Telegraph: No 10 drafts laws to ban children from changing gender in school

So guidance for schools at the start of the summer term (April) was promised, never happened, then end of term, postponed. Now talk of law in the Kings Speech in November. No doubt other bills will take priority such as another migration bill or others that are just talk and no action.

So probably no change at all this side of the general election. Seems like the Telegraph were given another story to detract from the two by election losses.

There are even many GC feminists who have openly stated that they support the PC of GR in the EA2010 because it protects all TP against discrimination.

It doesn’t make sense though does it?

‘TP’ are only unfairly discriminated against for:

1. Gender non-conformity and defying sex stereotypes. This is sex discrimination.
2. Homosexuality or presumed homosexuality. This is discrimination relating to sexual orientation.
3. Neurodiversity or mental illness. This is disability discrimination.
4. Belief in genderism/queer theory. This is discrimination based on religion or belief.

There is no need for a separate protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ without enshrining sex stereotypes in law, which is sexist.

’TP’ can be fairly discriminated against for:

1. Attempting to use opposite sex facilities and services.
2. Promoting genderism/queer theory as though it is a fact.
3. Crossdressing and behaving in an inappropriately sexualised and intimidating manner.
4. Attempting to work in an opposite sex role where others are entitled to retain a single/same sex environment.

What is the point of lobbying the government if you think they are just going to take up the TRA analysis?

On that basis you could say "What's the point of lobbying Labour, LibDems etc?" It's time to hold the government's feet to the fire. Now, because we'll have a different government soon.

Right now we need them to sort out safeguarding in schools before the children return in September. And nothing in the Telegraph article or KB's rebuttal is filling me with confidence on that front.

I wonder whether this is being bounced around in Conservative HQ as a possible “issue” to hang the GE on - having just narrowly scraped Uxbridge on anti-ULEZ. I can imagine they think people who will scream discrimination aren’t Tory voters anyway. Leak to the telegraph being the standard way to test a policy!

We would end up with full self-ID.

What a bizarre response to the Tories suggesting protecting women's rights and clarifying what being trans means.

Had it been a statement from the Labour party your comment would have made sense.

Its getting stranger and stranger that comments on FWR seem to assume the TRA position.

What is the point in lobbying the current Government if you think they are just going to take up the TRA analysis.

Why would the Tories be bothering about what is going on in schools if that was their mind set.

Totally illogical.

But of course if the tories get kicked out at the next GE then all your over the top remarks would be relevant to a Labour or even a Lib Lab government.

This could be treated the same as any other safeguarding issue.

But the current issue in hand is how to protect children from being socially transitioned in schools. One law change or guidance document is not going to solve everything.

In the case of a family wishing to affirm and progress their child's transition, I'd be interested in what they would want the school to do that the loss of would mean withdrawing the child.

The answer for schools because of child safeguarding and freedom of belief is neutrality, to simply take the heat out of it. For staff to neither encourage nor discourage, to give space and time, to not participate in steering a child in any direction, to not give biased, political information, and to provide the support and care offered to all children without any politics getting involved.

Other than not using spaces for the opposite sex for toilets/changing over the age of 8, (which shouldn't happen anyway), what would this neutral approach deny a child?

There's a really simple thing they could do to protect children - just amend Section 84 of the EA and add gender reassignment to the PCs that do not apply to school pupils.

I think this would be a problem too. Parents who want to support their child’s transition would just home ed them, though that would be interesting if the new identity wasn’t being reinforced day-to-day by peers and teachers. Some children detransitioned during lockdown, partly because of lack of reinforcement.

Agree.

It needs to be that women's rights, spaces, resources and access and child safeguarding is properly and fully protected regardless of how a male person identifies, what papers they hold, how excluded they feel, yada yada.

GRCs could then be handed out like sweeties, and it won't matter. The needs of those who wish to identify out of their sex can be met without mugging women and children for their rights and equality. If the argument is that they can't, then those needs are highly debatable, and not ones that can be facilitated, any more than a 'need' to steal cars or a 'need' to go around kicking people can be facilitated and catered for.

Oh well I’m glad I didn’t bother to wonder what that was about

There’s a lot going on behind the scenes

No. When the previous consultation took place the GRA was basically obsolete (as it is today).

If a GRC was needed in order to be protected in the EA then it would cease to be obsolete and something almost nobody bothers getting. EVERY person with a trans ID would suddenly be clamouring for one and public opinion would shift.

It's fine for us to say just scrap the lot of it and all the obfuscatory language (and I agree, that would be ideal) but that's not how the world works.

We would end up with full self-ID.

And of course, prick news are so equally ignorant about the principles of keeping children safe that they give this person space to share their self important lack of knowledge .

This would be a terrible idea. Can you imagine the pressure to 'simplify' the GRC process if EA protection depended on having one?

The "simplification" has already happened following the consultation that many of us responded to.

There may be pressure from certain groups, but because of that doesn't mean that the obvious (for legal clarity) need for a GRC to then be covered by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, shouldn't be accepted.

The same as the need to clarify that the word sex in the ERA is about biological reality.

It is the failure to clarify what thinks mean, that suddently a notion that has no reality in law (social transitioning) is being thrown around as though it were a reality, rather the weasel words of a group who through distorting language are getting the outcome they want without the legal scrutiny to say whether it is right or wrong.

Terrifying to think that not only does this "educator" not understand safeguarding but they're so fucking arrogant that they reckon they can keep secrets from parents! That's parents who have the legal responsibility to keep their children safe yet this utter fool thinks they understand a mentally unwell child better than their parents.
These are the professionally dangerous adults who need exposing and challenging every single time.

This would be a terrible idea. Can you imagine the pressure to 'simplify' the GRC process if EA protection depended on having one?

Yes I thought the same.

I was just coming to comment on this but I see it's gone.

A Whitehall source said that one option being considered is to amend Section 7 of the Equality Act (Gender Reassignment) by stating that it only applies to people with a gender recognition certificate.

This would be a terrible idea. Can you imagine the pressure to 'simplify' the GRC process if EA protection depended on having one?

There's a really simple thing they could do to protect children - just amend Section 84 of the EA and add gender reassignment to the PCs that do not apply to school pupils.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/84

If they're going in to make amendments to clarify the meaning of sex then why not just do this at the same time?

Ye Gods I knew it was too good to be true.

I wonder what bit she's disputing. That No.10 are drafting a law? Or that the law being drafted contains a ban on children changing gender in school?

Wouldn't be the first time the govt has floated an idea in a 'no no, leak, accident, ignore pls' way to see what kind of a reaction it gets.

Pinknews. OK.

I think they should just remove gender reassignment as a PC (and stop issuing GRCs)

Discrimination against gender reassignment is already covered by the beliefs section of the EA.

There's a war within DfE and it seems there's a real drive to discredit KB and No 10. And surely, the Telegraph didn't publish something without fully verifying it first?

The article has been taken down from the Telegraph website but by going to archive.ph and pasting in https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/22/no-10-ban-children-change-gender-schools/ it can still be read.

As the Times editorial is saying something really different can only imagine the warring factions in the cabinet are putting out very different briefings.