Kemi Badenoch to face Women & Equalities Committee’s questions on equalities issues - 13 December 2023

A more nuanced approach based on the individual child, in relation to changing name, pronouns etc. with parental involvement unless it is a safeguarding issue.

Where did this idea come from that parents can sometimes be excluded if there is a "safeguarding issue"? What sort of "safeguarding issue" would warrant the exclusion of parents?

I know not everyone will agree with me but I see this separating out issues. For example a hard stance on sports, facilities etc being single sex. The statutory guidance and the recent judgement I.e. no child can have a GRC so their legal sex is the same as recorded at birth support this.

A hard stance on bullying and harassment of children who believe sex is binary, those who are questioning their sexuality, gender etc. In fact a hard stance on any bullying or harassment.

A more nuanced approach based on the individual child, in relation to changing name, pronouns etc. with parental involvement unless it is a safeguarding issue.

We saw this before with the census return.

Goose getting cooked ever faster.

Totally.

When the government recognises that the abandonment of child protection is a feature, not a bug, they'll be on that bloody law change in a trice.

I'd also think it's helpful for Downing Street to see that this lobby believe they make the laws in the UK, not the government. Which basically renders the MPs, HoL and HoC irrelevant if an extremist lobby group can just tell people on tv which laws to comply with and what to just not bother with them.

I mean who needs democracy? We've got an extremist lobby with rainbow laces.

Goose getting cooked ever faster.

If schools ignore this guidance, how honest is the claim that they have crying out for guidance for years?

A well known barrister on tv, advising schools to ignore the democratic government and their guidance.

And not safeguard children basically.

The 'they are out of their minds and a law change is now going to pass in the HoC and HoL' evidence file in Downing Street must be needing a couple of new shelves this week.

RMW was on GB News saying teachers and schools can ignore the guidance and Michael Foran has given his view on the guidance
https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1737204273870483600?s=61&t=W8z-NdrPTYy21FuiQuezcw

And to make sure that they do not victimise the pupil, which essentially means making sure they can fully access the school and education.

It is quite right that they don't have to do any of those things. As I understand it schools do have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, but that is it.

I used to read it but noticed during the pandemic how skewed and badly evidenced articles had become

TRA articles too. Apparently something to do with relying on US funding? I haven’t looked it up though

You're quite right. Maya Forstater wrote a brilliant piece on the Sex Matters website pointing out just this.

@AutumnCrow @EasternStandard

The Guardian seems to deliberately misrepresent data in articles to drive outrage and clicks. As soon as you look into the source data, the claims that they make often fall apart.
It is a pity as in the past the paper was a good place to look for a well reasoned article.
What was it that changed at the Guardian?

Yes. I think you have summed it up.

It is like the brain dead declaration that people who prioritise female people’s need for sex based rights to remain sex based are ‘anti trans’. In that logic universe it then works that those supporting the deprioritisation by elevating male people’s demands above female people’s needs is ‘anti-woman’. And those throwing around anti-trans don’t seem to like that bit of logic being pointed out ….

If the guidance is going to 'increase tranphobic bullying' then if you've actually read the guidance, you would have to draw the conclusion that 'transphobic bullying' actually means 'other children don't have to get undressed in front of you' and 'don't have to use compelled language for you;

That literally is what many of these people think.

I agree, you're spot on. They've had their own way and like all spoiled brats eventually told, "Sorry darling, you can't have that," a fist clenching, foot stamping tantrum has ensued.

If the guidance is going to 'increase tranphobic bullying' then if you've actually read the guidance, you would have to draw the conclusion that 'transphobic bullying' actually means 'other children don't have to get undressed in front of you' and 'don't have to use compelled language for you;. And staff cannot transition children without accountability and parental involvement.

And that's it. That's what all the fuss is about. That other children are to have rights TOO, and safeguarding cannot be used to politicise children and separate them from their parents.

And then you start to realise what you're dealing with, and that 'nice' isn't going to help here.

And my God is there a LOT of that on the menu this week.

Yes, it's a bit sauteed bollocks in bollock sauce.

That Guardian article is some weird piece of shit writing.

Let’s hope, with his success rate, that Foxy takes a case.

Well, I agree, especially on this subject.

The Guardian is pure clickbait these days