School Guidance out Tomorrow

The timeline for this needs investigation.

How long have children being able to identify themselves into single sex facilities in schools?

If this has always been the case, why would it have to be kept from other childrens parents? If schools, trans identifying children and their parents knows children with the PC of GR can go into the wrong changing room and toilet, why the secrecy and why is it a shock to other parents?

From a parents point of view, it looks as if schools have commissioned outside agencied to teach children about GI, told them that its their right to use opposite sex facilities in school, and then allowed an increasing number of children to do so. All the time keeping the teaching material and the practice away from parents.

If is was a basic assumption, why doesnt everyone know that?

It looks like schools were making an assumption, and then later saying that there was no guidance from government. But would there be if the assumption wasnt based on the law, and government and parents didnt know the extent of what was going on?

What would be good to know if schools allowed children to identity into the wrong changing rooms and force preferred pronoun before or after seeking advice from the government.

The child, above, was in primary school. There was a similar young girl in my granddaughter's school: came back after lockdown with short hair ( very unusual for girls these days) and declaring she was a boy ( had an older sister who identified as 'non binary'). The school had not encountered this before - but allowed the child to wear the PE kit rather than the girls uniform, though staff continued with her usual name.

The child told her friends they were "transphobic" if they called her by her name or 'misgendered' her. This made them upset and confused. Children that age don't like to be called names - in fact you could even argue that this behaviour towards them was bullying.

This how the Guardian has responded

‘Transphobic bullying is rife’: a 15-year-old trans boy’s view of coming out at school

( sounds like normal childhood experience: not liking 'girly' and enjoying sport)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/transphobic-bullying-trans-boy-view-of-coming-out-school-uk-government-guidance

Schools will follow guidance, beyond a bit of noise from TRAs on social media it’s irrelevant what GRCs do or don’t do for adults.

No one is going to have a mini legal debate over a 12 year old in the wrong facility for their sex and parents have guidance to refer to. Most professionals will be the same.

Keegan in The Sun:

www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/25108035/gillian-keegan-trans-guidance-parents-schools/

"The safety and wellbeing of children will always be our primary concern – which is why it is at the heart of this guidance.

It puts beyond doubt that single sex spaces like toilets and changing rooms must be protected and that sports must be kept fair and safe."

And:

"This draft guidance was developed with expert views in mind that social transition is not a neutral act and that it could have significant psychological effects on a child."

KB in the Mail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12883171/KEMI-BADENOCH-think-governments-guidance-gender-schools-strong-dont-duck-hard-questions.html

"The Government's position on this is clear. First, we believe in dignity and respect and individual freedom.
The rights of one group do not trump the rights of another, and no child should feel that his or her wellbeing and safety has been compromised to accommodate an ideological agenda.
Second, teaching children that you can be born in the 'wrong' body is harmful. Teachers and carers should be reminded that just because a child does not conform to stereotypes associated with being a girl or a boy, that does not mean they should be put on a path to medical or social transition. While legislation exists that allows adults to go through a process to change their legal sex, children's legal sex is always the same as their biological sex.
So, we should be wary of those who speak casually about 'trans children'.
Third, biological sex is real and must be protected. Schools and colleges have specific legal and regulatory duties that are framed by a child's biological sex. This applies in single-sex spaces, like lavatories and changing rooms. Teachers cannot fulfil their safeguarding obligations without acknowledging the reality of biological sex and protecting children accordingly.
Fourth, we believe in freedom of thought, belief and speech. An ideology that seeks to silence dissent or force others to use contested terminology is not a tolerant ideology. This Government does not believe in compelled speech.
I believe the guidance the Government published yesterday will provide the clarity to ensure schools can take a sensible and caring approach to handling this issue."

That's what the guidance is challenging and attempting to change within schools.

Well yes. I think people have been surprised to find that the fact that children cannot get a GRC doesn't mean very much at all and actually it's the protected characteristic of gender reassignment which does apply to children which is causing most of the problems.

The biggest issue is that suddenly becoming "trans" is not seen as a safeguarding trigger by schools.

It's the tip of the iceberg for any number of other issues and the child's attempt to resolve them.

I don't feel the guidance goes far enough on that.

That's what the guidance is challenging and attempting to change within schools.

As you need to be an adult to have a grc.

But you're right that in reality the whole thing is a massive mess. I do remember a vocal GC transwoman some time ago commenting that the GRA was very woolly anyway.

The whole thing needs an overhaul and was never meant to be used by this many people or this many children. Or schools.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60983982

But the basic assumption is that single sex services should be open to trans people with or withouta GRC unless an exemption is asserted.

Whose assumption? Stonewall's?

