NHS Transgender guidance for schools

[QuarksandLeptons]

NHS Forth Valley have a document called ‘Supporting Transgender & Gender Variant Children & Young People - Guidance for Schools’

It’s a contradictory document, poorly written with whole sections that disagree with various pints. For example it talks about wanting to prevent sex stereotypes and how restrictive they are but then goes on to praise how brave it is to be trans, when it’s the most sexist thing in the works to say that someone who likes things traditionally associated with one sex is in fact born in the wrong body.

It’s all awful but has some particularly worrying sections, in particular a part on dealing with young children with learning disabilities, basically saying to guide them that only certain behaviour is appropriate for each of the sexes. I’ve attached the section.

It also says teachers should not tell anyone if a pupil says they are transitioning- including their parents or other staff members.

It has jolly part about girls binding their breasts, written as though this is something totally reasonable and healthy to do.

The whole thing is misinformed & doesn't reflect current science on the fact and boys and girls do not have pink and blue brains and therefore are born in the wrong body.
It wilfully leaves at risk children (autistic, sexually abused or depressed) without any support as it simply says accept any child who says they are trans and not to involve their loved ones or even any one else in the school who could help.
There’s evidence that often traumatised children use transitioning as a way to dissociate from themselves. This would no longer be picked up on.

This should not be anywhere near schools. I cannot believe the NHS is endorsing this anti-science trans propaganda that seeks to turn gender non conforming kids into permanent medical patients. And will also leave really vulnerable young people with no proper support.

Sorry that this is not edited and a bit ranty, I wanted to share it as I’m so horrified. Putting my baby to sleep so got to write fast and furiously in case he wakes!

If you email, say in the email that you’re sending a hard copy in the post. In this day and age, an actual piece of paper is more difficult to ignore.

Quarks and others
One possible issue MPs might understand is that the pressure groups are forcing an untested 'affirmation' model on schools where they insist that any child of any age who 'self declares' is immediately affirmed as the opposite sex and must be treated as such. Until recently, there has been an established clinical model of 'watchful waiting.' for very good reasons with maturing children and adolescents.
I also agree about the similarities to the pro ana sites that we have always steered vulnerable children away from.
I have been busily alerting teaching and education friends of mine about this. To date it has been received well but I suspect that is because they are generally older and parents of teenagers so are fully aware of teenage vulnerabilities to grooming etc.

Norah I'm going to come at this from the POV of 1) safeguarding children and 2) the potential liability of people who fail to safeguard children and the financial implications of this. Sadly I think point 2 is what may get through to politicians

If you email, say in the email that you’re sending a hard copy in the post. In this day and age, an actual piece of paper is more difficult to ignore.

True! I’ll do that.

WTAF,
Agreed. The safeguarding issue is the most outrageous issue and yes, the financial implications will be significant once the lawsuits start flooding in from those rendered sexually and physically harmed by making decisions far too young (aided and abetted by politicians promoting this rubbish).

If it goes ahead with this GRA I agree that the government will likely face massive legal difficulties over the next decade or two when the penny finally drops about the harm that’s been done. But mentioning this point to an MP might be counterproductive if he or she is part of the brigade who can’t/won’t see the potential harm. If that’s the case then it might automatically get your letter dismissed as irrational and scare-mongering. Personally I’m going to test the waters with my MP before mentioning this.

Can someone more articulate than me please do a template letter? I’m very happy to write to my MP but could do with some help with the letter.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2879137-Open-Letters-to-Our-MPs-on-the-Gender-Identity-Bill

Hello Bluebell - there are lots of examples on this thread (this is about the GRA bill, not necessarily about the schools info)

Bluebellforest1

You don’t have to be articulate, erudite or anything. Just be you. Be angry, be heartfelt.

I'm going to come at this from the POV of 1) safeguarding children and 2) the potential liability of people who fail to safeguard children and the financial implications of this. Sadly I think point 2 is what may get through to politicians

I've been thinking along the same lines following on from some of the comments in the now deleted thread from the local councillor (re wanting to stick her head above the parapet due to some of the serious safeguarding issues she was witnessing in her local area). [I'm really hoping the OP in that thread is okay .]

There were comments along the lines that a lot of people in politics (as well as those in health, education etc organisations) could see the problems with what was happening and the risks this presented but because of the risks of speaking out (e.g the risk of losing your job, harassment, violence etc) that it was much safer for them to do nothing - so people were taking the safe option (and probably hoping that someone else will do something).

