Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Another legal challenge in a school

91 replies

McDuffy · 14/02/2022 06:33

School said boy, six, would be transphobic if he expressed confusion over classmate

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b1d3c552-8cec-11ec-87eb-ee84fabc72c9?shareToken=d3ade170b13d61b9d827b727ab8c5ab8

I have a 5yo and can empathise with these parents

OP posts:
Whatwouldscullydo · 15/02/2022 09:04

And it won’t be long until a girl sustains a, possibly very serious, injury. Rugby!!

We will have a girl potentially with life changing injuries. The poor boy(s) accidently responsible will probably never get over it feeling fucking awful for the rest of their lives. The insurance won't pay just like they wouldn't pay if you left your door unlocked/open or didn't lock your car in the garage after stating on the policy its stored in a garage over night.

The " implement at own risk/ we take no responsibility for incidents caused " is om the small print of the training materials.

The school will be 100 percent financially liable.

OldCrone · 15/02/2022 10:25

In fact, currently being trans with no GRC (all trans children) is not a protected characteristic either.

You don't need a GRC to be protected under the pc of gender reassignment. The EA2010 says a person is covered if they are: 'proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.'

So just declaring your intentions is enough to be covered. Nothing to do with having (or not having) a GRC.

Swear · 15/02/2022 10:54

How can a 6 year old be proposing to undergo sex reassignment?

Swear · 15/02/2022 10:57

Anyway, not allowing a boy (who arguably intends to go through a sex reassignment when old enough to do so and is arguably covered by the legislation - not sure that works when they're a child though) to use the girls' showers is not treating him badly on the grounds of trans. It's treating him the same as the other boys (who don't intend to re-assign their sex).

Swear · 15/02/2022 11:00

I can understand the girls suing in the US - ideology plus £££££! Presumably that child is now so rich they'll never need to work. Insane legal system.

Ohnohedident · 15/02/2022 11:04

Good God, is this where we are now. Forcing young children to tell lies and accept feeling uncomfortable.

thirdfiddle · 15/02/2022 11:23

Honestly, with a 5 yr old I'd just say "X enjoys playing a game that X is a girl. You know like you were a cat last week. X is still a boy really but it would be kind not to mention that to him."
And ask school what they're doing to combat stereotyping.
I don't think it would be my 5 yr old being confused.

I would struggle to participate myself in the gaslighting of the child with the pronouns though, it feels like child abuse. At that age many have yet to learn that being a girl/boy is fixed regardless of what you wear or how long your hair is. How can they ever get away from the sex= stereotype misunderstanding if you tell them a boy can indeed become a girl and this is somehow relates to wearing a dress to school.

OldCrone · 15/02/2022 11:36

@Swear

How can a 6 year old be proposing to undergo sex reassignment?
Good question. But I really wanted to point out that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment applies to anyone of any age who is 'proposing to undergo' etc.

There is a common misconception that the pc of gender reassignment only applies to people with a GRC. It actually applies to anyone as soon as they say they intend to 'transition' or announce that they are transgender. So presumably that should also apply to children since they are not specifically excluded.

Swear · 15/02/2022 11:53

So the law is actually about gender identity then? But presumably limited to male / female - it wouldn't cover non-binary, as wanting to be non-binary doesn't involve any sex change arguments?

Swear · 15/02/2022 11:54

Or if you identify as non-binary, and for you as a girl this means wanting to have a double masectomy once you're 18 (you're currently 12), would you be covered?

Swear · 15/02/2022 11:56

And would you be treated disadvantageously on the grounds of transgender if you were not allowed in the boys' changing room at age 12?

RobinMoiraWhite · 15/02/2022 11:59

@Swear

Or if you identify as non-binary, and for you as a girl this means wanting to have a double masectomy once you're 18 (you're currently 12), would you be covered?
Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover
Changes17 · 15/02/2022 12:08

Probably worth reading the story before commenting based just on the headline. There seems to be more to it than that...

Changes17 · 15/02/2022 12:10

Here it is:

Officials at a primary school warned the parents of a six-year-old that he would be deemed “transphobic” if he expressed confusion when a pupil he knew as a boy was wearing a dress.

Sally and Nigel Rowe have released a letter they received from a Church of England school on the Isle of Wight after they had raised concerns that their son was confused by the behaviour of another pupil.

The letter from the school’s head teacher and the chairwoman of the governors warned that pupils would be viewed as transphobic if they demonstrated an “inability to believe a transgender person is actually a ‘real’ female or male”.

Children would also be regarded as transphobic if they exhibited “feelings of discomfort and inability to trust or connect with someone based on their transgender status” as well as a refusal to use an “adopted name or using gender inappropriate pronouns”, the letter stated.

The Rowes have claimed in a legal action that the school adopted the so-called Cornwall schools transgender guidelines, with which they strongly disagreed because of their evangelical Christian faith.