If that's all "signing off" means, then schools week are peddling some strange news.

But the basic assumption is that single sex services should be open to trans people with or withouta GRC unless an exemption is asserted.

Isnt having single sex services asserting the exemption?

If separate sex facilities arent justified, how would they be legal?

I dont know, im genuinely asking.

Thanks again to everyone who's clarified. Still finding Keegan's reticence about it a bit bizarre but, if it is significant, I'm sure all will become clear.

The guidance is clear, GRC or not for adults is irrelevant

"Schools must not allow a child, aged 11 years or older, to change or wash in front of a child of the opposite sex, nor should they be subject to a child of the opposite sex changing or washing in front of them".

The problem, as has been said on here, is that once an entitlement to access opposite sex spaces has been awarded to adult males with a GRC, there’s no practical mechanism for stopping adult males with the PC of GR but without a GRC from accessing that entitlement, nor of stopping adult males without the PC of GR from doing so either.

The GRC is a red herring tbh. You don't need a GRC to access single sex spaces - look at all those men in women's prisons and on hospital wards who don't have one. You can change your sex on your driver's licence or passport without one. And trans people with a GRC can be excluded from single sex spaces so long as it is proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

But the basic assumption is that single sex services should be open to trans people with or without a GRC unless an exemption is asserted.

Keegan signed it off with Badenoch, both their signatures are on page 4.

This.
Keegan's knowledge of this issue has been woeful. Although to be fair, we all know how difficult it is to explain clearly the main issues without sounding incoherent and Kemi's incisive grasp is a joy to listen to. Not sure that Keegan has got past "be kind".

I'm not sure joint documents are unusual. Not the norm but they're not unusual. Wasn't the rape response a joint one?

But I imagine Keegan wouldn't be your first choice to defend a policy. Especially after that clip of her laughing on the hot mic. Giving the media an excuse to re-run that would take away from the message as then it becomes "times Keegan reminded us she's not up to the job" or whatever kind of headline.

You'd put Kemi up. She knows it like the back of her hand.

Remember Stonewall's lack of interest in safeguarding when they openly appointed Aimee Challenor to their trans advisory group despite knowledge of their involvement in the shocking paedophile scandal in the Green Party? Any school making that appointment would have been investigated by the police / Ofsted but organisations working with schools seem to get a free pass (also see Mermaids).

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/50b1ce10-aa0a-4162-8c30-ec30f3c33445?shareToken=4fede63c315992a9dbab3c6ec49f7555

Thanks all, I also watched some news coverage last night on Channel 4 (I think) which included a clip of Kemi Badenoch talking about it rather than Keegan. I thought at the time that it was strange.

My take on it - just a punt but I don't think it's an extreme one - is that the Tory party are as divided over this as Labour are. Tory MPs might, on the whole, be less prone to outbursts in the Commons or grandstanding on Twitter but I suspect a massive hullaballoo behind the scenes.

Also it was clear the dfe were never going to bring out any guidance without other departments being involved.

Ah cross post. Thanks @LoobiJee

Yes, schools week could be dodgy news....

I'm guessing two things: 1. they didn't agree. (V Possible as the dfe is captured.)

1. It's whether this is coming out mainly from an "equalities" and legal perspective or educational perspective.

It's clear that there are conflicts between effective child safeguarding and the current equalities law. Which is linked to queer theory in all honesty. I'm no lawyer but framing it within the latter is better for this particular situation.

Note that public sector guidance was also issued recently pointing out there's no heirachy of rights and they're not to use the term gender identity.

I also suspect this is why it's not made it to KCSIE; both the dfe and KCSIE are woefully inadequate on this issue, partly because universities, where research bases are generated, are also horrific on this area.

Third option is that this is the hill Kemi was willing to die on. And she's taken it all the way. Except she's clearly thriving.

On the DFE website, the statement covering the guidance has quotes from Gillian Keegan, Kemi Badenoch and Ofsted. So it appears to be DFE guidance (Secretary of State for Education guidance) that is covered by a joint GK/KB statement / press notice.

It’s the Schools Week article which talks about the guidance being signed off by KB and No 10 but fails to acknowledge that it would have / should have been signed off by GK too. That could simply be an oversight on their part. Or it could be them hinting at behind the scenes disagreement.

There’s no way of knowing whether GK did / didn’t sign off the guidance. She should have done. So either she did but Schools Week aren’t acknowledging that, or she didn’t and No 10 did so instead of her but Schools Week have been briefed to not spell that out explicitly. That’s why I said it makes you wonder who provided the leak to Schools Week. Of course another - even simpler - possibility is that the explanation is sloppy writing by Schools Week.