Sunak to drop legal plans to bar transitioning in schools?

Good to see the true believers out in force! I'm sure, reading these posts you all believed (as did the govt) the faked, on Tik Tok, story of a child wanting to present as a cat? If a child wants to be seen as a different gender, then let them. Teachers should not be forced, as Sunak and Bedenoch want, to betray a child's trust and reveal their behaviour to their parents. Because that's what the govt are actually proposing. So, apart from spying on children for signs of 'radicalisation' not being allowed to criticise capitalism, now the 'not all interfering with school policies for political gain', govt wants teachers to report on children presenting the 'wrong' way in terms of gender. The fact that that puts children at risk with aggressively anti trans parents, well, who cares as long as the anti trans mob (and boy is that the right description) get their way, yeah? Before anyone gives out any parents know best rubbish, I can assure you, they really don't. We are all amateurs, there is no guide book, and our prejudices are all too often more important than our children's wellbeing. Whatever we may think. Teachers by contrast, and specialists in child health are professionals. They have a duty to the children, not to the parents. Once govt forces that to change, we should all beware the outcomes.

@MelodiousThunk

I’m what way am I ‘reading too much into it’? I don’t get that comment I’m pretty much agreeing with you. Yes it’s a promise and?

What you’ve said isn’t that surprising to me. Although I disagree on manifesto slightly as getting stuff past HoL can be a hurdle without it.

I'm afraid if Sunak thinks he'll reel this 8x Tory voter in with a promise to resolve this after the GE, he's sorely mistaken. I'll vote for the first Independent that promises to fix potholes with a side order of happy to state Women Equals Adult Human Female.

If this precipitates Flip Flopper on gender issues into No. 10...well, that's life.

@RoyalCorgi - all I can say is that there will be an underlying legal assessment on the judicial revenue risk. It does not surprise me that Prentis reversed Braverman's advice. One has a longer and more impressive legal career than the other. Equally it's confidential.

The other thing is that there are plenty of lawyers who will say there's an argument. But the Government has a far higher standard than that to advance legislation. It has to be signed off by many lawyers in government.

You can't expect a government to legislate on a chance. Usually all of these issues are dealt with internally and then the policy is announced after all the Government is on board. That didn't happen here as saying what the policy was before it had been legally tested occurred. That's on the people who were so excited about their own position they could not set their ego aside to wait. This is a particular problem with this Government.

Hopefully the next one will go back to the usual process of stress testing in private and over a year instead of a few months.

@EasternStandard i think you’re reading too much into it. They’ll save it for the manifesto because wavering voters vote on what a party promises to do, not on what they have done. There’s no
indication that they have any intention to
do it if re-elected. Manifesto promises aren’t worth tte paper they’re written on.

I’d be interested in reasoning too

Why do you think Labour will sort it rather than keep status quo or make it worse?

I would really need to see Prentis's reasoning. Why does she think that banning social transitioning in schools would break the law? Because it's not obvious to me.

My suspicion now is that they will just decide not to do anything at all before a general election and leave it to the next government (ie Labour) to sort out.

I can see your point

We haven’t really had the chance to vote on this properly at a GE

Use the manifesto to get mandate for legal changes, which would take a few years but I assume could be done

Not sure how problematic international law is

Good article, thank you for sharing.

If the option is going to be a group of weak, handwringing cowards going 'yes we know it's terribly wrong and we have a responsibility to the public but what can we doooo' or a group of raving lunatics desperate to do terribly wrong things faster and bigger, I honestly can't see the point of turning out to vote. And that's the first time in my lifetime I've ever seriously thought that.

Why is the political impartiality aspect of all this being ignored?
If schools were forced to comply with the actual law on remaining politically impartial then there'd be no place for Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, Global Butterflies, Educate & Celebrate or any of the grifting queer theory soaked organisations. They're ALL political activists, all openly campaigning to remove women's rights, child safeguarding etc. That alone renders them unsuitable to be allowed to sell their beliefs in schools & to children.

Yes, of course we need to do all of those things.
But we will also continue to have gender dysphoria clinics, hopefully operating without ideological contamination and able to offer adequate mental health diagnosis and care, unlike the Tavistock, rather than rubber-stamping transition.

No-one has suggested that a properly constituted GD clinic will never decide that an individual has a form of dysphoria for which social transition is appropriate. Perhaps they won't (and perhaps they shouldn't), but it would be a very odd kind of legislative overreach for the govt to pre-empt this possibility by banning schools from supporting transition in all cases, regardless of whether (in a tiny number of cases) the individual in question is being supervised by a properly operating GD clinic which has decided that transition is indicated.

Surely the objective should be to ensure that properly operating GD clinics, offering a properly wide range of mental health diagnoses and support, are available. And then to allow both medical and educational professionals to liaise and co-operate in relation to individual pupils where necessary, in the same way as they would for all other forms of mental ill-health.

Perhaps this will result in zero transitions, and perhaps not. But what would be the case for banning this in advance, rather than permitting appropriate professional collaboration? It isn't the role of government to decide what constitutes correct healthcare.

