Advice: schools socially transitioning children without parental knowledge or consent.

[Libby55]

Hi,

The school I work in is socially transitioning children by changing their names and pronouns without informing parents. Adults working in school are supposed to keep this a secret when communicating with parents. I believe this is a safeguarding issue and that the school is harming children. This is something I know little about and I'm asking for help because I'm looking for an organisation that specifically campaigns against schools harming children in this way. My colleagues share my concerns but are afraid to raise their concerns. My union seems to have adopted gender identity politics. I have to do something: I can see children being harmed. If any of you know of a teacher's group that is lobbying against the practice of socially transitioning children without parents' knowledge or consent, please let me know. I would like to get involved.

Agreed hecates. However, even if we accept that everyone here has the best interests of children at heart, I still don't see the points about a school being an open community are addressed. I can't see how a parent finding out about a social transition because another parent lets slip in the local co-op is a better scenario for the child than for the message to be mediated by the school in the first place. I'd be very grateful if the posters who oppose safeguarding practices could explain this.

[quote EyeEdinburgh]@CandyLeBonBon "That no [teachers], who seem warm and caring and welcoming are not paedophiles/drug dealers/sex traffickers? "

I may be idealistic, Candy, but we are discussing a schoolchild talking to a teacher at their own school. You may feel that teachers could be paedophiles / drug dealers / sex traffickers and therefore no schoolchild should trust a teacher, ever, but the same might just as readly be said of parents: paedophiles / drug dealers / sex traffickers may have children of their own, too.

I do think your irrational fear that a child who confides in teacher is confiding in an intrinsically untrustworthy person is a bit of a slur on teachers.[/quote]
You're being deliberately obtuse.

And yet I see more examples of the absolutist approach used by the usual trans activists who want ‘no debate’. The continued line of thinking that the right approach for this single area is silence from the teachers. And that the only other alternative is that teacher immediately and directly tell the parents. There seems no in between.

It is the same principle underlining the ‘children know exactly what is best for themselves so should have the authority to make life changing, life limiting and potentially life shortening decisions for themselves at an age when they cannot hope to understand the effects of these decisions’ as the gold standard for health care.

We see it frequently. The same groups insist that there can be nothing short of fully believing the mantras, yet assert that women standing for their rights are cannot see ‘nuance’ and ‘compromise’.

The hyperbole and hypocrisy continues on this thread.

I wouldn’t mind so much if it was just randoms on the internet spouting their dodgy-as-hell ideas about how to look after kids, but as we all know there is institutional capture. These ideas have permeated schools, police, law etc.

I will say this as vaguely and as pondering as I can, to avoid accusations directly of people, but I can’t help but vaguely wonder in whose best interests is this approach, and what do they stand to gain?

Cui bono is a question that never goes out of style.

This thread really has exposed the gulf between activism and children's needs hasn't it?
The link below shows what can happen to a child when activists and ideology are seen as more important than a child's welfare.
Child J - a little boy was 'transitioned' by his very unwell mother. Many professionals went along with her demands, immediately changing his name and affirming him as a girl. Interestingly the school didn't agree. Mermaids of course got involved and were notably barred from having any involvement in the case by the judge.
This eventually ended up in court where the mother lost custody of the child to the father. The judge found that she was emotionally abusing the child with her insistence, in the face of all the evidence, that he was a girl. He criticised all those professionals who unthinkingly followed political dogma rather than focus on the welfare of the child - just as we have seen played out on this thread. If you've never come across this case, it's a grim read about the awful consequences for a young child of imposing this adult ideology on them:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

I would think the main reason a child wouldn't want to disclose their gender distress at home is because they don't feel safe or confident of parental support in doing so. For that reason I think the school are correct in their policy and considering the safety of the child.

Ultimately, if a child asks a school not to disclose, I think that the school should treat that as a huge red flag about the parents and disclose that information to social services at the earliest opportunity so they can investigate why that child feels like that.

Maybe social transition is an indicator of medical transition but, what we do know is that if around 10,000 children have been referred to GIDS over recent years out of a pool of around 12.5 million under 18 's around 99.92% of under 18's in the UK are never referred to adolescent gender services. What we also know is that even if children are referred they will need parental/guardian/social services support for any interventions. This is a matter of law as we know from the recent court case that made much of the Bell judgement around consent irrelevant for those with supportive parents. Further we know that referrals will wait around three years to be seen. Add in a likely further 18 months to two years of assessments by GIDS and UCH we can with some level of confidence say that anyone referred beyond the age of 13 today will be unlikely to receive any interventions on the NHS before adulthood. Based on the current estimates banded around of between 0.3% and 1% of the population being trans, this number referrred is smaller than I'd expect. Even of those referred, I'm led to believe only 20% or less go beyond a consultation stage. Enter stage right the much misrepresented 80% desistence statistic that is often misapplied. So what we have in 0.08% of under 18's being referred to GIDS of which 80 or so % to no further than chatting about their feelings before realising they're probably not trans anyway. The group that is left, those who are determined to be persistent, insistent and consistent really don't deserve the hostility that directed towards them and those who support them.

