School's response to a pupil transitioning female to male making me uncomfortable...

[MoreCrackThanHarlem]

Hi everyone.
Long time MN'er, and although I haven't posted in this topic before, I am an avid reader and have learned so much from the posters here.

I suppose I am looking for a feminist viewpoint on a situation that has developed at my daughter's school which makes me feel uncomfortable.

A child in my daughter's year at Secondary school has chosen, since Y7, to live as a boy. She was a girl through Primary, a footballing superstar, and was described by many as a 'tomboy', though I dislike the expression myself.

Most of the children in his year have only known him as a boy and are unaware of his past, though there have been many rumours and much gossip about this.

After a few incidents on social media where children have made comments about him actually 'being a girl', he asked to address an assembly to set the record straight.
During this assembly he told the entire year group that he is a boy, has always been a boy, and would like people to stop saying otherwise as it was very upsetting for him.

Since transition he has changed radically, particularly, conforming to social gender stereotypes by having relationships with numerous girls, calling girls 'slags' on FB, and becoming friends with a group of disruptive boys who truant ,drink alcohol and spend lots of time discussing girl's physical assets on FB. Not pleasant.

My daughter's friend has begun a 'relationship' with this boy, and it has gone further than kissing. He has told her he has always been a boy which she believes, and has explained his use of the toilet in the staff office by telling her he has a hormone disorder.

I think school have been complicit in his deceit by allowing him to address the other children during assembly and I worry that my daughter's friend is being prevented from making a fully informed choice with regard to her relationship with him.

I would just like to hear other's thoughts on this, and what, if any, action you would take.

To add, I absolutely support other's choices to live 'as' the opposite sex, though I feel uncomfortable with the idea that he has the right to tell others he has always been a boy, as despite his feelings, this is biologically untrue?

Sorry it's a bit jumbled.

schro

I don't think that anyone has said the he shouldn't tell her, just that the school, agencies etc. can't legally tell her.

Schro that sounds very hard. Feel free to ignore my question, but if you had known how he felt at the beginning of the relationship, how would you have reacted?
I am interested to hear what your DP thinks.
Having presumably identified as the opposite sex as a teen?

Boney I think my feelings were more to do with comments about how if he identifies as a boy, he isn't lying.

More It's fine now, I don't mind questions. I did find out near the start and I had an idea at pretty much the beginning, just not the full extent of it (I believed he identified as but had no wish to be IYSWIM?). I would still have chosen to be with him, I love him but might have approached the relationship differently, slower and with more questions.

I was a teen at the time, I was 18 when we got together, he was 22. I'll ask him his opinion on this when we have a bit of quiet later. :)

This is rather more serious than I think people on the thread realise. I think the school should have sought legal advice, and, if they did, then they should consider changing their lawyers.

Okay, how do I put this? It is a matter of "conditional consent".

If this individual is, indeed, a biological girl and female-bodied, regardless of gender performance or gender identity, and if your friend's daughter would not have freely engaged in sexual activity with a biological girl or female-bodied individual, then this individual maintaining that he is a boy and has always been a boy to the daughter could be legally perceived as material deception, which would invalidate her consent to the sexual activity.

In short, it would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Justine McNally v R [2013] is relevant here. McNally presented as a boy and had a sexual relationship with another girl who believed McNally was a boy and would not have consented to sexual activity with a girl.

The Court determined in the McNally appeal case that "deception as to gender can vitiate consent". Furthermore, "the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellants deception."

The Court found that McNally had committed an offence under the SOA and she got three years for sexual assault.

That your friend's daughter believes the individual to a boy, she has given consent to the sexual activity on that condition. If the individual turns not to be a boy and to have deceived the daughter on that account, then there is no free, open and unconstrained consent for the sexual activity. So the activity would then be sexual assault.

The school's position in such an instance would be somewhat difficult. You could argue they were complicit in the deception, and I would not put it past a legal firm to sue.

Fucking hell schro, that story about your MtF friend is absolutely horrifying.

It is horrifying isn't it lildupin.

I wrote a post saying that what she was doing was so dangerous but then I thought it sounded like exactly the victim blaming all female victims get to say the least (asking for it) and then I got confused and deleted it.

Works I had wondered that about the school, if the girls parents were to find out.

Lil It was fucking awful and why she is not my friend anymore and I have NC with her, could not agree with what she was doing at all.

Am I imagining things or did OP say the boys mother still refers to him as she? His girlfriend is going to confused when she visits him last home, and may wonder why if he refuses to take her home.

It might also hint at some difficulties at home that are perhaps causing the behaviours at school and online.

It is all terribly terribly messy isn't it. Just kind of all wrong all round. The men are being lied to about something really fundamental with real psychological consequences, the woman is getting beaten up. I mean it's just shit all round isn't it.

