Teacher upset with my child questioning about trans child

Sure. The purpose of gendered pronouns is less to actually mislead people about somebody's sex (which is difficult) and more to force people to behave as though they are misled.

Your question isnt genuine because you've decided there's only one possible answer.

What makes you think that? Where have I said that? Why are you telling me what you think I think?

I asked you questions because I wanted to know your answers to them.

A child might want to use pronouns that feel more comfortable, or that allow them to express themselves in a way that feels authentic.

These seem like very complex ideas for a 4 or 5 year old child. Also the third person pronouns in question aren't used by that child but by others when talking about them. So what you're really saying is that they want others to talk about them in a way that makes them feel comfortable or authentic. Where does a young child get these ideas from?

Parents might support that because they want to respect their child’s wishes and support their wellbeing.

So you're telling me that a preschool child came up with this all by themself, and the parents are just 'respecting' and 'supporting' the child's decision?

What I reject is your assumption that the purpose must be to mislead other people about the child’s body. That’s your own projection, nothing more.

What assumption are you referring to? Where did I say that?

For someone accusing me of projection, you're doing an awful lot of projecting yourself.

Your question isnt genuine because you've decided there's only one possible answer. Actually, the answer is that different children and families may have different motivations. A child might want to use pronouns that feel more comfortable, or that allow them to express themselves in a way that feels authentic. Parents might support that because they want to respect their child’s wishes and support their wellbeing.

What I reject is your assumption that the purpose must be to mislead other people about the child’s body. That’s your own projection, nothing more.

Apparently you don’t understand the difference between an objective fact and your own dogmatic beliefs about how language should be used.
🤷🏼‍♀️

The problem is, I asked you some questions, and instead of answering them you made inferences about what you think I think.

I don't need you to tell me what I think. I want you to tell me what you think.

So here are the questions again.

What do you think is behind a request (by the child or their parents) for a change of pronouns?

And what is the purpose of a change of pronouns?

It seems that you are so mired in your own dogmatic beliefs you can't see out of them to see what is behind them and why you hold those beliefs.

It tells us nothing about the actual intentions of children who wish to change their pronouns or the adults who support them

Well, exactly. That was exactly what I was asking you about. Yet you seem reluctant to explain what those intentions might be.

I think we agree. It's the social transitioning that does so much harm - along with gaslighting children that it's possible to change sex. Pronouns are just a symbol.

And yes - since the 1989 Children Act led to Working Together, successive governments have determined that schools and other organisations take safeguarding children more seriously. Which is why it's an important development that the welfare of this vulnerable group of children / young people has been clearly located in statutory safeguarding guidance.

It is objective fact. If you are told to call a boy 'she' that is lying about the person's sex. Sex cannot be changed, is observed at birth, takes no account of personality and is immutable. 5-year-olds should not be socially transitioned. It's child abuse.

That suggests that the transchild has not chosen these pronouns nor the idea that he is a girl. Sounds very suspicious. Having a transchild is a status thing. Poor child is being pushed onto a medical rollercoaster that will end with him having mutilated genitals, no sexual feeling, and sterility. Someone should stop this.

Safeguarding children has been a government priority for decades, long before this guidance was introduced. Personally, I think it has little, if anything, to do with which pronouns a child wishes to use. Invoking safeguarding doesn’t, in itself, establish that changing a child’s pronouns presents any risk of harm

Not to worry. Parents and responsible adults are relieved that the government has finally recognised that safeguarding children, especially 5 year olds, (the subject of the thread) should be society's priority and are doing something about it via guidance for schools.

It will be interesting to see the outcomes of your rather different campaign for 5 year olds.

The problem is that you’re treating your own interpretation of what pronouns mean as an objective fact. You’ve decided that changing pronouns necessarily amounts to lying about biological sex, and then used that assumption to attribute deceptive intentions to children and their parents. But that conclusion is rooted in your own dogmatic beliefs. It tells us nothing about the actual intentions of children who wish to change their pronouns or the adults who support them

What do you think is behind a request (by the child or their parents) for a change of pronouns?

If their intention is not to lie to the other children about the child's biological sex, what is the purpose of a change of pronouns?

Sure. And absolutely none of those passages supports the claims you've been making. The guidance calls for caution when considering social transition, particularly for primary-aged children. It does not establish that changing a child's pronouns is inherently harmful, that doing so amounts to lying to other children about biological sex, or that requests for different pronouns represent the demands of "transactivists" being imposed on others. Those are your own assertions, not conclusions drawn by the guidance.

The guide takes a very cautious view of schools and social transition. "The Cass Review acknowledged that there is a lack of good evidence on the long-term impact of social transition on young people.."

It also says this about primary children (4 - 11 years olds) :

"Primary schools should exercise particular caution, and we would expect support for full social transition to be agreed very rarely..... This is not a role that can be undertaken by staff without appropriate clinical training".

It's also noteworthy that the RSE guidelines for schools also now limit what children may be told about GI:

"In teaching this, schools should be mindful that beyond the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment there is significant debate and they should be careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact. For example, they should not teach as fact that all people have a gender identity. Schools should avoid language and activities which repeat or enforce gender stereotypes. Schools should be mindful to avoid any suggestion that social transition is a simple solution to feelings of distress or discomfort."

