Sunak to drop legal plans to bar transitioning in schools?

The NHSE MindEd modules for supporting gender distressed children/adolescents have been published. They include one for educators and while obviously not DfE guidance, they do emphasise the need for parental involvement, a holistic approach and a general message of caution around social transition as it is an active intervention:

https://www.minded.org.uk/Catalogue/Index?HierarchyId=0_59819&programmeId=59819

Noakes only has two faces.
Gormless. And erm, gormless.

Sonia Sodha was brilliant on Politics Live. Caroline Noakes face was a picture.

On Politics Live: schools need clear guidance on gender self-ID grounded in (i) clinical insight: the Cass review said social transition cd have long term psychological impacts on children (ii) the law that all children have right to access single-sex toilets & changing rooms

https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1701303339663696156?t=PHo67T3eQQbj4Al0eZWitA&s=19

Well I am sure this intervention will help the Tories get on with it!! (Not)

Liz Truss: Schools should not let children change gender identity
Former prime minister calls for ‘social transitioning’ to be scrapped

The former prime minister told The Times that the delay in publishing guidance by the government is “leaving schools in limbo” and “allowing misinformation to spread”. As minister for women and equalities Truss blocked plans for gender “self-identification”.

She said that social transitioning was “not a neutral act”, adding: “Therefore it should not be officially sanctioned before a young adult has the full decision-making capability to understand the consequences at the age of 18.

“I do not believe that this contravenes the Equality Act but if there are any legal issues, the government should legislate.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-gender-identity-transition-school-pupils-whxmw3cm7

Article behind paywall. Copy times link above into https://archive.ph

It isn't just on the surface. Even if a public figure with power and influence in ant sphere has doubts, they will be under pressure to use that power and influence in favour of gender ideology. Every word they say and write, their every vote in debate and decision in office, will be scrutinised for deviation from the agenda.

I did have a look into Milo Kinnock. It is appears that they were an adult when they made their decision for surgery. That's an important distinction to me because children clearly are very vulnerable, adults are different.

That's not really the point. A parent doesn't stop caring about their child just because they are an adult. Anything a parent in politics says about genderism as a political issue is likely to be interpreted by the child as being about them. They can't speak out against genderism without the child seeing this as a betrayal. They are effectively gagged.

And on the issue of vulnerability a young adult with a trans identity can be just as vulnerable than a child, just in different ways. As an adult, they can opt for all the medical treatment they want and the parents have no control over what they do. Milo's mother expressed some concerns about the surgery in that article, but that's as much as she can say.

I did have a look into Milo Kinnock. It is appears that they were an adult when they made their decision for surgery. That's an important distinction to me because children clearly are very vulnerable, adults are different.

Do we have any more examples applying to the Labour cabinet?

And I was asked whether I can tell the difference between someone who has transitioned and not. In the end that issue is about social behaviour. If you permit people to change their gender, then all you can do is design or regulate facilities which are single sex to ensure an overall level of conduct about what's acceptable in those spaces.

The Equality Act needs to be amended. Thereafter any government would then have a lawful basis for single sex environment biologically. If that isn't done, then the basis of guidance, training and recommendations by the Government are very likely to be unlawful.

The issue that keeps being ignored on this board is that to get any of these changes, there needs to be a lot political support. Bluntly there is not enough anywhere. A new government is coming that, on the account of some, is so pro self ID that it's barely even worth doing anything. Give up because they are all in a secret cabal of transgenderism.

If you believe that Labour are going to do self ID come hell or high water, via some underhanded secretive policy, then yes, bad news. But you've got nothing from the Conservatives either.

Campaigning mode is not the same as doing mode. If opponents of self ID don't make the next move into lobbying with proposals then yea, it's over. Getting angry won't give traction over anyone who actually makes decisions on this for the next few years. Given that this person is going to be Labour, what next?

The rhetoric is clear and everywhere: you can unconditionally convert, say exactly what you're told and do what you're told, or your child will carry out their threat and go and destroy themselves with no one but other extremists for support. They will have a community of other extremists who will be vigorously encouraging them to cut off all sources of support and connection other than the political lobby members. Those parents who are public figures no doubt have pressure put on them as to what they can say and do in role too.

Most parents understandably feel blackmailed into cowing themselves to the coercive control. At least on the surface.

One of them is Stephen Kinnock. One of his children identifies as non-binary and has had a double mastectomy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11876703/Mum-Neil-Kinnocks-granddaughter-reveals-fears-trans-son-gets-double-mastectomy.html

I don't know who the other MPs are who have trans identifying children. Of course this is one reason why TRAs have been so keen to promote the idea of the transgender child. It's so that their parents will then find it difficult not to promote the ideology themselves.

"I think in the interests of fairness you had better name these shadow ministers as it really contradicts my knowledge of the shadow cabinet."

I have not the faintest idea who they are. If you look back you will see that I was quoting what @RealityFan said on another thread.

They’ve promised to make it easier for people to obtain a GRC though. This will just be another small step towards self ID.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. It's entirely possible to have self-id functionally without passing the kind of law that they previously had planned.

They've always been very careful to leave a lot of wiggle room in their language on this.

The Labour Party have already dropped Self ID.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/uk-trans-rights-labour-party/674944/

Nothing the LP has said makes me think they will reject Self ID, or what amounts to it practically.

I do think there are people who see that it would be a political disaster, and would like to rule it out, but they can't come out and say that. And I don't think Starmer or anyone else has the kind of control of the party that it make it possible to clearly eliminate it either. The best we could hope for to my mind is they'll go quiet.

