EHRC consultation - schools technical guidance

Indeed. The psychological harm done to young children by lying to them that they're the opposite sex is off the scale in terms of damage. I won't derail this thread by posting the link to the clinical psychologist who details how this works.

But I will point out that adults in schools & elsewhere who socially transition nursery and primary children are doing precisely what we've been discussing in recent posts.
Prioritising a disordered belief that takes advantage of the legal "error" that assumes that the pc of gender reassignment can apply to little children rather than safeguarding them from the extreme damage this does to them

More's the pity.

Cass only said that it’s not a neutral act. She didn’t recommend a blanket ban on social transition like some suggest.

That's a good point. I believe that different government departments are meant to comment and flag issues that are problematic when looking at policy / legal proposals from other departments? It's meant to ensure that the right and left hand in government know what each other are doing. 🙄

So surely the DfE legal team should be flagging up the safeguarding implications of this? Unless of course they follow the Stonewall law where trans tops everything and the rights of vulnerable groups don't matter?

Yes. Add to that the issue of where clothes / possessions should be stored during the lesson if it's a toilet open to others, plus potential hygiene issues relating to changing in a toilet.
Schools are very good at thinking outside the box but this is "activist law" trying to determine how schools manage. As experience shows us, these activist proposals are never in children's best interests.

Safeguarding is a major problem if a child is isolated from its peers in a separate room, to which adults may have access. Such an arrangement would need a teacher or teaching assistant to supervise the child by checking the room and making sure no-one enters while the child is changing. This is impossible in a school setting especially if the child is using a teachers' changing area or lavatory, so this arrangement won't work. Also, the Cass review pointed out that social transition is not a neutral act and allowing a separate changing area would be a social transition - not at all helpful to the child and a safeguarding issue in its own right.

Thanks all, you'll give me a big head!

I also think this idea that getting children, who might just be going through a phase, to use a separate space and be seen as somehow different from the other children is a problem. It's adults making a decision that is hard wiring difference and that may not to go well for children in school.

Surely it's better that the child, formerly known as Dave, now Janine, who's decided to wear a skirt, is just treated like any other boy. This is how he'll be treated in the real world by normal people once he leaves school. Adults creating false expectations is not kind. Maybe it's kinder to expand the bandwith of what boys can wear (maybe some pics of David Beckham in his skirts would help!).

There's no awareness in this 'guidance' (pffft) that creating a separate space to pee itself may not be in the child's best interests and 'inclusion'. It's the opposite of 'inclusion' it's deliberate separation.

Is it really true that a boy who's used the boys toilets for years with no problems will suddenly need a separate one?

If he's been bullied in the toilets previously well then, this might be a reason for wanting to be considered a girl which isn't actually about 'gender dysphoria' and a deep inner adult identity, isn't it? The school should know about that and address that, because if he's been bullied it's likely other children will be too. Is every child who's been bullied in the school toilets afforded a separate space? If not, why not?

The framing is already so deeply inappropriate for children, especially primary aged children, it's more full of red flags than bunting and also denies the reality of schools in a very dangerous way.

Absolutely it should. Great post, very cogent. 👏

This should be an article in the national press. Well said.

What an excellent post! Thank you for laying out so clearly the conflict between the rights of children versus adult activist demands

"Safeguarding law exists, and conflicts with this activist lead, adult based interpretation of EA2010. In and of itself it is discriminating against children on the pc of age - to treat them exactly the same as adults with no regard for their developmental stage and the appropriateness of doing so".

Maybe we can push for responses to the consultation to include the demand that the EHRC considers safeguarding children? Get them to explain why they assume that the pc of gender reassignment applies to babies, toddlers etc. and how that fits in with society's responsibility to safeguard the young? Expose their thinking and the influence of activists.

It's also disappointing to see such an incoherent mess published under the leadership of Mary-Ann Stephenson.

Yes, hoped for better there. And as @Cantunseeit says, it's just whackamole all the time with these bloody orgs. Thanks goodness that Sex Matters and Transgender Trend are on the case, indeed.

Safeguarding law exists, and conflicts with this activist lead, adult based interpretation of EA2010. In and of itself it is discriminating against children on the pc of age - to treat them exactly the same as adults with no regard for their developmental stage and the appropriateness of doing so.

'Age' is a PC but the government and its lawyers seem to totally ignore that PC because it's not all about adult men who can push their activist agenda.

The EHRC would have been better placed obtaining a robust legal opinion on the conflicts between safeguarding law and this interpretation of EA2010 which assumes adult agency for children (therefore discriminating on the pc of age) than producing this pile of shit at taxpayers expense. Proper legal analysis of where these collide is long overdue.

This is adultification.

In KCSIE it says that Safeguarding overrides GDPR where needed. It should also override EA2010 in my opinion where it's important, as it is here. The law has to make decisions about this sort of thing all the time, but because it's only safeguarding and only children who can't speak up for themselves, lawyers have been piss poor. You don't get rich being a lawyer protecting children, of course.

