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?"

Wait until you find out about kilts, it’ll blow your mind.

And I do hope you’ve never worn trousers, that’d be awfully hypocritical.

Also it could be a response to this, which is ongoing I think (?):

www.lbc.co.uk/news/parents-warned-son-6-could-be-transphobic-after-he-was-confused-by-a-boy-wearing/

I don't care about clothes, toys, cereals (🙄 ffs Kellogs).......

The most important separation between .... sex/gender/wtv/idc is where it protects "vagina owners" from being attacked by "penis owners". If you have a beard and a vagina welcome! If you wear heels, makeup, wtv and have a penis, don't even think about coming in my bathroom, changing room, shelter, prison.... 🤨

Is Creasy genuinely this daft or is she being handsomely sponsored?

I think we can be pretty sure Braverman isn't much interested in anything other than her own interests.

twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1530514019798458369

And uniforms have nothing to do with protecting single sex spaces

But the uniforms point may be one to do with social transitioning being "not a neutral act" from the Cass Review.

The uniform worn should be in compliance with the school's rules for your sex designated at birth, no ifs and no buts.

I am personally not wild about saying girls must wear skirts. But if this is to do with social transitioning, then there are a lot of factors at play.

As a feminist, I believe it's fine for girls to wear trousers and boys to wear skirts. And I'd assume that under equality legislation, schools don't have the right to insist on separate uniform codes for boys and girls. It's curious that, as far as I'm aware, no child has ever taken a school to court for the right to wear opposite-sex uniform.

Still, it's a minor point in the overall article. I believe Braverman was saying that schools should not be encouraging children to socially transition: that not only should they not allow male children into female spaces (such as changing rooms), they should not (or at least are not obliged to) use a child's preferred pronouns. Her comment about uniform was part of that point.

I find the uniform aspect baffling. I find it odd that people just seem to accept that a different uniform for each sex is necessary. It makes things more complicated than they need to be and confuses the issue. I know of a local school where girls and boys have always had to wear trousers, no skirt option. There used to be 2 colours of blazer and shirts, one for each sex which I always thought was weird but this has recently changed to be 'gender neutral' so they can choose their own colour of shirts and blazer regardless of their sex. I suspect that this was prompted by the number of children ' socially transitioning' but it has actually resulted in what seems to be a sensible policy for all!

Braverman isn't much interested in anything other than her own interests.

twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1530514019798458369

Agreed. The Cass Review is much needed because it should cover the lack of adequate CAMHS for children and young people and the degree of dedicated resourcing that it needs.

Lightly adapting from Jane Clare Jones' response to Stella Creasy:

Politicians like Braverman have largely abdicated their responsibility to ensure that gender identity is not allowed to overwrite sex in law, data collection, or the organisation of public space, and have let that work fall to ordinary women, who have undertaken it at considerable personal cost and risk, while being vilified and intimidated by trans activists.

Braverman and other politicians seem entirely committed to abdicating that responsibility, and, in fact, to colluding with the monstering of the women who have been doing their job for them, up until the point where some recognition of material reality is useful to Braverman and other self-serving politicians of that ilk.

Thinking again about this. Imagine where we would be, had Truss not decided not to change the GRA. None of this is good, to be sure, but I think it's important that because we had no change, we are now where we are - on the verge of the Cass Review. And we are not down the road travelled elsewhere, where even talking about this might land you in prison.

The government could and should have acted far, far sooner. I definitely agree with that. But we haven't gone the route of Canada or Norway for example. That's down to women, writing to their MPs and setting up new organisations to help keep our sex-based rights and to protect children at school. We've been making the case - doing it well - and we've been up against organisations with a direct line to no10 as we found out not that long ago!

I have mixed feelings about the uniform but thinking about it uniforms are by definition conservative - like mini-business wear. I would hate my daughter to have to wear trousers as we can never get ones to fit - women and most secondary school girls have the physique of women and have greater variation of shape than men for trousers in the hip/waist ration. So a school with only trousers as an option would be bad for loads of girls.

Would I care if a boy wore a skirt? - not in his own time but as a piece of personal expression it is a bit unconservative so does not really fit with the uniform idea. Also, as boys become men around 16, 17, 18 what if one had a exhibitionist tendency? Some will (nothing to do with gender) . Most schools struggle with girls pushing the boundaries with skirt length - if an exhibitionist boy wanted to flaunt it he could just wear a skirt (again nothing to do with what his thoughts on gender, just that flashers all start somewhere). So having thought that I feel the conservative gendered uniform is perhaps best.

You could insist on opaque tights perhaps with skirts but bad on the thrush front for girls.

It seems to me allowing boys to wear skirts at school could make girls' lives worse one way or another.

