School Guidance out Tomorrow

This was the end of November 2023, so not off the table yet

‘On 21 February 2023, the Minister for Women and Equalities (MfWE) sought advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on the benefits or otherwise of an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 on the current definition of 'sex', as she was concerned that the Equality Act may not be sufficiently clear in the balance it strikes between the interests of people with different protected characteristics, particularly in the case of the protected characteristics of ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’.

Having received that advice, the Minister for Women and Equalities has asked officials to undertake detailed policy and legal analysis, as per the EHRC’s request, to understand the impact of its advice on various protected groups and related issues arising.’

From petition email

I think at the time very few people thought that it would pan out as it has.

But the government did consider the option of amending the Equality Act and clearly decided that it would be more trouble than it was worth.

Total mess

Which leaves us with the 5 yr old with “a pink heart” on the Nicky Campbell show potentially being covered?

If only the new Labour government had just fucking introduced gay marriage rather than creating grcs at all.

Even within the law children will have single sex spaces

Unlike adults

The PC of GR was intended to apply to the under 18s. This is clear in Hansard. What is not clear is what the lower age boundaries were envisaged to be. My guess would be that politicians did not expect it to be applied pre-adolescence, but this is just a guess based on the fact that younger children were not mentioned during the discussions.

Because the government made a pig’s ear of the EA.

This is why schools have become such a bloody problem.

The point is that it’s clear that gender reassignment was never intended to apply to children.

And the point is that lawyers have confirmed many times that it does. Whether you think it should or not.

One main difference between adults and children is the opposite sex will not be using their changing rooms etc

Thankfully for children they will not have to say yes to boys in girls’. As women do atm, unfortunately

No compelled speech either but that may not be consistent for adults

The point is that it’s clear that gender reassignment was never intended to apply to children.

Just like the protected characteristic of marriage.

Stonewall confusing the waters and poorly worded legislation not making this abundantly clear in the EA (and including the nonsense about intending to) has caused this.

No one should have been socially transitioning children without parental consent and medical supervision.

If you're aware of children talking among themselves to reaffirm and support a child in starving themselves and hiding their food intake from their families would you feel that was none of your business either? Children talking amongst themselves and affirming and encouraging a child sending inappropriate pictures of themselves to another child or adult would you feel that was none of your business?

It's a very difficult line to walk, but supporting transition is not a neutral act, it is a potentially serious safeguarding one, particularly when it is happening without medical guidance and parental knowledge and consent.

The main issue to begin with is that some adults see any response but affirmation as the safeguarding disaster - as they have been trained to do by the political lobby. Therefore there will be a lot of 'but this is harmless and it's unkind/unfair to stop them' that really believes underneath that adults who have concerns are actually abusive and wrong.

This will take a long time to turn around and I suspect that yes, it will have to involve law to make teachers step back behind the line of professional duty of care and objectivity. And I suspect Prevent are going to need to help, because this is programming. This is a trained system to make caring adults believe that caring means transitioning and resisting adults who do not see things as they do, while seeing them as at best uneducated and uninformed, and at worst as a direct threat to the child.

GRCs are required for very little. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is what dominates the vast majority of discussion around the law on this topic.

It's why the school guidance cannot simply ban social transitioning in schools.

Are you referring to children referring to their friends how they have asked to be referred to as 'poor behaviour'?

I'm not sure as a teacher I would be stepping into children talking amongst themselves to police pronoun use. The guidance doesn't suggest this either.

The law is that someone acquires the protected characteristic of gender reassignment when they state that they are proposing to undergo a process to reassign their sex. There is no medical diagnosis required.

The pc of GR would mean that the child couldnt be excluded from school for GR, not that the school should transition the child without parental consent.

At some schools there's going to be chaos. At least initially. Although teachers, such as those whose case studies are at the end of this article, might feel more supported and braver

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12880675/Ministers-warned-new-trans-guidance-LAW-activist-schools-immediately-vow-ignore-pleas-tell-parents-children-want-switch-gender.html

It is abundantly clear from the minimum age set for applying for a GRC that the legislation was always intended - explicitly - to apply to adults.

it is absurd that people are now handwringing about how they have to affirm children’s professed gender identity on the basis of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Absolute and utter bullshit from beginning to end.

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

This is why it's time for the adults to step in. When you work in a school with poor behaviour, adults have to influence & improve poor peer cultures, inappropriate playground / corridor behaviour to stop it impacting on lessons and learning. In the same way we know that in many schools trans ideology is negatively impacting on individual children and sometimes the school community. It's weaponised against teachers (children complaining about "wrong" pronouns) with some parents being demonised for raising concerns about their children being socially transitioned.

It should never have been allowed to escalate in this way.

The fact that someone has that protected characteristic doesn't mean that they should be treated as the opposite sex or get to have their wishes fulfilled. It means that they should not be treated less favourably than other pupils for having that protected characteristic.

Social transition is a separate issue. It isn't a neutral act, it's an intervention which has implications for the pupil's long term health and well-being. A formal diagnosis by a specialist should be a minimum requirement. If schools don't accept self-diagnosis or parental diagnosis of ASD or ALN or other health conditions, they should not accept a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (or 'transness' which some seem to think is an inherent condition) or make their own decisions in relation to social transition. They are dabbling in matters they have no relevant expertise in at best, with potentially dire implications for children and young people's future lives if they get it wrong. The teachers who say they'll ignore the guidance need to give their heads a wobble.

I’d expect girls and boys to be separated so even if another dc has changed name etc it would not impact my dd in a changing room

I’d also expect no sanctions if pronouns were not used or a group referred to as girls or boys

Plus no contact sport, and also raise it for competitive sport

As pp says it de-weaponises gender as some kind of hold over other students

Isn't part of the problem that the law has never been tested? Trans groups insist that everything covers children but we know from history that the politicians who enacted the GRA etc never anticipated that people would try to include children below the age of consent in all this.
So when they confidently assert that it applies to all children, no matter how young, that's an opinion and has never been tested in the courts? Like so much of this ideology, we're expected to accept pronouncement as facts (TWAW, sex isn't binary, safeguarding is right wing bigotry, men have no biological advantages over women in sport etc).

In my experience, children use preferred pronouns and names for each other well before any teachers get the message.

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

The guidance says that teachers shouldn’t unilaterally change names or pronouns for children. It doesn’t say anything about their peers.

Oh and if they have all ready transitioned them for pity sake inform the parents! There will be some very uncomfortable meetings when parents rightly asked why they have not been told previously. Tough

With regard to the children who have already socially transitioned I would hope the school would do it gently but fairly and based on each individual. So obviously stop all mixed changing and toilets immediately but try to provide another space. Personally I would keep the name and pronouns but deweaponise them - "People can use these to be nice but they are not factual and not using them is not bullying" (obviously where they are being used to bully someone is different and anti bullying procedures should already be dealing.) Where lessons are split by sex they need to be with their own sex. In some cases I would even tell them why the new guidance is in - that (in part) it is because socially transitioning can make it harder if they change their mind and reassure the child that it is totally OK to.

These are all things for a child who has already socially transitioned - if they haven't then it should be more hard and fast rules to stop it from getting to this stage. Treat them kindly but honestly, don't start with the pronouns etc as they are not an option anymore than changing with the other sex is.

The law is that someone acquires the protected characteristic of gender reassignment when they state that they are proposing to undergo a process to reassign their sex. There is no medical diagnosis required.

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