I think we need to make it clear that doing and saying nothing is not a safe option for our politicians and those in positions of power with responsibility for the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults.

I don’t mean in the transactivist way of threats and violence but I’ve been thinking about previous scandals such as Rochdale/Rotherham where warnings weren’t listened to it, the safety of girls wasn’t taken seriously and it was considered politically incorrect to address what was going. Years later when it finally became a scandal, there were investigations into who knew what and criticism of those in power who had been warned but chose to look the other way because it was easier.

In terms of specific aspects of this e.g. the transing of children and other safeguarding issues which are already arising (because many organisations are acting as though the GRA is already in law), would it be useful to raise these with the relevant people (e.g. Minister for Children and Families and for specific local issues the councillor responsible for children’s services, the director of children’s services, local safeguarding board etc)? –Setting out specific safeguarding issues, stated objectively with facts and examples, if applicable, and saying that you are asking them to take appropriate action as the person responsible for child safeguarding etc – making sure everything is in writing so that there is a clear record that they were informed of this issues and asked to act.

I'm not sure of the best way to phrase it but maybe allude to previous scandals or, in specific local cases, saying that they shouldn't wait for the outcome of a serious case review to learn lessons from this when it is clear for any professional in this area to see that this is a safeguarding risk.

Basically, make them uncomfortable with ignoring the safeguarding issues and make sure they know they are taking a risk with regard to their own reputation and career when they fail to safeguard children and vulnerable adults.

Thanks stop, I’ll have a read through.

amethyst975
Me too! Still at it from yesterday.
Keep deleting as too emotional.

Can I ask re the op- I was assuming as it was written by a health authority I was going to write to them. Do people think Mps better? (mine is useless though) Maybe do both ? Have to get the darn thing written first though

Regarding the SEND guidelines, I’ve never read so much tripe. I’m extremely glad that the staff I know would seriously question this; indeed I know a person working in send schools who would say to allow a child to explore which ever type of activity they wish. I also believe that a professional play therapist would say this too.

The person who wrote this needs to sit in a room and be forever to watch the bbc no more girls and boys documentary that was on in the summer.

Thanks Quarks

These seem to the contact details to send complaints to

Email: [email protected]

General Enquiries
St. Andrew's House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG

If anyone thinks there are specific Scottish MInisters who might be worth contacting, may be good to send them a letter too

Quarks
here is my draft letter.I have paraphrased some of your words and others on this thread and also on the aibu thread.i hope thats ok. Have tried to not use emotional language. Any comments/suggestions /help gratefully received.
copies to NHS Forth Valley
Scottish Secretary for Education
Email: [email protected] General Enquiries St. Andrew's House Regent RoadEdinburghEH1 3DG
Dear Sir /madam
I am writing to you to express my concern about a document that has recently come to my attention namely‘ Supporting transgender and gender variant children and young people’ adapted and developed by: Kaye Hills Education Officer, Clackmannanshire and Stirling Council Joanne Barrie, Community Sexual Health Educator, NHS Forth Valley. It appears to have been adapted from the Scottish governments guidelines recently published.
I have worked for many years with children and young adults with additional support needs and I am very concerned about some of the information in this document. There are a number of subjective statements and factual inaccuracies which I will detail below. However my main concern is that the guidance seems to be at variance with Scottish safeguarding guidelines. For example on pages 20 it is stated :-
..it is important that if a child or young person does not want their parents to know, the school must respect their wishes. Breaking confidentiality to inform parents may put the young person at risk in their own home or force them to ‘come out’ to others before they are ready to do so.. (my italics)
This statement is particularly worrying , firstly as it positions parents as a 'threat' to their child's wellbeing. Secondly I would argue that the confidentiality decision is not up to a teacher or any other member of the school’s staff. It may be the correct decision but it may not. Discussions should be in partnership and the risks evaluated. Safeguarding procedures have not just randomly been arrived at. They have been developed following countless child deaths and instances of abuse. These NHS guidelines leave at risk, without any support, children who are on the autism spectrum, sexually abused or depressed. It appears to be telling staff to accept any child who says they are trans and not to involve their loved ones or even anyone else in the school who could help. Furthermore, there is evidence that traumatised children sometimes use transitioning as a way to dissociate from themselves. This would no longer be picked up on if these guidelines are adhered to. In fact the guidelines are directly in conflict with child protection procedures when they advice not sharing information with parents. The child protection procedures state:
Parental rights are necessary to allow a parent to fulfil their responsibilities, which include looking after their child’s health, development and welfare, providing guidance to their child, maintaining regular contact with their child if they do not live with them and acting as their child’s legal representative. In order to fulfil these responsibilities, parental rights include the right to have their child live with them and to decide how their child is brought up
The Scottish guidelines also state:
Parents/carers, families and communities have the primary role in safeguarding, supporting and promoting the wellbeing of children; parents/carers have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that their child’s needs are met, and are often best placed to do so. Agencies and services should encourage and support parents/carers, families and communities in carrying out that role
It also states this:-
All services that work with children and/or their carers are expected to identify and consider the child’s wellbeing, and to share appropriate information with others collaboratively with the child, their family and other services.
So, in terms of Scottish safeguarding, there are clearly some aspects of the NHS Forth Valley guidelines which are at variance with these.
( this bit to mps only )?( I wonder if the writers of the NHS guidance have even considered the potential liability of people who fail to safeguard children and the financial implications of this? I am also thinking about previous scandals such as Rochdale and Rother where warnings weren’t listened to. The safety of girls wasn’t taken seriously and it was considered politically incorrect to address what was going on. I therefore consider it the duty of those in power such as yourself, who have responsibility for the safeguarding of children and young people , not to stand by and say or do nothing.)
I would argue that pressure groups are forcing an untested 'affirmation' model on schools where they insist that any child of any age who 'self declares' is immediately affirmed as the opposite sex and must be treated as such. Until recently, there has been an established clinical model of 'watchful waiting.' for very good reasons, with maturing children and adolescents. The NHS guidance seems to flout this model.

