Nick Fletcher tells Gillian Keegan some home truths

Indeed. Keegan & her senior staff all appearing uninformed and completely clueless about safeguarding, instead wibbling on about "navigating" schools & the scary all important lawyers (mainly Stonewall captured with a vast dollop of self interest in transing other people's children as we are often reminded on here)

Frood nailed it when she said this yesterday:
"heavy paperwork needs to be required to socially transition a pupil, all signed, named staff, copies filed with the LA, a big process with a lot of practical accountability for the adults involved. Considering how much bumph has to be filled out to take six children to the park across the road for ten minutes in a lesson, or to get additional staffing support for a child with serious SEND why is this taken so much less seriously?

That needs to be part of the feedback to this consultation. That, in the interests of safeguarding and professional record keeping, every single adult who decides to socially transition a child in school must sign on the dotted line that they are doing this. It's a psychological intervention being made by unqualified useful idiots staff in schools so they will also need to keep full records of all their interactions with them. Just as you do when taking a disclosure of abuse, or as a qualified psychologist or counsellor. This must also apply to everyone working for the numerous dodgy organisation being given access to children in schools - their unqualified, self interested interventions with children must also be formally recorded and signed off by the school.

I think this committee also makes schools seem afraid of being sued, afraid of not falling in line, but my experience is that schools are often complicit and very much part of the problem. That is why guidance may not work.

@Froodwithatowel - you are absolutely spot on about the need for lots of paperwork, and making sure all the adults involved have full accountability for whatever happens due to their interference.

More women than men promote gender ideology: are we saying that women are less intelligent than men?

That wasn't what I was saying. I was referring to this particular child and their parents. I am assuming (but may be wrong) that the child has a mother and a father, that this is not a same sex couple. It appears that both parents are on board, so my comments about their intelligence applies to both equally. How people handle this with their own children is a separate issue from promoting the trans agenda.

But there also seem to be more women than men pushing back against gender ideology, so using your argument we might just as easily conclude that women are actually more intelligent than men. Generally, I think women are more likely to get swept into the "be kind" camp without giving it much thought.

But you only have to look at yesterday's HoC debate about the GRA to see how intelligent or otherwise people on each side of this debate look when they discuss this stuff. People like Anneliese Dodds, Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle all looked like utter idiots.

It’s isn’t actually to do with intelligence, even though it feels like it when you’re forced to point out the obvious. More women than men promote gender ideology: are we saying that women are less intelligent than men? Thinking out loud I’m guessing there is a combination of factors including personal values, personality, socialisation, susceptibility to external influences, peer group, politics and environment etc. Intelligence comes into it but plays a small part. Gender is entrenched in society cross-culturally to the point where it seems like natural human behaviour to differentiate between the sexes on more than just biological reproductive roles. It’s almost impossible to establish whether many differences between men and women are nature/nurture. This is one of the reasons the dinosaur comparison is not immediately understood as analogous by many people. I would have thought an understanding of radical feminism would be protective against this ideology but I think I might be wrong on that…

Absolutely no suspicion of sexual abuse, but unavoidable family trauma.

Of course, that's the other reason for this. Although I said abuse which covers a much wider range of issues than sexual abuse.

So I should have said:

"The only reasons I can think of for a child that age to want to be the opposite sex is because they're being forced to comply with stereotypes or because they're being abused in some way (not necessarily sexually) or there has been some other trauma in their life."

But I really do doubt the intelligence of parents who are even discussing with professionals about their 3-year-old claiming a cross-sex identity. Would they have taken their child to the doctor if the child had insisted that they were a dog or a dinosaur?

I try to understand their position but I don't support their actions at all.

They've been led where mainstream 'medicine' has taken them. In the gender industry dissenting voices are quashed. Evidenced by the large numbers of resignations from GIDS.

And @unwashedanddazed I disagree. They’re not “good people”.

Absolutely appalling to subject a three year old to this. Fucksake 😡

I can't explain, it's too outing. Absolutely no suspicion of sexual abuse, but unavoidable family trauma. I have no idea what reading the parents have done, a lot I imagine. They didn't just dive in recklessly it was a long therapeutic journey, unfortunately under ideologically driven professionals, including the most high profile ideologue in the business. They're good people in the grip of an insidious delusion, with their every move supported by the professionals around them, health and otherwise.

Why would a 3 year old child think this way? The only reasons I can think of for a child that age to want to be the opposite sex is because they're being forced to comply with stereotypes or because they're being abused.

And the parents can't be that intelligent if they think that bringing their child up to believe they're the opposite sex, starting at an age when the child can't possibly understand what this means, is a better course of action than letting them grow up first before making irreversible decisions.