All that leads me to think that we live in a society where a large number of trans people surpress their distress and identity until adulthood. After all, if there are a few hundred thousand trans adults why do few trans children? There could be many reasons for that but an expectation of unsupportive parents or even a fear of abuse and transphobia can't be discounted as a significant factor and is a very real concern for this tiny cohort of children. Many trans people are likely to support this idea given their experiences.

Given all that, the small numbers involved, the likelihood of adolescent treatment even occurring and the absolutely undisputed fact that there are abusive parents out there, I think schools would be neglectful and playing fast and loose with the safety of their pupils if they had a blanket policy of always disclosing their support for a child's sense of self to their parents. Of course in many cases it won't be a problem but, the safeguarding risk of always doing so is in my opinion huge and one schools can't afford to dismiss even at the behest of pressure from the Safe Schools Alliance of Transgender Trend.

Steph751
I think schools would be neglectful and playing fast and loose with the safety of their pupils if they had a blanket policy of always disclosing their support for a child's sense of self to their parents.

To repeat - schools are bound by the law, statutory guidance which states that they must work in partnership with parents. Only the courts can remove parental rights / responsibilities . Schools do not have the legal powers to remove parental rights. SSA & Transgender Trend simply expect schools to abide by the law and not follow the demands of adult activist groups.

Sincere respect to all those on this thread patiently explaining and re explaining safeguarding 101 to those determined not to hear it

So we are now seeing the ‘it is not going to be really that many’ that medically transition so what is the problem.

sophocles exactly who benefits here needs to be asked up front everytime.

Which adults are ultimately pushing this agenda and what is their interest? What specifically is their interest?

And to be blunt, does the group pushing this agenda have any depth of understanding of the current cohort of transitioners at this age?

Or do they simply project their own experience which is not all that relevant to this young group, majority being females with some very significant differences in motivations to transition ?

Yes… exactly who benefits?

I mean, normally I'd grudgingly admire persistence, but in the face of the expertise calmly reiterated time at again on this thread, to return to restate that no, you don't think trans children deserve the same safeguarding protection as everyone else really does just sharply illustrate a real contempt for those kids.

It's almost like children are being expected to serve an ideology at any cost.

Although I'm broadly in agreement that if possible a joint approach is obviously best, I would think any school disclosing that sort of information where there is even the slightest whiff of risk of parental abuse to the child in them doing so would be on very shaky ground. No parental right supports forcing them to suppress a child's sense of self in this context .

Given the balance of risk involved I'm astonished that those two groups would be so reckless as to support playing fast and loose with children's safety. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. Still, I do try to see the best in people.

I know very little about safeguarding and it’s a long time since my adult stepchildren went through the school system.

I’ve read every post on this thread and one thing in particular jumps out with clarity: there is a group of posters who can state policy, quote legislation and case law, talk factually and, so far as it’s able to tell from the internet, knowledgeably about safeguarding and the principles behind it.

Then there is a slightly smaller group of posters who use hyperbole and strawmen, focus on the personal not the professional, argue against the quoted laws and policies and are quick to use the catch-all phrase “transphobia” without any definition of what that actually means.

It’s been illuminating

[quote EyeEdinburgh]@CandyLeBonBon Why would the child be present at a parent-teacher meeting?

Is this some new thing? In my day, parents met with their child's teacher without their child present, and passed on, or not, to the child what the teacher had to say.[/quote]
Illustrating perfectly how little you know about schools and parent/teacher/child relationship.

@Helleofabore

So we are now seeing the ‘it is not going to be really that many’ that medically transition so what is the problem.

sophocles exactly who benefits here needs to be asked up front everytime.

Which adults are ultimately pushing this agenda and what is their interest? What specifically is their interest?

And to be blunt, does the group pushing this agenda have any depth of understanding of the current cohort of transitioners at this age?

Or do they simply project their own experience which is not all that relevant to this young group, majority being females with some very significant differences in motivations to transition ?

Yes… exactly who benefits?

'Who exactly benefits?'

I'm this context I'm leaning towards a cautious approach to parental disclosure being of benefit to the child.

Of course, if having given thought to the balance of risk you are still supportive of a blanket disclosure policy even knowing this can in some cases result in abuse I'm afraid I've little more to say. Hopefully not too many headteachers out there will be willing to follow your line. Safeguarding 101, when I give the parents this information what will the potential outcomes be? If there's risk, inform social services and support the child in their sense of self at what will be a very difficult time in their lives.

