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.

@Jellycatspyjamas

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.

This. ^^

Safeguarding ≠ snitching to parents
Safeguarding ≠ immediately 'outing' a child
Safeguarding ≠ betraying a child's trust

I don't see why people can't understand that safeguarding ≠ stopping kids from exploring their gender identity.

It's not hard.

It's almost like some in here have a less than well intentioned agenda

Yes, that’s something else that jumps out, repeatedly.

Those who know about safeguarding: “in the event there may be a potential risk to the child if their desire to socially transition was disclosed to their parents, the appropriate action would be to flag that risk up the safeguarding chain and ensure the relevant agencies were part of the support network.”

Those who…don’t: “I can’t believe you’d just tell the parents! Why would you just tell the parents and risk the child being beaten up??”

Do posters in the second group think people can’t read the actual words being written? That if they claim loudly enough that Group A are saying something that Group A very clearly aren’t saying, that we’ll all suddenly start to see the Emperor’s stunning ermine robes?

And as usual, illuminating to see which questions are ignored.

Also I note that nowhere does the OP suggest that any of the children she is concerned about have disclosed transphobic parents or a risk of such. Her concerns are that the school is disregarding basic safeguarding protocols and in doing so is acting unlawfully, unprofessionally and putting the children in question - and the jobs of any staff complicit in the school’s approach - at risk.

The leap to “these children are at risk of being beaten by awful transphobic parents” which has taken up so much focus seems, in the context of this specific thread, to be a strawman of Wicker Man proportions based on one poster’s - extremely sad and regrettable - personal account of their own homophobic (rather than transphobic) parent.

This is a movement with an obsession with other people’s kids. Get em young, make the ideology stick. Lobby group Stonewall’s ex chair Jan Gooding has been explicit about targeting primary schools...

‘Leaked transcript confirms Stonewall’s plans to target primary school children’
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4141017-Leaked-transcript-confirms-Stonewall-s-plans-to-target-primary-school-children

@rogdmum

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'm not convinced that is a likely outcome unless the child came up against a whole chain of social services staff who are gender critical to the point of being willing to ignore the risk in this context. If they're in doubt though I'm sure there would be a lot of inter agency work to look for the right approach and I can't imagine schools dealing with this without considering many aspects. If they haven't already got formal policies for it, they're going to need to because today's trans children have options other than suffering in silence until they are old enough to leave home.

For clarity, I have no issue with the general default position being disclosure however, there must be a caveat that recognises that not all children are living in safe supportive homes. There will be trans and gay children out there today in 2021 who are growing up in awful conditions. One 's where mothers and fathers shout obscenities about sexual minorities leaving some in no doubt that disclosure is absolutely not safe for them.

For that reason a school that will engage with the child and find this out can be a safe haven and one which may just be the catalyst for that child going on to lead a fulfilling and comfortable life. Taking a few moments to listen to the child's wishes may make such a difference. Of course affirming against the wishes of an abusive or intolerant parent is also a risk but one which the school and social services have within their grasp the power to mitigate.

Get em young, make the ideology stick.

What did the Jesuits say? "Give me a child of seven, and I will show you the man."

Except it's not a man ...

Steph now thinks Steph knows more than social services. Fortunately, Steph our experience of social services was that of someone who fully understood child protection and the underlying issues for our particular case.

It was an illuminating answer, though, Steph so thank you for it. I will guess my daughter’s school are choosing to ignore the recommendations from social services (and the mental health experts who have been involved in her life) for similar reasons- a belief that everyone else is wrong and they are right.

This way madness lies.

You've still not read any of the posts explaining how safeguarding actually works in schools have you Steph751 ?

Take a look at this (lengthy) court judgement about how a child is harmed when adults unthinkingly affirm a child and ignore massive safeguarding red flags because they're in thrall to an ideology - completely failing to hear the child

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

For that reason a school that will engage with the child and find this out can be a safe haven and one which may just be the catalyst for that child going on to lead a fulfilling and comfortable life. Taking a few moments to listen to the child's wishes may make such a difference.

Listening to the child and considering their wishes is a core part of good safeguarding practice and certainly in Scotland is written into legislation. Safeguarding doesn’t mean disregarding the child at all, it does mean weighing up the risks and acting accordingly wishing the framework of collaborative, multi agency working. It doesn’t mean supporting social transitioning with no regard to parents or indeed concealing such a transition from parents - which could place the child at considerably more risk if parents were to find out through the grapevine.

^I'm not convinced that is a likely outcome unless the child came up against a whole chain of social services staff who are gender critical to the point of being willing to ignore the risk in this context*

Well that’s telling as well isn’t it? The only possible reason a child wouldn’t be affirmed is if the child is surrounded by adults who are “gender critical”, not remotely because it wasn’t in the child’s best interests. You’re basically admitting that you cannot objectively assess what a child needs. Do you think it’s possible you could come across a child who said they were trans and didn’t think they should be affirmed?

You seem to think “gender critical” adults would decide a child wouldn’t needed affirming because of their own adult ideology. You’re pitting ideology vs ideology. Most people here are applying science, evidence, safeguarding and the welfare of children vs your ideology. Just because you can only think along ideological lines, doesn’t mean the rest of us do.

A child in that situation would never just be left to it or just have things disclosed, Steph.