Why weren't these very intelligent parents doing all the reading and research you did before putting their young child on this pathway?

And by proxy, every other set of parents. Many of whom may hold different beliefs and not wish their children taught that they must perform a more important person's beliefs and set their boundaries according to that more important person's wishes and feelings while their own must not be mentioned.

I don't know how a school could legally ban social transition if it's being done by the parents.

There's more than just the 'trans child' to consider. Social transition by definition means that other children have to take part.

One set of parents cannot force every other child in the school to go along with a lie they may be too young to understand.

Apologies, bookmarking this for tomorrow.

When this first started I was completely neutral on this subject, although I had my theories on why the child felt this way. I was interested in how the family (very intelligent parents) might manage the situation. I immediately started to read far and wide, articles, peer reviewed studies, trans forums, everything I could find, for and against. I've continued to read for the past nine years. The more I know, the more horrified and despairing I become.

How this ideological bullshit has managed to infiltrate the whole of society is beyond my understanding.

The child in my family who has been socially transitioned since the age of 3, under the Tavistock, who is now 12 and on puberty blockers is integrated into school life as the opposite sex.

Excuse me what??!! You know a child who has been socially transitioned since the age of 3? That poor child, that is blatant state-aided child abuse.

They just don't bring it into the classroom.

Most schools have gender neutral uniform options: there is no need then for boys to wear skirts. No child should be using changing or toilet or sleeping spaces for the opposite sex at any time, additional spaces provided as needed for privacy and dignity. No changing the child's name from what they were registered as. No getting involved in discussions about gender, it doesn't enter school and isn't relevant at school, and unqualified teachers shouldn't be influencing or getting involved in this. The child at home can do what they and their family choose, but there are limits to what comes into school in terms of self expression, as is standard with hair, clothes, jewellry etc. Reduce the fuss and specialness and excitement of it all. And no dodgy clubs.

It should be a neutral space, neither encouraging nor discouraging, and this not only means no risk of influencing and encouraging a child based on adult agendas and feelings, but also guarding against locking a child into something that will be hard to row back from should their wishes and feelings change. Surely this is what really matters, that children going down this path do so without being pushed in any direction, and that their options are kept as open as possible for as long as possible to avoid disasters like Keira Bell's?

Just listened to the whole available clip.

Yes, she is displaying worrying ignorance about puberty blockers. She also clearly has no appetite for looking at how the Equality Act may need amending to support children. I appreciate she's not responsible for either of these areas, and taking on Caroline Nokes would be tricky, but she's not acting in children's interests. I assume that there would need to be a law change to say that the PC of gender reassignment doesn't apply to under 18s.

She's staying in her narrow lane and completing a box ticking exercise only. Not good enough. She should be leading on how this is tackled and demanding that the Cass Review and Equality Act join up with the schools' guidance in a way that best protects children.

I don't know how a school could legally ban social transition if it's being done by the parents.

IIRC Sex Matters had a briefing on this where it stated that school enrolment may only legally be done with what is on a birth certificate. Therefore, the school could and should refuse to provide male children, access to the female facilities and sports and so on, and vice-versa. Because they are in possession of the facts, and they have duties to other children as well.

I don't know how a school could legally ban social transition if it's being done by the parents.

The child in my family who has been socially transitioned since the age of 3, under the Tavistock, who is now 12 and on puberty blockers is integrated into school life as the opposite sex. The school can't stop this. Nor can they refuse them a place as a pupil, I would assume.

The most the guidance can do is stop social transition being done by school staff without the parent's knowledge. Which I very much hope is in the guidance.

I completely disagree with the way this child has been raised, but it's not up to me.

Fletcher said stating his views won't win him any votes. I think he's very mistaken about that.

It’s not much better if she got PBs confused with CSH. Cross sex hormones are given from the age of 16 so still before the child gets to the adult clinic.

She is hopeless. Thank goodness for Kemi.

You didn't jump the gun. I was waiting for her to correct herself or for her to be corrected but there was nothing. She almost doubled down on it when she waffled about no medical intervention before adulthood, which can only be true of you don't count puberty blockers as a medical intervention (which would be wildly misleading in its own right).

I'm also surprised she wasn't picked up on her sidestep of the point (per the Cass review) that social transition (then puberty blockers) actively leads to the cascade of further medical intervention in adulthood. It was irritating that Nick Fletcher was cut off as I think he may have got round to that with his sparks and fires point.

I suspect you're right and she has confused the two. But yes, the implications of that mistake are significant and she needs to correct it ASAP.