Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

Are you including women who die at the hands of their violent male partners? Because when you have misogynistic policies taking hold, you set the scene for that. No I don't want to leave the good Friday agreement but that doesn't make the ECHR a good thing to be in if it is genuinely forcing us to pretend men have changed sex. To be clear I'm not suggesting it's trans identifying males who kill their partners. At least not at any greater rate than other men.

It’s a difficult issue. Is there no way to take the GFA as wanted and replicate with new legislation

I don’t think sex based rights will threaten membership of the ECHR as not enough people care

But I think mass displacement could. If citizens demand change due to that those post war institutions could be at risk.

I dunno - should we compare how many women have died as a result of the GRA with how many women died before the Good Friday Agreement put an end to the troubles in Northern Ireland?

Because I'm willing to bet that any policy aspiration that essentially kills the Good Friday Agreement (ECHR membership is baked into the Agreement) would be worse for women than the GRA continuing.

If the ECHR is genuinely allowing this attack on women, you think it's good to stay in it?

I’m guessing there are hundreds if not thousands of lurkers reading this thread and if a fraction of them decide to look at the issue more closely or question their child’s school about its RSE policy/curriculum, then that can only be a very positive thing.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.
What is evident is that parents generally are horrified at what's being taught in schools under the guise of "gender identity" and the Tories are finally getting it in the neck from parents asking what the fuck they've been doing for the last 12 years to allow adults and groups who should be nowhere near children to influence policy and the curriculum.

People who derail threads onto discussions of their own niche interests can expect to see others legitimately commenting on the subject of the thread - which in this case is the much delayed trans guidelines for schools needed to ensure the safety of children from the "attention" of queer theory activist groups.

Blimey I’m hoping it’s the other way around

A reshuffle takes out Keegan and Badenoch continues to do well and Cates takes increased profile with a higher position

Doing it without admitting their culpability is their challenge I think?

I hadn’t considered it from that angle. I’d assume there’s still behind the scenes lobbying going on, a difference of opinion between Badenoch and Keegan, and some individuals hoping that a delay now might kick it into the long grass until a potential future point when Badenoch is no longer in the picture for some reason. A week being a long time in politics and all that.

This thread is about children. As you say the GRA has no relevance to children as it doesn’t apply to under 18s. So a discussion about the GRA isn’t relevant to this thread.

You could start a separate thread focused on the GRA 2004 and international law. It might attract some international treaty experts for you to debate with.

Ok that’s good.

So there seems to be the absence of the same barrier wrt exiting ECHR or not

We can sort the situation with children under domestic law

This comment bears no relation to my post. The situation of children in the UK has nothing to do with the GRA as it stands.

Yes - nobody has looked at the grooming of children in all this - perhaps because society naively reckoned that only open predators would target children about sexual matters - not supposedly mainstream trans organisations.
How wrong we have all been.

As far as I know, all of the case law has only concerned adults, and there is no case law that says children have the same right.

A pp mentioned the right to change sex due to ECHR

Not scrolling back as long thread but does this apply to children?

And do other countries say this applies to children

So leave the ECHR, ditch the Good Friday Agreement.

You really think both of those things would be good outcomes?

Those of us who lived through times before the Good Friday Agreement might not find it as amusing as you do.

I'm worried about the whole thing LoobiJee.
Because this government have so fucked up with their uncritical alliance with Stonewall and all the other trans lobby groups they think they need to be careful. They can never admit their culpability and the extent to which they were captured by queer theory groups - often with the encouragement of the powerful gay men at the centre of their party. That opens them up to the massive lawsuits coning down the line from children as they mature.
It's a mess of epic proportions but at least they seem to have recognised that children and parents deserve them to step away from that queer theory activists. Doing it without admitting their culpability is their challenge I think?

“It does seem as if they're creeping towards that.”

Hmm, I don’t know. This worries me somewhat.

“So, we have made the decision to allow more time – to speak to teachers, parents, lawyers and other stakeholders – in order to ensure this guidance meets the high expectations that these groups rightly have for it.”

They are not going to be speaking to teachers in the next six weeks as it’s the school holidays. That suggests we’ll be lucky to see something before Christmas if they start some form of engagement process in the Autumn. Or by “teachers” does she mean the teaching unions?

And who are the “other stakeholders”? Mermaids? If so, what might meeting the high expectations of that particular “stakeholder” look like?

Indeed. It does seem as if they're creeping towards that. It's also worth remembering that trans extremists deliberately targeted the law and the judiciary. If you want to avoid democratic debate / scrutiny, then get the judiciary to follow fake Stonewall law and ignore the actual law. Which may be why we are seeing so many legal cases going in favour of women?

I'm going to write to my MP and ask him to urge the government to issue clear clear advice to schools about political impartiality and getting organisations politically campaigning to remove women and girls's rights out of schools. That in iteself would be a major step forward.

The UK Gov Education Minister could have put something like that in her written statement.

Anyway, here was my suggestion, in page 3 of this thread.

“I can see how the lawyers have reached a view that banning social transition for over 16s could be subject to legal challenge.
^^
That doesn’t stop the UK Government on issuing clear advice to schools that:
social transitioning is not a neutral act,
social transitioning risks putting young people on that pathway leads to significant, life changing physical interventions,
there are increasing numbers of young people regretting the loss of the fertility and the significant and irreversible physical harm done to them by going through this process,
the claims of suicide risks by certain lobby groups/commercial provider as part of their campaign to press for social transitioning and hormone treatment are unevidenced,
the emerging evidence is that cross sex hormones can exacerbate mental health issues.
^^
The guidance could also state that - in the context of legal action against the NHS - the government understands that, whilst X teachers union is in favour of social transitioning of school children, individual headteachers, teachers, and school governors may have concerns about the potential risk of future legal action against them on the grounds of them having actively encouraged young people towards, or failed to protect young people from, this life-changing course of action. The purpose of this guidance is to support schools in keeping school children safe from harm and advises the following: etc.”

It’s a one liner which was in addition to the previous post. The whole thread is about the government

Just scroll past and post what you want instead of criticising others for posts you are not keen on

Well I don’t think I deserved that criticism and the derailing post was aimed at me

If people think that sorting this legal mess out is easy or fast and that it’s taking time is a reason to get Labour in, then I’d say think about the reality of doing so.

There are very few people gunning for women’s rights and I’d like to not bump them off because it’s taking time. The alternative will mean we are toast.

I didn’t mean you were posting in bad faith in that particular post, just that there are a lot of in bad faith derails generally on FWR, as the general context to me getting impatient about derails.

Not being able to talk about what the actual government are up to or not up to, without the discussion being diverted onto another topic (and one which has been absolutely done to death on here), gets frustrating.