The guidelines, drafted in 2015, advise that schools create gender-neutral lavatories and allow pupils to wear clothes they feel are reflective of their gender identity, rather than their biological sex.

As a result, the parents withdrew both their sons from the school and have recently been granted permission for a judicial challenge to the Department for Education’s decision to disseminate the guidelines to state schools.

A full hearing is expected in three to six months and the Department for Education is defending the claim.

The Rowes withdrew their older son from the school in 2015 after a pupil who identified as a girl and wore female clothes caused him to become confused.

Two years later, a second pupil joined the school who identified as “gender-fluid”, alternating their appearance from one day to the next. It was after the Rowes’ second son expressed confusion that they raised the issue again with the head teacher and received the letter in response.

Speaking to The Times, Mr Rowe, 48, said “one of the main issues we struggled with in relation to the letter was that it said that if our six-year-old son did not recognise the other boy as a little girl or a little boy, then he would be deemed transphobic. And our son had to use the correct pronouns.

“I don’t think that a six-year-old has the cognisant ability to work that out, especially if the child is gender-fluid. And the letter also said that we as parents would be deemed to be transphobic if we didn’t accept that position.”

The Rowes are now authorised to teach both their children at home because their mother is a qualified primary school teacher. But the father said that the dispute with the school had created difficulties for them in the community.

“When you put your head above the parapet on an issue like this you are highly unpopular,” he said. “There was no way we could go back to the school. We weren’t welcome. And other schools here would have had problems with the fact that we were parents who had raised this issue.

“We felt it was a hostile environment. This is a very small community on the Isle of Wight.”

The parents said they previously had a good relationship with the school’s leaders and had been involved in school activities. “We did assemblies once a week,” said Mr Rowe, “and my wife ran Bible teaching sessions.”

The Rowes, who belong to the Maranatha Christian Fellowship, a non-conformist church, said that school officials remained civil but distant in light of the litigation.

However, she added that her family had received some hostile reactions. “We have had verbal abuse from some of the parents,” she said, adding that one member of the school’s staff shouted at her in front of the Rowe’s home, which is near the Needles: “Shame on you — you shouldn’t even be showing your face in Freshwater.”

Mrs Rowe added that two parents said as they walked past with their child: “Don’t talk to Sally, she’s done something really bad. And some just completely blank us. And one couple makes rude gestures to us if they drive past.”

She said: “We know that there are parents at the school who support us. But they have to whisper their support, that’s how scared they are of speaking out.”

Her husband added that the wider point behind the judicial review was to challenge “a form of contagion in the school system”. He said that “there is a huge rise in issues around transgenderism and children and the question is why? It seems to be a fad and people have been afraid to criticise.

“But now the medical establishment is beginning to see that. We need to get back to a reasonable standard of science and biology on this issue. There are men and women. Some people may feel that they are not male or female, but you will never genetically be the opposite sex.”

A Department for Education spokeswoman said: “We recognise that issues relating to gender identity can be complex and sensitive. Schools are best placed to work with parents, pupils and public services to decide what is best for individual children and what is best for all others in the school.”

• A Christian doctor sacked because he refused to refer to transgender people by their chosen sex will take his fight to the High Court. David Mackereth, 58, claims his Christian beliefs are being “coerced and threatened” in an attempt to “affirm” patients identifying as transgender. The A&E doctor was sacked in 2018 as a medical assessor for the Department for Work and Pensions after refusing to identify clients by their chosen gender instead of their biological sex. In 2019 he lost an employment tribunal in Birmingham, which heard how he had refused to follow orders.

RadicalFern · 15/02/2022 13:40

The DfE spokeswoman's comment reveals the spinelessness of the department doesn't it?

“We recognise that issues relating to gender identity can be complex and sensitive. Schools are best placed to work with parents, pupils and public services to decide what is best for individual children and what is best for all others in the school.”

or in other words "We refuse to have anything to do with this, and will delegate responsibility to individual schools so that we have plausible deniability when it all eventually goes tits up."

Also "decide...what is best for all others in the school"? Hah!

Goatsaregreat · 15/02/2022 15:54

@RadicalFern

The DfE spokeswoman's comment reveals the spinelessness of the department doesn't it?

“We recognise that issues relating to gender identity can be complex and sensitive. Schools are best placed to work with parents, pupils and public services to decide what is best for individual children and what is best for all others in the school.”

or in other words "We refuse to have anything to do with this, and will delegate responsibility to individual schools so that we have plausible deniability when it all eventually goes tits up."

Also "decide...what is best for all others in the school"? Hah!

The DfE really ought to add ...despite our relentless cheerleading and funding of all these male dominated groups to access schools, along with using DfE policy documents for schools to illegally promote this political ideology
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread