Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

That’s interesting. Do you have a link to that? Did it pre-date Haldane?

The most pressing issue seems to be schools believing that they have to socially transfusion minors behind parents backs if the kid requests it (i have spoken to a couple of teacher friends whose schools have absolutely pushed this view, directed by political training. They have been told it would be illegal and harm the kids if they refused).

It's harmful and legally incorrect, and schools need to have it clearly spelt out, by the government, that they shouldn't be doing it. Teachers need to know they will be supported, not punished, for refusing to implement social transistion without parents consent.

Not keeping secrets from patents is safeguarding 101.

Lawyers pointing out that a ban on social transitioning could be subject to legal challenge does not = lawyers saying children must be transitioned without parental consent.

Yes, although like the Vice story, it's a partial leak. Who leaked it and to what end? What does the whole thing say? (And what does it say about protecting children and Cass? That's got to be in there?) We just don't know

I haven’t checked, but isn’t it the GRA 2005 which restricts the awarding of a Gender Recognition Certificate to over 18s?

If applying for a GRC is/used to be a two year process, then the implication of that would be that 16yos could start on “a process of” reassignment and start changing “other attributes of sex”. Given that the legislation mentions “physiological” attributes separately, the “other attributes” must refer to non-physiological attributes - ie clothing, name, pronouns, stereotypical behaviour, stereotypical hobbies and interests.

Feminists would, of course, argue that regarding various sexist stereotypes as “attributes of sex” is i) utter nonsense ii) sexist drivel which perpetuates inequality iii) the depressingly predictable product of a male dominated political party system and male dominated legislature iv) even more depressingly getting worse as a result of vociferous campaigning by Stonewall, Mermaids, Press for Change.

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.

Having read the article what is allowed is so weak that it’s pointless

Fgs just rip off the bandaid and get mandate for a robust response.

Thanks Rodgmum. I have always felt that ‘should’ in guidance to be really bizarre. But people tell me I come from a nanny-state, so I accept that I like to have things spelled out clearly. Either it is policy, guidance or by-law or it is not where I come from. ‘Should’ makes things sound very grey. I was horrified with parking regulations being ‘should’, and everyone ignored them, so I wasn’t sure what it means for school guidance.

I would hope that an interim guidance would at least give some protection and some direction.

The law needs to change if it’s blocking a way forward. What a bizarre set of knots that isn’t working for the majority of children.

There’s another point as well, of course, which is what constitutes discrimination. At the moment the EHRC Technical Guidance for schools includes this example (the bullet point has been changed in the guidance but I don’t have time to search for it right now).

Is this discrimination? Hopefully this is one of the points the EHRC is looking at

When Suella Braverman was attorney-general, she gave the exact opposite advice. She said gender reassignment didn't cover children.

Regardless of whether it covers children or not, the Equality Act still allows for single-sex exceptions, so the guidance could still mandate that boys are not allowed to use the girls' changing rooms, however they identify. That would probably reduce the appeal of social transition to some extent.

I'm not sure there is any other area covered by school guidance where it is framed as holy and righteous to ignore it as polluted and wrong, as it is with this. The DfE guidance has gone almost completely ignored. This is an increasing bid for TQ+ to be above the law.

Thank you @rogdmum. As someone new to this guidance, this seems absolutely extraordinary and completely wrongheaded if it applies to primary age children.

My 8yo has expressed an intention not to go to secondary school because she doesn’t want to go on the bus on her own. I mean… these are young children with no concept of how they will change as they grow.

And seems the wrong call too for even upper secondary children given all that is now known about interactions with mental health, being in care, neurodiversity, same sex attraction, idea that gender identity doesn’t settle until mid-20s etc.

I’m catching up with others here, I’m aware, but good to spell this out for others who are also catching up.

Helle They’d know if any update does come it would be even stronger than “should” so they’d be hard pressed to ignore it. “Should” is a strong word in guidance and if a school were taken to court they would need to justify why thief didn’t follow it.

This is what I understood from the article.

Small children can intend / propose (without even understanding the meanings of these words) to do many things but by teatime they will have changed their mind at least 72 times. Any sensible parent knows not to even ask an eight year old what they fancy for tea because by the time the pasta is ready, they’d actually prefer sausages.

The idea that gender reassignment/proposing to undergo this (whatever the hell it actually means, because how can you reassign an abstract concept that is part of a controversial ideology?) is applicable to school children is frankly absurd/terrifying/fucking stupid.

It is massively in the Tories interest to come out against gender ideology - its basically a free vote winner.
I cant help thinking there is pressure coming from abroad on them?

Maybe they should release the ‘should’ version. However. Knowing that an update was coming, would schools take notice of the ‘should’ and ignore them.

The schools guidance is then 9 years out of date when the situation and evidence has changed massively.

If Sunak and the tories do not have the guts for this, then no one else will. He is mad; this is a vote winner.

I suspect Sunak does not have the stomach for this; it is not in his list of priorities - leaving it to individual MPs such as Kemi Badenoch and Gillian Keegan to fight it out, and struggle with.

“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”

I agree with others … if the person is a child, they cannot personally make this proposal. It seems clear to me that it is aimed at persons who can make such decisions for themselves. Otherwise the wording would need to say something like “the person (or if a minor, parent or guardian acting on the minors behalf). But it does not. Legal texts must surely be unambiguous.

For everyone questioning where social transition fits in with the PC or GR, it has been in the EHRC Technical Guidance for Schools since 2014. It is finally being updated (though we don’t know exactly how it will change), but yes, it has long been deemed that children, with no lower age boundary, come under the PC as soon as they “make their intention known” to anyone.

Sections 5.113-5.116 here are the relevant bits

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/technical-guidance-schools-england

I genuinely don't get it. I worked in local authorities in the early 2000's, approx 2004 to 2009 and The Children Act was key legislation, very much on everyone's mind, referenced frequently etc.

Fast forward to now and it's as though it no longer exists.

This is a constant issue isn't it? Adults with skin in the game with the power to weight the law against others to enable their child's political beliefs. It's like integrity and professionalism no longer matters.

The problem is not that a law needs tidying up. The lawyer herself seems to agree with what the Government is trying to do, but professionally needs to give her advice to protect the Government from future legislation.

The problem is that the opposition will do their best to oppose and delay any tidying up. It will be political rather than administrative. As we saw from the recent Westminster Hall debate on sex vs biological sex, there are a significant number of people who oppose protections for women and girls and Labour Party leadership is not willing to challenge them.

How much more " information" does Sunak think he needs?

Gillian Keegan clearly has a vested interest - I suspect a trans identified family member.

Yes, I've been wondering about this too Ova.