I've been a teacher for over ten years. I've had children in my class taken into foster care for terrible abuse. This was never, ever unexpected
These children had been followed for years and any disclosures I have added to the picture. I wasn't involved in the decision to take the children.from their families, I wasn't qualified to do that. A whole team around the.child ensures that your imaginary scenario is prevented by safeguarding- from the.moment a child is conceived with midwives and health visitors right up to college.

And every job I ever had required a CRB. It's not because they think I'm an abuser or pedophile, it's a net to stop those people getting through. The same protocol is adopted whether you are a high risk group like men or a low risk one like women.

And safeguarding exists so even if those individuals do slip through, they aren't offered any opportunities to take advantage and other members of staff can do something without feeling pressured by loyalty to their colleagues.
The safeguard in this case is a classic point. The chain has failed but there's another link the op needs to go down to ensure she's complicit with the law. It's to protect herself, the children and the teachers making a mistake.

What did the Jesuits say? "Give me a child of seven, and I will show you the man."

I don’t suppose they anticipated the 2021 version, which is much the same, but where the child is a girl and the Jesuits are Mermaids.

I'm not convinced that is a likely outcome unless the child came up against a whole chain of social services staff who are gender critical to the point of being willing to ignore the risk in this context.

I am loving this thread.

Not just all or nothing, but now the implication that 'gender critical' people are incompetent and will ignore risks. But am I reading this right, that only gender critical people believe that there may be other factors to be considered for a child's decision to social transition?

That any clinician or safeguarding specialist who may think that there is something else that is causing this child's distress is now labelled as 'gender critical' and in many groups that label means that person can be discredited.

Did I read that correctly? Happy to be corrected.

That was my reading too. I don’t think you need correcting.

Oh. Cross posted with NotBadConsidering.

So I am not the only one who picked up that slipped in there.

So again.... the undermining attempt to portray any person who might be 'gender critical' as being someone who would harm a child in their care.

It is like the 'all or nothing' technique that has been deployed many times on this thread. Once you see it, it is hard to miss it.

Thank god there are safeguarding guidelines which are clear, if you actually read them, and simple to follow. A child discloses. And it gets referred and a team of experienced people should then work out the way forward.

This thread is a thing of beauty and I’m tempted to send it to our former social worker.

*I reading this right, that only gender critical people believe that there may be other factors to be considered for a child's decision to social transition?

That any clinician or safeguarding specialist who may think that there is something else that is causing this child's distress is now labelled as 'gender critical' and in many groups that label means that person can be discredited.

Did I read that correctly? Happy to be corrected.*

That's how I read it Helleofabore

So what about detransitioners who clearly spell out that they wished someone had talked to them about their other options and why they were feeling like this, and addressed existing MH issues and pressures?

Being GC may mean helping to make a child aware that there are gender stereotypes and not fitting into them is OK, and doesn't mean they are not a girl or not a boy. That is simply the truth. Even transactivists must be able to see that there are gender-non-conforming people who are happy as the sex they are and don't identify as trans.

The fact is that many children are identifying as trans because they are being told that not fitting a regressive, sexist gender stereotype means they are trans. They are being told this on the internet, by peers and by school, as well as sometimes by parents and carers. Putting another view, or sharing true facts like "feeling like you don't fit in as a girl doesn't have to mean you're a boy" or "a lot of people go through feelings like this, but most of them change their mind so it's sensible not to rush things" is not abusive. Realising your child is struggling and sees being trans as a solution, and trying to get them some help to sort through their feelings, is not abusive. And to conflate these things with actual transphobia and bigotry and actual danger to a child is deeply disingenuous and calculating.

Of course affirming against the wishes of an abusive or intolerant parent is also a risk but one which the school and social services have within their grasp the power to mitigate.

'Affirming' is a risk to the child of itself which is why experts do not recommend this but instead recomnend watchful waiting. 'Affirming cements a child on a path most grow out of with watchful waiting. A path children are unable to consent to. A path of interventions that cause physical and psychological harm. A path which over 90% of adult transwomen choose not to take. A path which leads to 18 times increased risk of suicide. And yet you place parents who object to teachers going against the law and professional advice alongside abusive parents. Why is that?

You don’t even have to bring gender critical into it. If you have a child who is using being seen as the opposite sex as a maladaptive coping mechanism, yes, they are using gender stereotypes to be seen as the opposite sex, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are doing so because they are GNC - i.e. the adoption of an identity is not necessarily borne out of previous pressure re gender stereotypes.

A good clinician and social worker will recognise this and explore it. Doesn’t necessarily make them gender critical.

Teachers are taught to look for extreme cases of personality change, presentation and withdrawal as these are classic cases of abuse.
So a child with rapid onset dysphoria meets criteria that have been around longer than the explosion in rod cases.

After all, if there are a few hundred thousand trans adults why do few trans children?

Surely this question should be expressed the other way around?

70% of referrals are now for girls wanting to present as male.

So - where are all of the adult transmen? If the numbers are static and not due to a trend/social contagion, why isn’t there a 4000% increase in adult, middle-aged women who now wish to identify as male?

@TheSlayer

Teachers are taught to look for extreme cases of personality change, presentation and withdrawal as these are classic cases of abuse. So a child with rapid onset dysphoria meets criteria that have been around longer than the explosion in rod cases.

Really good point.