Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

Irritation is understandable. It does seem that derailing often happens when women on here are discussing children / schools. The last thread about these guidelines suffered from interminable word salad posts from a trans person about their personal issues that very successfully derailed the thread.

I'm not criticising anyone for their posts - and completely understand why a discussion about legal issues is relevant given the halting of the process.
But it would be good to discuss the intersection of education / safeguarding law that appears to be actively suppressed in favour of trans activist interests.

Yes. Colluding with people’s fantasies is rarely a good idea. And passing laws to enforce it is an assault on human rights (which must include the right to believe in reality rather than anyone’s pretence).

How can pointing out what the alternative will be be posted in bad faith?

It scares the crap out of me, genuinely.

Thanks for the apology though

@SunnyEgg sorry for being irritable, I’ve been getting impatient about derails lately (possibly because of the number of them which appear to be in bad faith) but, on the plus side, at least I haven’t just waded through pages and pages of cake and cheese chat.

I can post as I wish.

I don’t need your permission.

As for current situation obviously there’s legal barriers that need to be resolved: Badenoch and Cates are our best bet now and if it’s after a GE

Not if they’re out though

This thread is about the schools guidance which the UK Government Prime Minister claimed to be committed to issuing.

Why are you derailing onto the actions of the party that isn’t in government and can’t issue instructions to DFE civil servants? The next UK Parliament election could be 18 months away. The current government need to get this sorted now while they are in power. If it’s actually true that they are committed to it.

Kemi Badenoch and Miriam Cates must be so frustrated by all this.

And why is someone else repeatedly derailing the thread onto the GRA 2004, which doesn’t apply to under 18s, in a thread about schools?

Frances Weetman has Tweeted that Labour are institutionalising his attitude, it will become the default for the future.

That's interesting .I guess it should be ECMR though rather than HR (Court of Men's rights) because GRAs do not protect women's rights. In which case we should leave it and have a much more equitable legal framework.

This is what we’ll get

And the new MP Keir Mather labelled the marvellous Germaine Greer an 'abhorrent transphobe' for knowing that biological sex is real.

Why do people keep saying this when the alternative is worse?

We all know this. I don’t get it. Why will something that’s worse in power?

How many more loyal voters do the Tories want to lose in 2024?

These examples were brought up by the poster I was responding to.

And I’ve already explained how repealing the GRA would breach international law.

Statement
I have been working closely with my Right Honourable Friend, the Minister for Women and Equalities on guidance for schools and colleges when a child is questioning their gender.
We have always said that this is about safety for children. It is a difficult and sensitive area and more information is needed about the long-term implications of a child to act as though they are the opposite sex. We also need to take care to understand how such actions affect other children in the school or college. These decisions must not be taken lightly or in haste.
It is vital that the guidance we publish gives clarity for schools and colleges and reassurance for parents. 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.
In the meantime, schools and colleges should proceed with extreme caution. They should always involve parents in decisions relating to their child, and should not agree to any changes that they are not absolutely confident are in the best interests of that child and their peers. They should prioritise safeguarding by meeting their existing legal duties to protect single sex spaces and maintain safety and fairness in single sex sport.
I want to give reassurance of how seriously we are taking this issue, and will endeavour to keep the House updated ahead of any developments.

That’s Keegan kicking it into the long grass.

Thanks for those completely irrelevant examples of international law.

Now can you explain how not being allowed to falsify your birth certificate breaches international law?

"Incidentally, those who 'don't give a fuck' about international law might also ask themselves if they give a fuck about the Good Friday Agreement, because withdrawing from the ECHR would be a breach of that Agreement too".

Alexa - show me a squirrel 😂

I'm sure it is. They must be on at least version 10 by now - having started from a dreadful trans activist inspired "be kind and roll over girls" base.
It's getting them to find ways round the demand to centre trans ideology but instead to focus on the need to safeguard children. The exemptions in the Equality Act are there for a reason (as the incoherent Stonewall's lead managed to mention yesterday). The law on single sex toilets for children exists. The law on political impartiality for schools exists. The Children Act's requirement to work in partnership with parents exist.
Implementing all of these would go a long way to remove queer theory political activists from schools, would reinforce that only the courts can remove parental authority and so on.
That would be a start.

Incidentally, those who 'don't give a fuck' about international law might also ask themselves if they give a fuck about the Good Friday Agreement, because withdrawing from the ECHR would be a breach of that Agreement too.

They could (as far as I know - I haven't researched the ECHR implications around the Equality Act). But probably not before the next general election.

Hopefully that is what is happening behind the scenes

Views on how to get where we want to go domestically at least

They can change the latter though?

But that is what is happening. Victoria Prentis has given her advice on how the Government can act within the confines of the law.

Your exasperation is no justification for the government breaking the law - either by repealing the GRA contrary to international law, or by issuing guidance which is in breach of domestic equality law.

Neither are particularly good examples. For all its cruelty and abhorrent policy, the Immigration Act is not unambiguously contrary to international law. It’s arguable, certainly. But to proceed it would have needed confirmation from the AG that it was, in her view at least, compliant with international law.

The Protocol Bill, by contrast was unambiguously in breach of international law in my view, and was only progressed because Johnson appointed an unqualified toady as AG to give the legal view he wanted. But that Bill has been pulled - precisely because this AG has confirmed that it no longer has any legal justification in international law.

It's not meant as a rallying cry. More an exasperation about a country full of adults who have (mostly) stood back and watched adult activists enable social contagion to rampage amongst the most vulnerable of children in our society.
The legal discussions will continue but I'm more concerned that the government uses the current safeguarding & education laws (including on political impartiality in schools ) to ensure that children are safeguarded from an adult ideology currently doing too many of them long term harm.

And going back to the op we could change whatever is causing Prentis to say there is a barrier

Yes I didn’t know before but your posts have convinced me they go hand in hand