GRC they can still be covered by 'intending to change gender', which is effectively a totally meaningless phrase.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/27/attorney-general-says-schools-do-not-have-to-accommodate-childrens-gender-wishes

“the situation and evidence has changed massively.”

Such an important point.

Oh ffs transistion not transfusion!