Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

Sure - there's nothing that I'm aware of in the ECHR that would prevent the Equality Act being amended. I confess I haven't looked at that specific question so could be wrong.

But I am addressing the point about the ECHR to those claiming we should repeal the GRA. Perfectly entitled to hold that view, of course, but I think they should be honest that by definition then they also advocate the UK's withdrawal from the ECHR.

I mean fine, but 'I don't give a fuck about international law' isn't quite the rallying cry you seem to think it is.

If people want to argue for leaving the ECHR they are free to do so. But repealing the GRA is simply not possible while we are members (unless we change the rules to say ministers and civil servants are permitted to break the law).

You’ve said we can’t repeal the GRA unless exiting the ECHR but there is movement within domestic law

Then there was a conflation between the two

What could we do for women and girls here within the domestic laws?

I’m not sure if you are happy with the status quo so may not answer, but this recent statement seems to be domestic law related. Which implies change could be made?

Which two international treaties?

Withdrawing from an international treaty is not a breach of international law.

If you exclude the Boris Johnson years and the NI Protocol, the UK has a pretty good record on compliance with international law.

That's just not correct. When the Court confirms that, for example, Article 8 encompasses a right to change legal sex, any country that does not provide a route to changing legal sex is in breach of Article 8.

The specific judgment is issued against the country being challenged. But the state of the law applies across the board to all ECHR countries.

You seem to think law is only found in legislation but that's just not true. The vast majority of law in most legal systems is found in court judgments and precedents.

I don't give a fuck about international laws that allow people to pretend to be the opposite sex. I care about the State's responsibility to protect children from emotional, physical and sexual abuse.
Trans ideology / gender identity fantasy has no business being in schools and inflicted on children. The sooner this government gets out of the mess they've funded and enabled and ensures that schools go back to being politically impartial the better.

No place in any school for adults / activist groups looking to transition children and remove the rights of women and girls.

But the UK - by and large - has decided to be a country that abides by international law.

It most certainly has not. In the previous few months, the UK has signalled it is happy to breach two international treaties and happily consider withdrawing from a third.

The only other major countries that take a pick'n'mix approach to international laws are the US and Russia.

You keep going on about 'international law', then when I asked about the legislation you said it's all based on case law (like the Goodwin ruling).

My understanding of how the ECtHR works is that people (like Goodwin) can bring a case to them if they believe their government is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court decides if there has been a breach, and if so, that government is expected to put this right. But these rulings don't apply to all member countries, just the one which has been found to be in breach of the ECHR. Other countries don't have to do anything. They may also technically be in breach of these same human rights, but they don't have to do anything unless one of their citizens also goes to the ECtHR.

So what are these 'international obligations'? Where do I find out about the 'international law' that you keep going on about?

She really did.

Any attempt to legislate contrary to that would be a breach of international law. And therefore, is not something civil servants or ministers would be permitted to do.

I believe that ship sailed a while back. Otherwise the NIP and Illegal Immigration bills would have failed.

Anyway, it's OK to breach international law in limited and specific ways. I know, coz the government told me so.

'Doesn't ring true' ignores the actual objective facts.

The ECHR has found that there is a legal right to change one's legal sex to match gender identity.

Any attempt to legislate contrary to that would be a breach of international law. And therefore, is not something civil servants or ministers would be permitted to do.

Sorry but this is just legally incorrect.

The fact that there are countries that have not complied with their international obligations doesn't mean that those obligations don't exist.

It is open to each country to determine whether they comply with international law or not - that's the nature of it, there are very few enforcement mechanisms.

But the UK - by and large - has decided to be a country that abides by international law. I think that is the right call. And the ministerial code and the civil service code are grounded in abiding by the law. So in the UK at least, there is no realistic means of repealing the GRA while remaining in the ECHR.

Thank goodness the Tories know what a woman is. Hurrah !

Very.

God bless Maya, she moved mountains for women and children with her case.

That's another positive small step. Getting the DfE's civil servants to stop centring trans activists and instead to prioritise the needs of children will be a major achievement. It's the capture of the DfE that has unleashed unhinged trans extremism on children & as RealityFan pointed out:
"So, we let them (children) down twice over.
Encouraging them to ignore the evidence of their eyes, to often go against what they're taught in science, what they instinctually "know" is right.