I am not in favour of school uniforms at all (especially for older teenagers) but accept most people disagree with me. So if we are having uniforms, I see it as regressive to aim for gender-neutral uniforms for both sexes. If you are a slightly overweight girl, you may well feel much more comfortable in an A-line skirt than trousers. Why do women/girls have to give up things (the right to wear a skirt) all the time just to accommodate other people? It's not a hill I would die on though and I sent my kids to schools with uniforms despite my views.

...and I am not keen on saying girls must wear trousers and not skirts which seems to always be the 'gender neutral option'.

Uniforms are meant to stop bullying and provide a leveller. That's what I thought, anyway. Having been on foreign exchanges, my memories are that kids without lots of money will stand out in a non-uniform setup.

I agree with the comments about older children and many sixth forms let you wear what you want (within reason), to let you have a bit of almost-adulthood freedom. That seems fair. Also on older children, I would feel not quite right about the potential for the element we can't name, creeping in.

Uniforms are meant to stop bullying and provide a leveller. That's what I thought, anyway.

Only up to a point - the poor kids will have the cheap polyester blazer the richer ones, the wool, dry clean only. If there is a choice of shirts/blouses they will have one of each, the poorer ones won't. Then the poorer ones will be wearing the stuff until it's in ribbons, the richer ones will have new outfits as soon as there is a scrap of wear.

Nancy Kelley's take:

https://mobile.twitter.com/NancyMM_K/status/1530461251817676801

"Seems like a good day to remind ourselves that (however much some folks dislike it) Equality Act protections for trans people of any age do not depend on a)having a gender recognition cert b) having had any kind of medical intervention.

Also a good day to remind ourselves that the trans population is very small indeed (roughly 0.6% pop). If you are endlessly proclaiming, publishing and obsessing about trans people being dangerous/a social contagion/ick that is a YOU problem, and you are causing a lot of harm

And every day is a good day to remember that protecting children and helping them thrive is our job. As a mum, my heart breaks for the (tiny number of) families who have to send their trans kids to schools when government ministers are encouraging bullying and exclusion.

We've been here before, and not long ago. The daily monstering of LGB people in the press, s28, weaponising HIV. LGBTQ+ people remember. I think you all do too. So if you are stoking this anti trans moral panic, and using your positional power to do it? http://SHAME.ON.YOU."

The 0.6% of the population comment will probably come back to haunt her. Doesn't fit with the ever-expanding trans umbrella, does it?

I do see the point re trousers being the default gender neutral option, but in that case I don't think it's OK to say girls can wear skirts and not boys so a choice for both sexes seems the only fair rule to me. I really think it doesn't help progress if we insist on/accept different clothing rules based on sex.

Uniforms should be genuinely unisex and interchangeable. If they actually really were, it would instantly remove any issue wth anyone wearing clothing supposedly for the opposite sex for a paraphiliac reason. 'Cross dressing' is not about the actual clothing item, it's about taking on the gendered stereotypes associated with the opposite sex.

But in the real world, uniforms are quite clearly sex-differentiated.

I hate uniforms with a passion, and part of the reason why is because they reinforce a simplistic, shitty stereotype of masculinity and femininity (belt-length miniskirts and long hair for girls, right now, and fuck all else) from an early age.

If kids weren't in uniform, there would be much more variety and far less of an enforcing of sex stereotypes.

How can they wilfully misstate the law like this and not be called out on it?

Also a good day to remind ourselves that the trans population is very small indeed (roughly 0.6% pop).

I'm not sure that this is the winning argument Kelley thinks it is. The obvious question arises: why are Stonewall receiving millions of pounds from public bodies to promote the interests of such a tiny proportion of the population? Why are they persuading large organisations to rewrite their internal policy documents ("parents" instead of "mothers" etc) if there are so few people in this group?

About 3% of the population is blind or severely visually impaired. About 15% are deaf or hard of hearing. About 2% use a wheelchair. Where are the multiple organisations representing them? The millions of pounds spent on training? The awareness days? The rewriting of policies to be more inclusive?

She's referring to the requirement to "live as a woman/man" for trans people applying for a GRC. As she's pointed out the language is vague, fluffy and the requirement is pointless in this day and age when we're trying to move beyond stereotypes. Another excellent reason to move to self-ID for trans people like so many of our European and Commonwealth friends.

What an idiot.
Women will remember this.

I totally agree, if we really must have uniforms make them genuinely unisex. I agree with your point about stereotypes too, it's depressing. No uniform or a unisex uniform would remove so many issues, not so much drama in identifying as the opposite sex if you have always been able to wear the uniform/clothes of your choice regardless of your sex/ gender identity/sexuality etc. It would strip away at least some of the nonsense involved in these stereotypes.