My second point is with regard to the section about binding which states :-
… A female to Male adolescent who is developing breasts may strap down their chest so that it is less obvious. This can be hot, uncomfortable and restrictive but very important to their psychological and emotional wellbeing.

There is no mention of the young woman’s physical wellbeing in relation to binding. For example research from the Binding Health Project and published in Culture, Health, and Society found that ninety seven percent of those surveyed, reported at least one negative health outcome that they attributed to binding. Seventy four percent reported pain-related concerns. Fifty respondents believed they had suffered from rib fractures as a result of binding. The casual reference to binding in the document seems to normalise the practice yet does not mention any of these symptoms.
I am also concerned about the reference on page 21 to puberty blockers which states :-
‘Stopping treatment allows the body to go through the normal puberty for that child’
This seems to be saying that blockers are reversible. Where is the medical evidence in this document to support this statement? Indeed it has been stated by some in the medical profession that there is not enough information to decide whether not puberty blockers are safe and reversible. Some puberty blockers such as Lupron have been shown to cause side effects such as joint problems, brittle bones, increased asthma attacks and fibromyalgia ( probs need a reference here but only ones I can find are from protrans sites. Help appreciated thanks ) *
A further concern is the references to sex and gender which contain factually incorrect statements. For example on page three it says:-
‘Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of whether they are male, female, both or neither. This can be different from the biological sex assigned to a child at birth. Gender identity is internal. ‘
The biological sex of a child is a fact- they are male or female, it is not ‘assigned to a child at birth.‘ There are a number of contradictions in this document and I also notice several statements that admit sex and gender are not the same thing, alongside ones that are conflating the two as one and the same. Such as, on page four it is stated that:-
Female to Male (FtoM) person will have been assigned a female sex at birth yet identifies their gender as male; a Male to Female (MtoF) person will have been assigned as male at birth yet identify their gender as female.

Sex and gender are not the same thing. Gender identity is something that females and male are socialised into. They differ in time and across cultures and are often stereotypical , regressive and restrictive. In fact on page ten the document states that gender stereoypes should be discouraged. However the writers seem to be advocating the opposite of this on page 14, with reference to children with ASN. It seems to be advising guiding them in accepting that only certain behaviours are appropriate for each of the sexes. It says :-
Please note: by age 2 or 3, a child starts to develop a sense of being a male or female. Some children with a learning disability/additional support needs, however, may not develop gender awareness at the same age and stage as their peers. It is important that children with ASN are actively taught gender identity so that they understand the gender assigned to them at birth.(My bold )
And
Conversely, this often requires blatant ‘boy/girl’ activities. However, once a child understands the gender assigned to them at birth, teaching and practice can diversify to include non-stereotypical approaches and allow the child to explore their True Gender identity.

