Braverman says some schools are encouraging gender dysphoria by an “unquestioning approach”.

[ResisterRex]

In The Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/91e2714e-dde6-11ec-bcbd-e35b52e0266c?shareToken=7a60b3c35eb7e0a95572ab4933fc84b1

"Suella Braverman said that schools are under no legal obligation to address children by a new pronoun or allow them to wear the school uniform of a different gender. She reiterated that girls’ lavatories and changing rooms have special legal protections as safe spaces."

Meanwhile, Stella Creasy says something about shoes.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/stella-creasy-jk-rowling-wrong-woman-can-have-penis/

"Describing as “bonkers” the need for two doctors to decide whether someone is a woman or not, as the law currently requires, she adds: “That brings up all sorts of questions about what is a woman in terms of gender – what does it mean to live as a woman? I wear flat shoes, I’ve got terrible bunions, is someone going to tell me that living as a woman means you have to wear high heels for two years?"

Braverman said the law is clear because under-18s cannot not legally change their gender, meaning schools are entitled to treat all children by the gender of their birth.

Some teachers and schools, she suggested, were effectively encouraging gender dysphoria by taking an “unquestioning” attitude. Some schools, she claimed, were failing to tell parents that their children want to change genders.

The legal position, she says, is simple. “Under-18s cannot get a gender recognition certificate, under-18s cannot legally change sex. So again in the context of schools I think it’s even clearer actually. A male child who says in a school that they are a trans girl, that they want to be female, is legally still a boy or a male. And they can be treated as such under the law. And schools have a right to treat them as such under the law.

Conflating 'sex' with 'gender' in the first para there, but otherwise, that's all crystal clear.

I agree. Allow this and next thing you know women will be wearing trousers and wanting jobs.

Makes GC people look like heartless unhinged reactionaries if we are aligning with Braverman.

What does it say about trans activists that they have so many sex offenders on their side?

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-pattern-is-emerging?s=r

These people claim, wrongly, that gender identity is protected under the law.

Braverman has clarified that gender identity is NOT protected under the law

a) No Attorney-General can clarify the law. The AG's opinion on a point of law is no more authoritative than that of any other lawyer. Only a judge (and ideally quite a senior judge) can give a binding interpretation on a disputed point of law.

b) Even ignoring (a), and without dredging up Suella Braverman's appalling record as AG (an office which she is a blight upon) I would place no more weight on her legal advice than I would on that of a second-year undergraduate. She is a halfwit.

Be careful who you align with, just because they happen to be saying what you want to hear.

I don’t think she is correct. Minors can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, what this means in practice in schools (use of pronouns, from what age social transition must be supported etc) is debatable. I do think that the more people to start to question this the better, as perhaps those in power will start to question why minors are included given the now known consequences, and perhaps they will start to look at what safeguards needs to be put in place.

The appropriate clothing for their sex?? Did I just read that? I will be sending my children to single sex schools but i do absolutely disagree with the concept of this is the girls uniform and this is the boys uniform except for the swimwear.

What hope do women have when one woman, you think would know what she is talking about actually talks out of her backside.

Be careful who you align with, just because they happen to be saying what you want to hear.

Do please pass that on to the TRAs and their allies.

Can you point to where gender identity is protected in law? TIA

Well if children were allowed to wear what they wanted it would probably be jeans and hoodies/t shirts.

However, no one much seems to object to the current fashion for girls school uniforms to include ties. How many adult women wear a tie as a matter of course? This is now a fashion which is going out of date for adult men.

If dresses weren't 'only for girls', people wouldn't be able to make the ridiculous argument that a male person 'is a girl' or 'must be a girl' if they wear them. Ditto re pink, dolls, toy prams, etc. Those things have nothing to do with what sex or gender a child or adult should be or is.

Let clothes be clothes, let hair be hair, let face paint be face paint, let toys be toys. Let kids be kids.

Don't even get me started. All the little 12 yos marching about in blazers and ties like wee undertakers.

Part of me which wonders if this is the govt laying the groundwork for action informed by the Cass Review outcomes. For example, a roll back from socially transitioning children and adolescents including at school.

I had a similar thought and I hope so. We know we are failing children. People in positions of power just need the balls to stand up and say so.

Braverman will happily throw women under the bus if the party machine thought there were more votes in TWAW. She has been quite happy to justify breaking the law when convenient and is a shocking AG.

She may be on the same side as me in this particular instance but I wouldn't trust her to be more than a fellow traveller.

Have you aligned yourself with Braverman?

I haven't. I have discovered, courtesy of these news items, that Braverman acknowledges a material reality that I should think is shared by an overwhelming majority of people although further elaborations from that might be very different.

Similarly, Braverman is expressing reservations about schools usurping parental roles and rights. It doesn't follow that this common concern implies much agreement beyond that.

It makes people seem unhinged if their ideology were to prevent them from acknowledging material reality because other people do and they might dislike/fear/disdain some of those other people.

I do think though that the Times headline ‘pandering to trans children’ is unfortunate. It implies the children are at fault and I would say it’s best to avoid that implication. Also it gives the TRAs ammunition- they are all over Twitter saying that this just confirms that those with GC views are heartless bullies. Rachel Rooney has posted on Twitter making the point that though she doesn’t disagree with the views expressed the headline is needlessly provocative.

I don’t think she is correct. Minors can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

You are both correct. Minors can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but they cannot legally change sex. This means they cannot be treated less favourably than some of the same sex because of gender reassignment. There was case law on this very issue but I'm unable to recall the details. What gender reassignment might mean for a minor is still debatable.

Me too!

Also completely agree, especially re funding. It's an absolute disgrace that this funded by the NHS.