And to let this play out to its logical extreme, complete confusion and opening all sorts of easy paths for dangerous outcomes.

Unconscionable."

I’ve a former colleague, an ex-teacher, who works at DfE and said that the head civil servant there recently cited the Forstater case in an all-staff meeting. Which must be positive.

Millions of years of human evolution incl sex function/mating/appearance.

Thousands of years of social construction/society building, critically based on above factor.

Less than a decade of going against all this, crucially laid at the feet of children, who critically rely on instinct tempered by what they're taught, to make up for their lack of real world experience.

So, we let them down twice over.
Encouraging them to ignore the evidence of their eyes, to often go against what they're taught in science, what they instinctually "know" is right.

And to let this play out to its logical extreme, complete confusion and opening all sorts of easy paths for dangerous outcomes.

Unconscionable.

I agree. It does give me some hope that finally these critical issues about socially grooming children, free speech, psychological harm & undermining fundamental safeguarding principles are finally being spoken about at the top of the government. Until now, they have cluelessly funded and ushered in all the trans activist groups into schools causing such extreme damage to children.
The guidance is for consultation initially so why not put it out with a set of questions for the challenging issues? I'm sure I've seen this in consultations before.
What they must do is get something out to schools ready for September that signposts the danger points.

Indeed. And each time someone feels discomfort, which is inevitable if they believe they have a gender identity which is different from their sex (while their physical body is inevitably developing).....the answer is to take another step along the journey to feel more comfortable. All the way up to medical intervention. Hence Cass stating that social transition is not a neutral act.

The first significant step within a social transition is a change in pronouns. It's a shift from being a boy with sparkly clothes or a girl with short hair to declaring you are no longer "aligned" with your physical body, and also declaring implicitly that your mental health hinges on everyone supporting this. At that point you're baking in an identity and the only way to maintain that belief is to take more and more steps to convince others that your gender identity is more relevant than your sex.

Very interesting discussion.
Another point - as I deal with groups of girls and need to address them collectively, if I say "Girls, please can you do xyz" then I can see the facial expression of the ones who I've been told to address as "he". They feel invisible, in a way that they wouldn't if they hadn't been told they can expect special treatment.

☝️ sorry, should have quoted this in my response.

Sadly we don't. That's why I would advocate getting the guidance out as is with the fact that parents "should" be involved.
There is a lot to sort out in the background, including politicians in positions like Gillian's getting a real grasp on the issues.
I took her latest statement to mean that she had taken a positive step in this direction.

I suspect Victoria Prentis' advice is correct, given how open to interpretation the EA wording is regarding gender reassignment. However, it's so wide open that it means any "gender" should be validated (catself, horseself, moonself and so on) as a valid reassignment because there is no clear distinction between "sex" and "gender". So reassigning to a different sex could mean anything. Meanwhile, there is the Children's Act (as a PP has said above, liaison with parents is critical), the warnings in the Cass Review and... plain old common sense.

Her latest statement is a pivot in language towards the safeguarding of children. To me that suggests that her eyes are currently being prised open.

Only a few years ago, a girl who preferred short hair, trousers and playing football was seen as a perfectly ordinary girl. Hardly anyone would have suggested, 10 or 20 years ago, that such a child was a transsexual.

At that time, gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder was seen as a medical condition which required professional diagnosis and psychological support to try to alleviate the person's distress.

Now we have a situation where adults (who really should know better) are suggesting to children that perhaps they have this medical condition, just because they don't conform to regressive stereotypes.

It's like an adult, on hearing that a child won't eat their food, suggesting to them that they might be anorexic and encouraging them to restrict their food intake further.

How do we know if Gillian Keegan knows any of this?

For anyone new to this, here's a clinical psychologist's take on how pretending to adolescents that their bodies are the opposite sex to reality sets up long term psychological damage & mental health problems. There's an equally powerful article about younger children on Transgender Trend's website:

https://www.transgendertrend.com/teenager-says-theyre-transgender/