Maybe further work needs to be done around consent but it's a tricky one isn't it, it's not illegal to lie about loads of important stuff to a sexual partner.

God I don't know.

And I think there was comments at the start of the thread about doubting going through any sort of transition as young as the boy in the OP, my "friend" started at around 13, I believe and pretty much always in public lived as a woman, she was very convincing (apart from her height) so it is easy to believe that the people at the school genuinely do believe the rumours were false after the assembly.

Fubsy I had forgotten about that bit, if the Mother isn't totally supportive then I can't imagine she would be happy with the current relationship and it's circumstances?

Seven It is messy and complicated, there does have to be lines that shouldn't be crossed and protection and support for all involved. A lot of education is definitely needed.

I wrote a post saying that what she was doing was so dangerous but then I thought it sounded like exactly the victim blaming all female victims get to say the least (asking for it) and then I got confused and deleted it

I can totally see where you were coming from with the confusion. I was watching an interview with a gender critical radical feminist last week and she touched on this exact thing: how hard it is for feminists to broach this very subject with transwomen because it can so easily be construed as an attack in itself and interpreted as victim blaming.

Worksallhours that is really interesting with reference to conditional consent.
I notice that the wording refers to 'deception as to gender', rather than biological sex. Are they one and the same in law?

To answer your question OP, DP thinks that it is wrong that this boy hasn't told the girl and is lying to her and apparently, there was someone in his class in school where there was a very similar situation.

He would never have done this and believes 90% (obviously a total guesstimate) of transitioning people still acknowledge who they were before they started the process. (That's just his personal experience of the people he knows though obviously).

We have just sat for ages trying to word that and not sound like dicks*.

*Was unsure of whether to place a dick there...

Gah, I give up trying to word things right on this thread! :o

More That friend I mentioned went to prison not long after we stopped contact, initially a male prison and it made the papers so she was moved to a female prison (or moved to some kind of solitary area, unsure), so I guess it must be acknowledged in some capacity.

DP says it depends on something to do with if they have seen a psychologist who specialises in the subject, he also says something about after a year living as that gender?

Thanks, schro.
This thread has left me with so many questions about gender identity as I really struggle to understand it. Really generous of you and your DP to share your experience.

Total minefield with regard to prison.
Other than housing trans prisoners in a separate facility I find it hard to see a solution where the rights of prisoners are not damaged, for the trans prisoner or the men/women who he /she shares a facility with.

Hope your friend has been able to find happiness/peace...don't really know how to say...a better end to her story, perhaps.

This shows part of the problem with telling kids they are trans and they really are a boy / girl. This child will undoubtedly have a very difficult time over the next few years, as I think most kids will who have been told the lie that they are really the other sex because they believe / wish themselves to be. It is quite clear that there is a significant risk of criminal liability for not disclosing their sex to sexual partners. The school should not have permitted this child to make this announcement in assembly. This is an official endorsement of the lie that girls are likely to rely on in making a decision about sexual involvement. They are facilitating potentially criminal sexual behaviour.

What's going to happen to the child when the truth comes out, as it inevitably will? How will a teenager cope with this?

Morecrack, this is an enormous subject but, basically, the labels of Man, Woman, Male and Female in legal terms are now defined by gender identity (that is, social and cultural performance), not biological sex -- although biological sex denotes your gender identity as Male or Female on your birth certificate and stands unless challenged.

However, the Gender Recognition Act states that changing gender actually changes your "sex", which makes no sense at all. It would be funny ... if it wasn't actually British Law.

And, in the UK, there is no requirement to be post-operative to get a Gender Recognition Certificate. You just need a statement of dysphoria, to have lived for two years as the acquired gender and have an intent to continue to do so.

This means you can legally become a woman in the UK, and still have a penis and testes. There is also no obligation to continue with any treatment after you have obtained your GRC and legally changed gender; it is not like your new gender status is revoked. You do not even need to continue to live as your acquired gender.

Indeed, there has been a theme running through British legislation for about fourteen years in which what someone perceives or feels is actually fact, regardless of evidence to the contrary. So if you believe yourself to be a woman, you are regardless of biological reality. If you believe yourself to have been a victim of discrimination, you have been regardless of whether absolutely anybody else involved in the incident actually thought there was discrimination.

However, there is a small section of the GRA that deals with gender-specific offences (the terminology is so twisted, it's a joke) which states that changing gender does not override certain conditions that pertain to sexual offences.

Honestly, it is a total mess. Part of the problem, to my mind, is that our broad-sheet media is rubbish. It simply does not do its job of monitoring and reporting state legislation. The other part of the problem is that our political classes are rubbish, and can't really think their way out of a paper bag.