Emotional abuse in KCSIE includes this as part of its definition (direct quote)
". It may involve conveying to a child that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may include verbal abuse, such as persistent criticism, belittling, or name-calling, as well as not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or ‘making fun’ of what they say or how they communicate. It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. These may include interactions that are beyond a child’s developmental capability "

Given no adult, including from within the EHRC, has yet produced a coherent definition of what the pc of 'gender reassignment' means for children of different ages, clearly making decisions on what happens to safeguard children on this basis is highly irresponsible and likely to cause harm. Children should be protected both under safeguarding and under EA2010 pc of age from developmentally inappropriate adultification. This does the opposite and pretty clearly conflicts with KCSIE.

It puts schools practically in an impossible situation too. What if there's no safe third space? What if ensuring there's adequate adult supervision of a third space means other children lose out on education, or SEND interventions? Is any of that 'reasonable'? Does it just depend on which activists / adults have the deepest pockets to bring court cases or kick up a fuss in terms of which children lose the most?

If we're going to let a child's view on whether or not they want to pretend to be a different sex to the one they were born take precedence, then why not let them get married, 'choose to' have sex, drink, get a job? I suspect those pushing this idiocy may have those goals further down the line tbh.

It's already been established that children cannot meaningfully consent to experimental surgery to help them pretend to change sex. Given this is true, children should not have the pc of 'gender reassignment' at all. Anything else is so poorly defined as to be meaningless and dangerous for the very children that those writing this rubbish purport to care about. Though they clearly don't, it's clearly ALL about adult wants here.

I was referring to individually lockable spaces

Rant away!
What you have highlighted is how children are the major casualties of all this. Despite that, as soon as the DfE finally start to restore children's rights and safety this technical guidance promptly undermines that. It's written using activist language and demands with zero insight into children and schools. It's completely unfit for purpose.

I know that Sex Matters and Transgender Trend are on the case. Like you, I'm exhausted with telling well paid organisations how to do their fucking job, but yet again we need to point all this out if the small steps to safeguard children that have been put in place, are to be maintained.

It's also disappointing to see such an incoherent mess published under the leadership of Mary-Ann Stephenson.

Just venting now, so scroll on past if you don’t want to read a howl of anguish/rage

It’s so disappointing to continually be faced with guidance/decisions/draft legislation that seems to have ignored developments of the last two or three years.

Every time there’s a big story like WPATH files, Cass Review (interim and full reports), closure of the Tavistock, banning PBs, draft education guidelines, FWS, KCSIE, I think “this is it, this will end the crazy”. It NEVER does. Then some BS like this comes out as if none of it ever happened. What’s wrong with people?

Rant over, have a lovely day

I agree. IIRC this draft appeared back in the spring when the KCSIE consultation was underway (or recently closed). It was obviously unaligned with the draft KCSIE and in some places contradictory.

Given that the current version of KCSIE absorbed the draft govt guidelines for “gender questioning children”, it seems massively unhelpful to have another set of guidelines that uses different language “trans children” and is inconsistent with KCSIE.

Surely all this is a huge waste of public money? Just bloody talk to each other between departments/quangos and get out of the silos.

The first amendment could be to remove children from the pc of gender reassignment? That would immediately safeguard all the children from parents and other adults unable / unwilling to safeguard them. Prioritising safeguarding would also remove the power of the dodgy groups to be all over schools trying to influence them to promote gender ideology.
It should also raise questions about anyone trying to insist that a toddler or 5 year old should have that pc applied to them.

Does any other PC in the equality act give people legal protection from things they claim to find distressing?

Why do we accept the claim that a 14 yr old child who has used their own sex changing rooms their whole life (despite their supposedly "innate" oppposite gender identity) suddenly finds them unbearable?

Your responses seem to indicate that you think a girl who thinks she is a boy can use a mixed sex changing room as a boy who thinks he is a girl, in this strange 'third space' option.

If there is no issue with mixed sex spaces for changing, why segregate boys and girls in the first place?

If they need segregating by sex, then segregating by sex is the thing the schools need to do. Hurt feelings and upset should not trump actual safeguarding.

On the contrary, it appears to be full steam ahead for Stonewall heading into schools, under the guise of Diversity Roles Models, which they have just taken over.

Oh FFS! 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

I stand by my original observation that it reads like a cry for help from the EHRC. Like a coded message to Michael Foran et al.

What Stonewall do next needs to be monitored very closely.

Indeed.

Sorry, too late to edit:

I meant to add, couldn't they just withdraw the 2023 guidance and not replace it, instead of issuing guidance that makes no sense?

Is this Stonewall coming back like a Japanese knotweed tendril? I thought we'd got rid of all the nonsense where "expert" charities can deliver their own special interpretation of the law to schools.

On the contrary, it appears to be full steam ahead for Stonewall heading into schools, under the guise of Diversity Roles Models, which they have just taken over.

What Stonewall do next needs to be monitored very closely. One of their main projects is the Draft Conversion Practices Bill. But, another main focus seems to be schools, so they will be at it again. And they now have a trans-identified male as their new interim Chair of Trustees. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.

This new EHRC guidance for schools seems spectacularly at odds with the new KCSIE statutory guidance. I understand that the EHRC probably feel that they need to replace the outdated 2023 guidance, but couldn't they just not replace it, instead of issuing guidance that makes no sense?