Of course, if having given thought to the balance of risk you are still supportive of a blanket disclosure policy even knowing this can in some cases result in abuse I'm afraid I've little more to say. Hopefully not too many headteachers out there will be willing to follow your line. Safeguarding 101, when I give the parents this information what will the potential outcomes be? If there's risk, inform social services and support the child in their sense of self at what will be a very difficult time in their lives.

Not one of those knowledgeable in safeguarding have talked about blanket policies of immediately going to the parents and have all said that passing this on to the right agency is what should happen if it was felt that there was additional risk involved.

Blanket policies of informing parents have only been mentioned by those seemingly arguing against safeguarding procedures.

Of course, if having given thought to the balance of risk you are still supportive of a blanket disclosure policy even knowing this can in some cases result in abuse I'm afraid I've little more to say.

Strangely, I have been reading the posts here from the many trained in safeguarding and not one of them has advocated this. Despite some posters stating that they have.

I have stated that this ‘all or nothing’ absolutist approach is a common theme we see from a specific group who use it to silence people who are trying to signpost issues, or merely state that there are conflicts to be resolved.

I have also stated that we see a commonality with a group of people who push an agenda that tends to be harmful for a cohort of young females. That being that their transition history is being amplified as being completely relevant to a cohort of young females when it is only loosely relevant.

And I ask who exactly benefits from an agenda that has the capacity to cause harm to this group of young people?

X post afternoontoffee

The paint the uncaring MN’ers as the absolutists is so hard to miss once you see it in use.

Indeed AfternoonToffee . So many deliberate misrepresentations of a complex area.
Safeguarding is a multi agency approach - you never work alone precisely because the decisions are so often difficult - there's a balance of risks that must be discussed before you decide what to do. The law is clear about principles like working in partnership with parents but every case is different and needs the child being listened to, risks assessed and often shared with those more qualified than teachers.

There's decades of data showing that children alienated from or removed from their parents by the state are at the greatest risk of abuse, mental health problems, involvement in crime, poor academic qualifications etc. The evidence is stark and unchallengable.That's why removing parental responsibility can only be done by the courts.

The idea that activists - the majority of who aren't parents - are deliberately trying to interfere in that relationship and encourage dividing children and parents is a disgrace.

If there's risk, inform social services and support the child in their sense of self at what will be a very difficult time in their lives.

And if social services then decide the school should not affirm the child as the opposite sex, what then, Steph , do you accept that recommendation?

I wonder if it isn't time for the Government to look at safeguarding across all our public services. This isn't a statement to derail the thread but I have concerns that our public services implement policies and then forget all about them. In schools, they then become important when an Ofsted inspection is about to take place (this might have changed - updated me).

Look at Schools, NHS, Police, Fire Service, Local Authorities. All seem to have lost sight of their fundamental duties as public servants.

One of the issues for teachers is that SW et all have been pushing the 'affirmation model' and the Secretary of State has not stated how this must be dealt with. Clearly a child who believes they are trans has a long time to wait before any medical intervention but that time lag between their statement and any action means they have only the affirmative model and wont move beyond that for a few years, unable to find out whether they might just be gay/lesbian

@OnlyTheLangOfTheTitberg

I know very little about safeguarding and it’s a long time since my adult stepchildren went through the school system.

I’ve read every post on this thread and one thing in particular jumps out with clarity: there is a group of posters who can state policy, quote legislation and case law, talk factually and, so far as it’s able to tell from the internet, knowledgeably about safeguarding and the principles behind it.

Then there is a slightly smaller group of posters who use hyperbole and strawmen, focus on the personal not the professional, argue against the quoted laws and policies and are quick to use the catch-all phrase “transphobia” without any definition of what that actually means.

It’s been illuminating

I would second this and extend it to near enough every debate I've read on here. The gaping holes in the TRA movement are shown up not just by the strength of debate by Feminists on this forum (brilliant as you are) but the sheer idiocy of the opposition argument.

Although I'm broadly in agreement that if possible a joint approach is obviously best, I would think any school disclosing that sort of information where there is even the slightest whiff of risk of parental abuse to the child in them doing so would be on very shaky ground.

I and others here have advocated for a risk informed approach, if the school have honest reason to think a child is at risk from their parents in disclosing their gender identity the school need to treat that as they would any other safeguarding risk, which would mean a multi disciplinary assessment including the child and parent. No one is advocating a teacher as an individual deals with this - either to conceal information given by the child (and supporting social transition) or discussing with the parents directly.

The child needs qualified, experienced support if they are to work through their issues and make a decision to transition, that can’t be done by one teacher or indeed one school.

If there’s a risk to the child, there are processes to deal with that, which don’t involve the school transitioning the child without their parents knowledge.

I would also like to echo the words of @OnlyTheLangOfTheTitberg and @SocialAffairsAndWoodlandFolk

I agree wholeheartedly:

The gaping holes in the TRA movement are shown up not just by the strength of debate by Feminists on this forum (brilliant as you are) but the sheer idiocy of the opposition argument.