All of this is safeguarding children. You are fully entitled to believe that sex change is a good thing for primary aged children and that schools should step outside their professional expertise and socially transition children if that's what floats your boat.

Fortunately for children, society disagrees and is putting in place more rigorous safeguarding measures.

Link below so that you can read the guidelines for yourself.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6970e7e67e827090d02d42e0/Relationships_education_relationships_and_sex_education__RSE__and_health_education__for_intro_1_September_2026_.pdf

as the ideological demands of parents demanding a sex / pronoun change for a 5 year old versus the rights of other 5 years olds to be safeguarded from the adult belief in sex change won't be easy to navigate. But it's an improvement from the previous practice of adult transactivists imposing this on children and schools

Again this is just your own (incoherent) ideological framing based on your personal beliefs about sex/ gender. It ain't got nothing to do with the guidance - there is nothing in there about the need for "5 year olds to be safeguarded from the adult belief in sex change", because that's a load of incoherent waffle.

The guidance is at pains not to 'take sides" but to be child centred and as far as possible make it straightforward for schools to implement. Hence it mentioning the needs and rights of both a gender confused child and other children.

The safeguarding practitioner in me knows this will be a challenge in schools as the ideological demands of parents demanding a sex / pronoun change for a 5 year old versus the rights of other 5 years olds to be safeguarded from the adult belief in sex change won't be easy to navigate. But it's an improvement from the previous practice of adult transactivists imposing this on children and schools.

If you think a 5 year old believing they're the opposite sex isn't harmful then I can't help you. Fortunately those views are outliers compared with the majority of the population who know that little children should never be caught up in all this.

It doesn’t encourage it either. It’s really not hard to understand the safeguarding issues here. The guidance allows the school to refuse to impose the values of the parents of this one child on their peers. The head confirmed with OP that the school policy aligns with the guidance and that they refer to the child by name rather than using any pronouns. Sounds to me as though the real problem is with the teacher.

What you're writing is incoherent waffle because you're simply imposing your own ill-defined ideological framing onto the guidance.

The guidance doesn't frame the issue as a conflict between "children's rights" and the "demands of "transactivists"". It requires schools to consider the rights, welfare and best interests of children, including those requesting a change of pronouns.

Your characterisation of such requests as inherently harmful is your own opinion - based on waffle about sex/ gender - not what the guidance says.

I agreed with your point that "It does not establish a blanket presumption against using a primary-aged child’s preferred pronouns" in my earlier post. (maybe you missed it).

I was simply referring to the statutory guidance so that parents are clear that children's rights and safety take precedence over the demands of transactivists.

I'm a bit surprised that you think this is "incoherent waffle":
"Lying to children that sex change is possible is evidently not in the interests of young children who are unable to critically evaluate such adult fantasies"

Maybe try reading it again? I don't think you have to be a parent to understand what age appropriate safeguarding looks like? But I might be wrong.

This is just incoherent waffle
I understood it just fine? Which word in particular are you having trouble with?

Lying to children that sex change is possible is evidently not in the interests of young children who are unable to critically evaluate such adult fantasies.

This is just incoherent waffle.

The guidance allows schools to refuse the demands of one set of parents to impose these adult concepts on other children.

The demands of either set of parents are neither here nor there. The guidance makes clear that decisions should be based on an individual assessment of the child’s best interests, taking account of the circumstances of the particular case, the interests of other children, and the school’s legal obligations. It explicitly requires schools to consider the consequences of both agreeing to and refusing a request. It does not establish a blanket presumption against using a primary-aged child’s preferred pronouns

It doesn't prohibit or encourage them. What the statutory safeguarding guidance says is:

264. Schools and colleges have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children. They should consider how best to fulfil that duty towards a child who is questioning their gender, as well as their peers, ensuring that any agreed course of action takes account of the impact on all of those affected.

265. This means that the first step when considering a child’s request for support with social transition will be to consider what is in the best interests of the child and other children, and a decision relating to social transition may not be the same as a child’s wishes.

Bolding mine. Guidance linked below.

This ensures that schools must take account of the needs of all children. Lying to children that sex change is possible is evidently not in the interests of young children who are unable to critically evaluate such adult fantasies. The guidance allows schools to refuse the demands of one set of parents to impose these adult concepts on other children. Safeguarding 101.

It's why transactivists are currently so furious with some spending a lot of time on a parenting site trying to persuade parents otherwise.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6ac3c09c11ed58342ad8e4ac/Keeping_children_safe_in_education_2026.pdf

Guidance does not prohibit a change in pronouns.

From the update it doesn’t appear that any sensitive personal information has been shared with anyone, beyond what, according to the teacher, the parents have consented to. It doesn’t alter the fact that the teacher is acting against official guidance by a) referring to the child by their chosen pronouns if they don’t align with biological sex, and b) involving the rest of the class in doing the same.

Is it stupid to worry the teacher will treat her differently because we took it to the head

I don't think she will bully your child, but when she has to pick a child for something nice, it will never be your daughter.
The thing that (most)makes this unbelievable for me is the school discussing sensitive personal information about this 4 year old child with other pupils and parents.
Wouldnt happen!