The role of government should be to provide schools guidance (and, where appropriate, legislation) to ensure that social transitioning doesn't happen without the medical agreement and supervision -- and also that it happens in a way that respects the rights of other children (as well as teacing staff).

Joan Smith on this in Unherd (archive link)

https://archive.ph/hNTnT

The safeguarding of children and women aren't minor little petty things.

The political capture of taxpayer funded institutions completely against public duty including the police and civil service is not a minor little petty thing.

This is not going to go away. It is just going lead to more and bigger never ending stinking messes, with a body count. This is in itself a classic safeguarding disaster.

People know. People are talking to each other about it. No one wants to be the bad guy. No one wants to risk damaging their own interests or provoking negative reactions particularly from difficult adults involved in the situation. Everyone's hoping if they don't look directly at the problem they can pretend it's not that bad and they're praying that someone else will sort it out for them. And in the mean time, they're all busily prioritising their own needs ahead of the people they have responsibility for protecting.

@RoyalCorgi - Braverman gave advice as AG that the UK should break international law. I think that goes to her credibility and she looks to be pursing an unlawful policy on boats. Prentis is a lawyer first and a politician second. Not sure that could be said of Braverman.

My point is that to change the law is a political decision, not a legal one. Lawyers don't drive policy but their advice will show the limits or flaws. Prentis has properly checked something that would breach public law obviously, and the proper politicians need to think again.

I'm waiting for conference season and then the manifestos

But ATM it looks as though I'll be voting for the only candidate to answer the Staniland question correctly last time (though I will ask them all again). He's a bit if an arse, but no more so than the front runners, and on this issue alone he'll probably get my vote.

I'm afraid if schools are not going to have legal restrictions here (Keegan gambit), and the AG advice that restricting pupils changing gender transgresses the EA, then I can see one of two scenarios.

Parents see no guidance from central govt, either moral or legal, and will feel they'll get no help from schools (teachers, the head) and local education authorities, more and more will feel helpless in objecting to their kids transitioning. And the phenomenon gets entrenched, more and more normalised, and parents/teachers objecting more and more sidelined and silenced. And the phenomenon grows in prevalence and depth.

This, but Generation Alpha take it into their hands to stymie the trend. As said before, young teens and proto teens will see what was a wacky and colourful counter culture movement become promoted and protected at school, and rebel against the new conformity.

The latter will involve an increase in verbals and bullying, a whole group of victimised special kids, a whole bunch of suspended and expelled pupils expressing GC views, and their parents rung out as well.

All because adults in charge failed to make the right decisions when the phenomenon became visible, and then allowed so much momentum and froth, that dealing with it at a later date (ie now) is even more challenging.

Maybe it really will be the kids that will sort it out, certainly the adults seem unable (or unwilling?) to.

I dare say she is a good lawyer. However, when Suella Braverman was AG she gave the exact opposite advice. Sex Matters also has good lawyers on its board, and they have also given opposite advice.

At the very least, the Equality Act protections on gender reassignment are vague enough to be open to interpretation.

There are no 'appropriate transitions'. We need to let kids know that it's perfectly OK, cool even, to be as gender-nonconforming as they wish. Also that it's fine, natural and normal to be gay. And show them role models of successful non-conforming people. No need to take medications or boutique plastic surgeries to make their bodies 'fit'.

It really makes no sense to pass legislation in the year running up to an election, particularly legislation that might expose a split in the governing party - you are just depriving yourself of manifesto promises and handing ammunition to the opposition if you do so. It won't win them any new voters, but might help to shore up their crumbling base and save a couple of seats.

Tory friends getting a bit whiffy, eh?

It's an interesting question because this Government have run out of road. There is not a quick fix because of all legal challenges that will come. Don't blame Prentis, blame Badenoch for overpromising. All these articles attacking her colleagues for being wrong are very her.

What you have to look at is the cohort of MPs and their views. A large mandate cab splinter easily as Johnson and May found out. So a lot depends on Labour Party discipline.

The other question i generally have is how much mandate overrides these hurdles

If we vote for a non gender ID set up is it doable?

It feels unwieldy and self feeding at this point

True. I will do

The we will strengthen but also defend the EqA also made me question what exact legal changes would be proposed

But as you say an article doesn’t mean much at this point

@EasternStandard - I have only got Dodd's slightly weasally statement. It tells me that self ID is nominally off the table. But no clue as to the wider policy. I would read the manifesto carefully because an announcement means nothing in terms of delivery

I don't know if this perhaps deserves it's own thread, but in the DM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12489463/Fears-NHS-fast-tracking-teens-waiting-list-treatment.html

They have also got an article on this backtracking, probably copies from the Times and something about an LGBTQ+group at GOSH putting out guidance discouraging staff from using 'gendered language' (like boys and girls) that the hospital has posted on it's website.

Perhaps we need an 'in the Mail today' thread? Although, it might give MN an attack of the vapours.