But I also don't think Self ID is the only, or maybe even main threat. Getting this shit out of schools, police, the NHS, etc, is just as important.

Well, the reason I explained why that was my position is so you understood. What are your solutions?

Exactly well said, we have diagnosis by gender dysphoria now and no Self ID and we have the man in the wig and skirt cutting through female teen changing rooms as a type of challenge

Those who ‘don’t mind sharing’ what will you do? You can’t ask someone for their GRC and medical history

I don't share your view regarding those who have completed a medical transition. I can share with such a person.

That's lucky for you. What shall we do with the women who can't? And who need equality of access to facilities and resources too, and had it when women's spaces and facilities focused on being inclusive to all women, instead of just the women privileged enough to choose to share them with men? Those women are tax payers, who pay for these facilities too. Their access to society and their inclusion is no less important than a man's.

I cannot share with a man who self IDs.

But realistically, how are you going to tell the difference? You can't ask. You have no way of knowing. To what extent 'completed'? How are you going to tell? How are you going to say no to the ones you don't agree with?

The GRA was this compromise attempt: it was intended for a very, very small number of men who were either fully transitioned or in the process of. Women were not considered. Men decided that such a small number of such transitioned men was something women could suck up without much harm. Thanks men for deciding for us and with no skin in the game.

This has led to any bloke at any time walking into a women's space regardless of the women there, and being able to get threatening and angry if any of them dare say anything or even in some cases known, to try and leave the room. The bloke taking selfies with the sword in the women's toilets for example. Men have proved; they lack the capacity as a sex class to respect or care enough about women, or to see women as something other than a resource they are wholly entitled to, for this to work and men have pushed this to the point we are now at. Where people have been truly stupid enough to permit convicted serious sex criminals to rape women prisoners and to permit men to rape women on hospital wards.

If it's one man, it's all of them. This has been proven.

The answer is mixed sex facilities where women who are happy to get their kit off in front of male strangers can do so, choosing their own consent and conditions, and male people can have the company of women that they so desire. And the women who do not and cannot consent to this can have their own single sex facilities.

It is however going to require law and gatekeeping, since very sadly, men have proved nothing but legal consequences will make them respect women's rights, consent and needs.

That’s the ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’ part?

I’m not seeing it in practise. There’s a thread running now with the op getting refused access to spaces without males. She has posted the screenshots of why she has been refused. It’s for rape support so pretty much the example given in that section

So I’m wondering why males are pretty much demanding to be anywhere, and getting that outcome, with that section in place

And what needs to change so we actually do get single sex spaces in reality

The legal basis for keeping a man with legal female sex out of single sex spaces is the EqA2010, Schedule 3, Part 7, paragraph 28.

It says that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment may be denied access to services and spaces reserved for the opposite sex. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment includes people who have completed the process of gender reassignment.

We don’t have Self ID now and look where we are. There’s fairly strict process on diagnosis etc but you don’t need surgery. I think Dodds? confirmed you won’t need surgery also

It’s not working for women and children. Men are getting more sure they can access female spaces, more extreme. Male bodies in sports, demanding access to rape support, and the compelled speech. Plus violence and threats

I think we’ve tried as a society but it’s not doable to think we can ignore we have two sexes and women and children lose out - always us, not men - when we think we can reorder by gender not sex

As I understand it, the challenge of diagnosis and medical, ie surgical transition has had the same issue for 40 years. Many doctors suggest it's a belief rather than a medical disorder. If there is a GP screening process to limit access to medical transition then okay.

@EasternStandard - I don't share your view regarding those who have completed a medical transition. I can share with such a person. I cannot share with a man who self IDs. And I have had to in the last few years. That is where I draw the line.

Brilliantly said. We don't form laws to promote the rights of other medically diagnosed individuals seperate from the population at large. We ensure they're protected under the law afforded to everybody. As trans already enjoy.

We're in danger of enshrining a religious sect with full blasphemy laws, to apply to those who gain a medical diagnosis.

Now who's crazy?

On gender dysphoria a few things

Diagnosis is already part of the process and Labour’s aim is to make transition easier

We don’t reorder society - especially to the detriment of other sections of society - for other dysphoria type conditions, we treat.

And lastly diagnosis is not stopping men ending up in extreme positions where we can see the ludicrous policies and harm they cause to women and children

Also
What can the legal basis be for keeping a man with legal female sex out of single sex spaces?

Can anyone answer that one as so far I’ve seen nothing other than don’t ask, we don’t talk about it

@Boksy - I think in the interests of fairness you had better name these shadow ministers as it really contradicts my knowledge of the shadow cabinet. A pro view that gender dysphoria exists is one thing, self ID quite another.

I can see the Labour Party rejecting self ID. Their statements indicate they will deal with gender dysphoria as a medical matter. Now that sounds rational to me.

My view is that self ID is open to abuse. That it can damage children. But gender dysphoria is something that I believe exists, very rarely.

I'd suggest that 'rights' is a contentious term for it, and at the very least is highly selective about which rights are to be enforced, because others, like the right to equality of protection and freedom from forced affiliations, and the right of girls not to be forced to undress in the presence of males because the male (and other males) wants them to, and the right of girls in general to not be disempowered, subordinated to male children and staff, and exposed in this way etc are being skimmed right over. Having rights over other children is also nowhere to be found.

Baroness Nicholson has commented before now that she was there when the rights of the child were being drawn up, she worked on that group, and this was NOT what they were intended to enable. Badenoch made a similar comment about how the Equality Act, intended to be a shield, has become a weapon for those in bad faith to get what they want at the expense of others in a way completely contrary to the purpose of the law.