Do people genuinely think that a 13 year old girl is unlikely to suffer psychological harm, or risk developing sexual issues if she discovers that her first boyfriend is physically a girl? Seriously?

I had absolutely no idea that was the case.

So in fact, based on a condition for which there is no scientific or neurological evidence a person is able to change the recording and reporting of their biological sex?
Where is the safeguarding for vulnerable individuals who believe they have gender dysphoria when in fact may not?

If a person 'lives as' the other sex for 2 years they can change a statement of biological fact?
And actually, this seems to indicate that the right of a person to choose the biological sex of their partner is removed, as long as that partner has obtained a gender recognition certificate...regardless of their possession of the reproductive system of their 'previous' sex.

As far as public records are concerned, their education and salary would be recorded as say, a woman, when they are in fact biologically male?

I would be interested to read the general criteria for a statement of dysphoria and how this identifies and describes 'gender identity', a notion which I am having difficulty processing or understanding.

I honestly could not tell you how I identify.
I have a female reproductive system..but further than that I'm stumped, frankly.

Very disjointed post but I am extremely confused by the legislation you describe.
Thank you for trying to explain in simple terms, though.

MoreCrack.... well, oh crumbs, how can I explain this?

In terms of British law, I am female because my birth certificate says so, and my birth certificate is a legal document of identity that cascades through my life.

All that matters in law in this specific regard is the legal identity of Man or Woman, Male or Female. This legal identity is now termed "gender" and is no longer dependent on biological sex (XX or XY chromosomes, or genital presentation).

The confusion comes because British legislation has confused the term "gender" with the term "sex", so, legally, changing gender now changes "sex".

The safeguarding of individuals who believe they have GD when, in fact, they may not is the two years of living as the acquired gender and a statement of GD. It is not particularly easy to get a GD statement in the UK, but the approach to the issue tends to be that .. well, modern medicine is pretty much about pathology and surgical or pharmaceutical solutions to pathology. The approach is that GD can be "cured" by surgery or pharmaceuticals, such as hormone therapy etc.

"If a person 'lives as' the other sex for 2 years they can change a statement of biological fact?"

Well, your legal identity is no longer a statement of biological fact. Legal gender and "sex" is no longer dependent on biological fact. You can be legally female, and have "a pillar and two stones".

"And actually, this seems to indicate that the right of a person to choose the biological sex of their partner is removed, as long as that partner has obtained a gender recognition certificate...regardless of their possession of the reproductive system of their 'previous' sex."

This is where that confusing section of the GRA comes into play. The CPS states that trans identity does not convey protection from charges of sexual assault or rape, but under the Equalities Act, you are not required to disclose your transgender status.

I would argue if your legal identity is female, but you were born biologically male, you have an obligation to inform a sexual partner in terms of validating their consent to sexual activity. This would fall under "conditional consent".

However, I don't know of a case in Britain where this has been tested under these specific terms. In the McNally case, and the situation in the OP, the circumstances were more straight-forward because the individuals were/will be still legally female. There have been another few cases (Wilson; Barker) where this has also been the case.

Incidentally, you are not legally obliged to tell a sexual partner you have HIV, but if you fail to do so, you can be prosecuted for intentional or reckless transmission if they become infected. It is a bit like, well, you don't have to, but if something goes wrong, you will be prosecuted.

"As far as public records are concerned, their education and salary would be recorded as say, a woman, when they are in fact biologically male?"

Yes. Any crimes they commit will be recorded under female statistics. Any recording of health services they access will be under female statistics. Any interaction with state agencies will be as a woman. Legally, that is what they are.

Incidentally, there was a very interesting quirk after the GRA and before The Marriage (same sex couples) Act because a marriage could not automatically convert into a civil partnership, and same-sex marriage did not then legally exist. If you were married and wanted to change gender, you had to divorce or annul your marriage because marriage was, in legal terms, between a legal male and a legal female. If one of you changed gender to be a legal female, then your marriage would be between two legal females -- and government was not prepared to legally recognise that.

Thanks works, that's really helpful and informative.

There are two young people involved in this relationship, and surely it would be wrong to focus only on the emotions, needs and vulnerability of one of them?

"There are two young people involved in this relationship, and surely it would be wrong to focus only on the emotions, needs and vulnerability of one of them?"

Absolutely. ABSOLUTELY!

And they are 13. 13!

How the actual fuck are people justifying leaving a 13 year old girl to deal by herself with the fall out of discovering that her first serious boyfriend is physically a girl? Because that isn't going to mess with her head even a bit, is it? And before anyone jumps on me, of course there is nothing wrong with a girl having a relationship with another girl. But that's not what's happening here.