School Guidance out Tomorrow

“That example of harassment in the pub would put the fear of god into a headteacher trying to navigate this.”

Oh, come off it. Schools have all sorts of stupid and petty rules that the children are required to comply with. It doesn’t mean that the children are being harassed by those rules.

Using correct sex pronouns for all pupils - regardless of protected characteristic - on the basis that using opposite sex pronouns is not a neutral act, would not be less favourable treatment of the pupils with the PC of GR.

Another thing that the hypothetical headteacher could do is avoid conflating “less favourable treatment” and harassment.

It's the Equality and Human Rights Commission who detail deliberate misgendering as an example of harassment, not the hypothetical headteacher.

The child never had a right to be called a different name or pronouns or wear a different uniform.

Then how come the guidance cannot say that they definitely don't have the right? Why is it having to allow for exceptional circumstances?

All the guidance is doing is trying to narrow down the circumstances in which it can happen as much as possible, because it cannot ban it.

The guidance is clear on single sex. There’s no ‘guilty’ about that.

The child never had a right to be called a different name or pronouns or wear a different uniform. The activists who were invited to train professionals in their own preferred version of the law should be held accountable for the mess we're now in, though they won't be. Schools will have to sort out the mess they allowed to happen, and some likely vulnerable kids will be in a shit position be iase adults who should have stopped this didn't. It's shit but it's got to be righted, we can't carry on with the mess because cleaning it up will be unpleasant.

Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not mean that children with that PC should be subject to lower standards of safeguarding, and less protection of their future physical and mental health, than children without that PC.

Social transitioning of children is not a neutral act.

I think Noble giraffe is getting a hard time here. There is nothing in law that states that the PC of gender reassignment doesn't apply to under 18s. That example of harassment in the pub would put the fear of god into a headteacher trying to navigate this. Cass did also say that doing nothing in the case of a student iding as trans is also not a neutral act. We tend to quote this a lot less than her saying social transition was not a neutral act! I think some people here are as a guilty as Stonewall of presenting the Law as they want it to be rather than as it is (which is a total mess...)

Again child v adult is relevant

Schools will not allow boys and girls in same facilities

The same is not true for adults

The DfE lawyers flagged up that the new guidance was wide-open to legal challenge before it was published today

[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/trans-guidance-dfe-lawyers-said-schools-face-high-risk-of-being-sued/

What’s relevant is whether the pupil is an adult or a child.

Not when it comes to whether children can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Another thing that the hypothetical headteacher could do is avoid conflating “less favourable treatment” and harassment.

Let’s face it, plenty of kids think that being expected to get off their phones and do their homework is outrageous harassment and victimisation.

Children are not subject to the same as adults which is why girls and boys will be separated at facilities in schools but women and men are not

“Whether they can legally drink in a pub or not is entirely irrelevant”

What’s relevant is whether the pupil is an adult or a child.

The reason the question of whether the pupil is an adult or a child is relevant is because - as Cass said - social transitioning of children is not a neutral act.

Whether they can legally drink in a pub or not is entirely irrelevant as to whether they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment which is what the Equality and Human Rights Commission are referring to when they detail that particular example of harassment.

Why should a headteacher pay attention to what they say?

"We are an independent statutory body with the responsibility to encourage equality and diversity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and protect and promote the human rights of everyone in Britain.
We enforce equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation – these are known as protected characteristics."

Here’s one idea for what that hypothetical headteacher could do (as you’ve used a pub landlord as a relevant comparator for a headteacher) - Perhaps the hypothetical headteacher could make a distinction between pupils who can legally go to a pub and drink alcohol (being over 18 and legally adults) and those pupils who can’t legally go to a pub and drink alcohol because legally they’re, you know, children.

Nobody was ever required by law to use a child's preferred pronouns. So the goverment doesn't need to say they can stop. If the headteacher jumped into that heffalump trap, whether unthinkingly or deliberately, they'll have to work out how to get back out. They did something they shouldn't, you can't expect guidance to now say they can carry on doing it?

Having a PC just means you must not be treated less favourably than someone without the PC

If you go to the Equality and Human Rights Commission website then this is one of their examples of harassment against someone who holds the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Now ask any headteacher who visits that page what they should do about pronoun use in their school.

It's because you started your comment about children using preferred pronouns with their mates with "When you work in a school with poor behaviour".

If peer relationships are causing problems - whatever they are - then the adults must intervene & tackle it.

As Cass says, social transitioning is not a neutral act and doing nothing is also not a neutral act. Therefore intervening to detransition where someone has transitioned is likely not a neutral act. I do not feel qualified to make that intervention.

I would most likely put it on CPOMs tbf.

That's an "unusual" interpretation of what I said. I responded to your point about social transitioning amongst friendship groups being a major part of in-school transitioning with an example of how adults in schools have to take responsibility for ensuring that a school's peer culture & things like out of class behaviour shouldn't negatively impact on others. If it does then the adults must take responsibility and challenge / change it.

More simply if it helps:
Adults should be in charge in schools. If peer relationships are causing problems - whatever they are - then the adults must intervene & tackle it. Having said that, I accept that this is a tricky one and that there's no easy answer. But it can't be ignored.

But it means that if a child does have the PC of GR, it's not clear that the school can say that the child who changes his name and pronouns and wears a 'girls uniform' has to be de/transitioned back.

Yes, the whole thing of transitioning children is a clusterfuck, but it's happened, to our society's eternal shame. So now what?

The fact that gender reassignment as a protected characteristic applies to children is why this whole situation cannot be resolved either way.

On this point, the random lawyer they had on world at one had to concede that children have different rights.

Intending to transition is part of the medical process under law.

But it says "live as a man / woman" during this time.

Children aren't men or women under 16. They are children, something that was changed in KCSIE last year iirc.

"Child on child abuse" instead of "peer on peer" for example.

There is going to be a very messy transition and the guidance doesn't really go far enough to explain how it's going to safeguard the child disclosing. Agree there's a lot of de programming to be done.

Not here, but on other sites, teachers are saying simultaneously that changing names and pronoun is no big deal, not worth talking to the parents about, and also something that can save a childs life. To the point where using real names and correct pronouns will cause mental health crisis in schools.

If names and pronouns are not important, the real ones can easily be used; if some children are really that vulnerable, schools are letting the children down by not informing parents and social services.

Three year old at the time the parent’s pre-schooler allegedly said that.

But having the PC of gender reassignment doesn't mean having the right to be treated as a member of the opposite sex. That's Stonewall law, not the actual law.

Having a PC just means you must not be treated less favourably than someone without the PC, and so the comparator for gender reassignment is a member of your own sex. So for instance if a boy identifying as a girl is not being allowed to join the girls netball team, the comparator is a boy who doesn't identify as a girl. That boy is also not allowed to join the girls netball team, so no unlawful discrimination has occurred. IANAL but that is how I believe the law is written.

Social transitioning among friendship groups is probably a bigger part of in-school transitioning than teachers using pronouns

Teachers using new names and pronouns legitimise it. It also makes it harder for children to change their mind - not only do they have to tell their social group, they have to inform the whole school. Also, when teachers use preferred names and pronouns, they force it on other children in the class.