Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

At this point the govt should be well aware that anything that is not statutory will be ignored due to the capture situation and political indoctrination of schools, and that 'should' will be ignored.

With this apparently meaning

• Yes social transition must be unquestioningly facilitated
• No parents cannot be informed against parental rights and normal safeguarding practice
• No watchful waiting or consideration may be given to the future being dumped on a vulnerable child due to the pushing of a political lobby with zero interest in anyone or anything but themselves, and who will disown and sneer at the kid if they later detransition

I'm wondering who has given that legal advice? Lawyers can famously disagree on points of law.

They should just go with the term “should” as mentioned in the Times article and get the guidance issued while they then decide how/whether to change the law in the background.

If we’re going to have to wait for politicians to now argue how the law should be tightened up, we’ll never get this guidance out before the next election.

The guidance can be updated once/if the law is changed, but in the meantime, using “should” is a good interim step and will give schools pause for thought- it certainly works for ScotGov up here who have pushed the opposing view onto schools using “should” with great effect.

I feel like banging my head against a brick wall though. So many of us have spent YEARS telling the govt they would come up against exactly this issue and they’ve been sticking their heads in the sand about it. This could have been sorted out ages ago.

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?

It seems clear now that law change is needed. What a pity that was not decided 2 years ago!

It is clear that teh Equalities act needs to be amended. It is also clear that the sudden recent movements/departures/ramping up of things in trans activist camps signals a determined move to further their aims and goals.

I'm imagining this is going to be by getting closer to the law and to legal actions and rulings. That senior leawyers have blocked this move suggests that the law is going to become the main battleground.

Trying to brush women's equality and rights, children's rights and gay rights under the carpet as a 'culture war' to provide TQ+ political supremacism?

It's getting desperate. Which is probably a good sign.

2010, sorry. Not enough coffee yet.

Genuine questions.

Does the the Children's Act not come in to play re schools and children, particularly with reference to safeguarding?

In terms of legislation top trumps is it not more relevant than the Equality Act for children?

Why does the Children's Act never or rarely seem to be mentioned when discussing children?

I’ve just heard Miriam Cates talking on Times radio - she’s so clear about all this. Unlike the Gendered Intelligence spokesperson who is currently speaking (‘culture war’ etc)

Both the GRA and the EA are an absolute mess. Both drive a coach and horses through safeguarding with their vaguery, failure to define terms and interchangeable use of 'sex' and 'gender'. They are not fit for purpose. The GRA needs repealling and the EA re-writing or replacing.

As pp said, if the current law forbids safeguarding, change the law.

I think that ‘gender reassignment’ needs to be removed from the Act altogether.

All the protections transgender people need could be provided by appropriate protection of their protected characteristics of ‘sex’ and ‘belief’.

People shouldn’t be treated differently on the basis of sex, unless their sex is actually relevant. So it should be fine for a man or boy to go to work or school in a skirt, with long hair, and a full face of makeup if it’s ok for a woman to dress/ present like that. The law should protect a man’s right to do this on the grounds that otherwise he experiences SEX DISCRIMINATION.
The law should not be pretending he is any kind of woman.

Where sex is relevant, women only spaces would be protected by the allowed exemptions to treat the sexes differently when it is justified. Transgender feelings are irrelevant- if it’s ok to exclude some men, it should be ok legally to exclude them all. If transgender persons feel their exclusion is unjustified, they should have to prove that sex is not relevant in that particular situation, so the sex discrimination exemptions should not apply.

And people who believe they have a different ‘gender identity’ should be protected from harassment and discrimination on the same basis as people holding any other belief, such as Muslims.

I would suggest too that in drafting the new laws, no lobby groups or pressure groups at all of any kind are permitted involvement or say. And anyone who has attended training by those groups or belongs to a department with a current or historical relationship with those groups is regarded as compromised and unable to participate in the drafting. Complete impartiality only.

Well isn't it interesting how often the EqA2012 keeps coming up as the barrier to women's rights and equality, to gay rights and equality, and now apparently to child safeguarding. It seems legally incompatible with other people's rights.

With all this evidence piling up, yes it does need to be re written and this time certain political lobbies kept firmly in a box. It's about equality for all, not supremacy for some at the cost of others. And any party that is behind that supremacism? Good luck in selling that to voters.

Yep.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Well, I'm sure it would be easy to ban social transition in school. Teachers are not medical staff so are not the appropriate people to be unilaterally facilitating this - the Cass report noting in particular that social transition is not a neutral act - teachers should be sacked for permitting it in the absence of medical care as they are practicing outside of their competence which is harmful.

In terms of "presentstion", there is no reason why boys and girls can't have the same uniform, hair and jewellery standards, this is one of the last bits of vestigial sexist distinctions, but otherwise agree that single-sex distinctions should be retained where it matters.

Quick reminder that it's the Equality Act, not the Equalities Act.

Here's what it says about the protected characteristic of gender reassignment:

Gender reassignment(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

As you can see, this is tremendously vague. I am not a lawyer, but to me the wording suggests that it refers to adults rather than children - can a child really be said to be proposing to undergo a process "for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex"?

To my mind, the people who drew up the law clearly had adults in mind. The phrase "other attributes" is problematic, but someone on here has previously pointed out that some attributes of sex can be biological without being physiological.

The use of the word "transsexual" shows that the legislators were operating in a very different mindset from the one that prevails in 2023.

If “gender reassignment” requires a GRC

It doesn't. And even if it did, the Act covers those 'proposing to undergo' reassignment as well as those who are doing or have done so - so it could still cover those too young to get one. The Act's a mess, and fails to define many things properly, which allows all sorts of bad faith (or just daft) interpretations.

I think social transitioning does come under the EA ("other attributes"), but I'm sure the legislation can still be tightened up. You can't ban social transitioning in school, but you can make it clear that schools must have single sex sports / spaces. You can make it clear that any name changes have to be formally requested with parental permission. You can make it so the school databases record sex and not gender and therefore cannot be altered.

Of course children who think they are transgender should not be discriminated against in school, but as with other areas of the equality act there needs to be a balance with other areas.

I agree that belief is now protected. Therefore no person should be forced to uphold a belief if it goes against their own, surely.

And if that is the case, no person on the planet should be coerced by law or by ‘being kind’ to use pronouns that are not in line with the sex of a person when that sex is known. The constant prioritisation of this small group’s demands has a spotlight shining on it now and it is ever so clear that consideration is expected to only ever flow towards them. Never both ways.

But remember this is the new meaning of the words ‘kind’ and ‘tolerant’.

I think it means all nurses are now women and all train drivers are men. And all people who wear skirts are women. Not sure what they would do about a train driver who wore a skirt. I guess they'd have to take them to an indoctrination camp until they choose whether they're a man or woman.

Repeal the GRA, stop issuing GRCs and let’s establish firmly in law, that whatever one chooses to do to one’s body, sex change is not possible.