The guide is essentially saying that two and three year olds with additional needs are not able to develop their own sense of self and should be engaged in activities based on sexist stereotypes until they understand 'what boys do '(play with trainsets, rough-and-tumble games?) and 'what girls do' (dress as pink princesses and play with dolls?). Once they understand what a girl is and what a boy is, they can be encouraged to explore whether they really are a girl or a boy. What actually are these ‘activities based on sexist stereotypes ?’ Who is going to decide that? Where is the Dfe guidance on what 'boy activities' are and what are 'girl activities'?
My final point relating to advice in the NHS document concerns the note about disabled toilets as follows
‘ ….it may be appropriate to rename the facilities ‘unisex accessible toilets’, ‘larger toilet’, ‘toilet and changing facility’ or simply ‘toilet’ to reduce the stigma of using disabled toilets. (my bold)
I am appalled that the implication is that disability has some sort of stigma which trans children must avoid.
In conclusion particularly in relation to children with special educational needs , I would like to know the SEND teaching experience and professional educational qualifications of the people who wrote these guidelines. I would also like to know what research and literature they are based on.
I think this need a bit more here before I close. Eg dangerous to make unscientific subjective statements that endanger childrens health safety and well being, Grateful for suggestions thanks

I

That reads really well TheLilyWhite
Do you think it might be worth while dividing it into different headings so whoever reads it can dip in and out and see the various intertwined issues created by the document.

I found this link about the negative effects of Lupron on females.

www.nwhn.org/lupron-what-does-it-do-to-womens-health/

It’s quite long, but here’s one excerpt:

“Lupron®’s original manufacturer, Takeda-Abbott Pharmaceuticals (TAP) Pharmaceuticals, has stated that the drug’s side effects are temporary and should last no longer than six months after stopping the medication.4 But, surveys conducted by the Endometriosis Research Center (a patient advocacy group) with women who took Lupron® has indicated that over half of the respondents (51.67%) experienced side effects lasting for longer than six months; for almost one-quarter (23%) of the women, side effects lasted longer than five years.5 Other clinical studies have found that almost three-quarters (72%) of women taking Lupron® experience memory difficulties, and that these memory problems can last as long as six months after the study was conducted”

There was another good article I found before which had first hand accounts of crippling physical and mental problems directly caused by Lupron. I’ll post it here when I find it

Here it is:

khn.org/news/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems/

It is important that children with ASN are
actively taught gender identity so that they understand the gender assigned to them at birth.
Seriously? Have we all time travelled back to the 19c?

And this, a website dedicated / created by those suffering from having taken Lupron:

www.lupronvictimshub.com/

It appears that thousands of women have requested an investigation into the drug to the appalling effects it has had on them
(Sorry for derailing!)

www.petition2congress.com/ctas/investigation-lupron-side-effects-leuprolide-acetate

Ok last one before I completely derail this thread.
A 41 year old women with dementia caused by doctors giving her shots of Lupron for fibroids in her womb.

To think of the effects on a growing child is chilling.

www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/brain_injury/interview-brain-injury-lawsuit-2-17634.html#.Wih3FGinyEc

quarks

Thanks so much that's really helpful. Will post replies if I get any!

Thelilywhite

I agree that keeping emotion out of a letter is a good thing. It aids credibility.

Having said that, I think you could put the odd statement in that shows the depth of your incredulity.

Because your letter, although calm and rational doesn’t always convey the outrageousness of what they are suggesting.

For instance, the poster above who wrote “Seriously? Have we all time travelled back to the 19c?”

I’m not suggesting you use those exact words, but dropping in the odd phrase like “... unbelievably regressive”, or “... sounds frankly negligent”. Or “... impossible to reconcile with previous guidelines”.

Giving them a taste of quite how aghast a normal person might react.

There is often a fine line between a rant and a profound disagreement. But it can be done.

I hope you don’t mind my comments. It’s an excellent letter. And brilliant that you’re writing it.

( I agree with setting it out under headings).

I note that you have also asked for the evidence. It’s worth noting that people like mermaids and GIREs do not have a medical qualification between them.