Suella Braverman expected to make a speech on Wednesday

[achillestoes]

In which she will say (in advance of DfE guidance to be issued in September - apparently) that schools are not legally obligated to facilitate childhood transition through the use of opposite sex or neo-pronouns (non-binary etc), allowing children to use the toilets of the opposite sex (arrangements should be made for children to use a third space if needed), or the uniform of the opposite sex.

For some reason this has provoked an outpouring of accusations of Suella being ‘as thick as mince’. One charming person wished her dead. Someone else said we ‘don’t get to’ disagree with Suella on other things and then agree with her on this. Erm...

Anyway, this seems like a return to much-needed ordinary safeguarding practices to me.

I don’t care if boys wear skirts particularly. I do care about my daughters being bullied to pretend they are female.

Safe schools alliance U.K. are happy to happy to support parents who feel a legal route is now their only option after having exhausted their school complaints system. #edutwitter #WomenEd #teachertwitter

twitter.com/safeschools_uk/status/1557665335548985352?s=21&t=1Lq-genJZEj5xtCGEceXVg

Btw, if you tweet a lot it's worth adding #edutwitter to any tweets you'd like teachers to see.

I havent watched but I read the government page on it! Lots of great things included that we've been saying all along!
This bit particularly good: " A right not to suffer discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment is not the same thing as a right of access to facilities provided for the opposite sex."

Teachers need to have it all explained.

Completely agree with this. But we need the guidance from government first. Once we have that it is so much easier to push the unions and PSHE association etc to make sure their advice is within the guidelines. We (gender critical teachers) are in a very difficult position because current guidance says we must teach children about gender identity and the current EHRC guidance doesn't specify that same sex facilities must be kept. There is no guidance which allows us to push against social transition, so the only thing we can do is refer our slt to Cass.

Link to full statement Is this not trending ?

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/equalities-and-rights-conflict-and-the-need-for-clarity

It's depressing how often people will describe women they don't agree with as being thick even when they have degrees, masters degrees, PhDs etc. We are rarely talking about a woman who left school age 16 with no qualifications. I suspect the woman concerned is usually more educated and intelligent than the person moaning about her stupidity for not thinking the same as him/ her (but it's usually a him)

I totally agree with you, the way Penny Mordaunt was treated on this board was shocking.

@mcduffy · Today 06:52
Suella Braverman says schools that teach children about changing gender could face Ofsted sanctions

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/731872c0-18d5-11ed-b4a0-f11f082a3a3c?shareToken=556ccbf1dda57b83726c35479f608938

That would be good but isn’t it the opposite at the moment, that schools are marked down if they don’t?

I wonder if people reading this would like to go on to the petitions board to sign a petition to remove references to ‘gender identity’ from RSE lessons?
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4585082-rse-content-on-gender-vs-sex?page=2

@Boiledbeetle so proud of you well done!!! That must have felt good.

‘I totally agree with you, the way Penny Mordaunt was treated on this board was shocking.’

What did people say to Penny, other than “What the heck are you on about?”

I will admit I felt very light after, I hadn't realised how bloody angry I am with the Labour Party until they were there, on the phone, for me to berate. So yes it did feel good! Very much so!

Regarding the Equality Act - the clause regarding gender reassignment is a problem it is too waffly and not explicit enough in it's meaning and what it intends to achieve. That clause needs to be re-written and it must spell out explicitly what it means and what it covers, leave no room for doubt or misinterpretation.

And yet it is lawyers with law degrees, qualifications, law careers - including those judges - who hold that opinion. Based solidly on what she says on the record, including in particular the blatant nonsense around international treaties and the law on sentencing. But do feel free to claim you know better, and explain to us exactly why she is right on the issues I referred to.

I am alarmed by the number of educators on #edutwitter tweeting about how they plan to defy the Attorney General's advice re gender ID ideology in schools

Lots of it is posturing for woke cookies. They quote Jolly Windmill’s misrepresentation and write hysterical crap with themselves as the hero/heroine. I personally would like individual teachers made to take courses or fined or sued. A few years ago one mentioned a girl who was now a trans boy on Twitter and wrote such a gushing, creepy eulogy that the poor child will never be able to backtrack from her declaration.

But do feel free to claim you know better, and explain to us exactly why she is right on the issues I referred to.

A general point was made. She isn't "thick as mince" because that's complete hyperbole, she has an excellent education and a successful career, whatever gaffes she may have made in office. This thread isn't a forum for dissecting irrelevant Suella Braverman statements about unrelated topics, she's being mentioned because she gave a bold and courageous speech about balancing competing rights yesterday. Did you watch it?

The problems is teachers (I am one so I know) have had multiple courses which teach them Stonewall and Mermaids law. That combined with most being Guardian reading lefties means most are completely unaware of any issues and genuinely think this is nothing more than culture war posturing. Pshe teacher forums are full of teachers saying Braverman has misinterpreted the law for ideological reasons. There is so much unpicking to do and I'm feeling quite despairing right now.

Valancy, women have achieved so much, sometimes through bloody barely perceptible increments. A letter here, a signature there, 20 quid to a crowd fund, etc. Would it be too much to ask for you to drop a line to Suella Braverman telling her that all the teacher forums you are on are getting the wrong end of the stick and would benefit from some straightforward explanations?

You could do it anonymously.

It may go nowhere, but you know what, if we kept thinking like that, we'd get nowhere.

“The problems is teachers (I am one so I know) have had multiple courses which teach them Stonewall and Mermaids law. That combined with most being Guardian reading lefties means most are completely unaware of any issues and genuinely think this is nothing more than culture war posturing. Pshe teacher forums are full of teachers saying Braverman has misinterpreted the law for ideological reasons. There is so much unpicking to do and I'm feeling quite despairing right now.”

You’re right to despair. Senior leadership in schools are being advised by Education lawyers to go the whole hog on ‘trans rights’ too (God knows why - you’d think they’d know the law better 🙄). So even if they’re sensible, right-minded and see the evidence of their own eyes and professional experience they’ll be too shit scared to go against the grain.

A letter here, a signature there, 20 quid to a crowd fund, etc.

It may go nowhere, but you know what, if we kept thinking like that, we'd get nowhere.

This - 100% - GIDS clinic at the Tavistock is to be closed!! I have no doubt that women talking raised enough alarm bells for the government to call for the Cass Review. Women are amazing in support of the things that matter!! This is how change happens.

valency, I really don’t think despair is warranted. The majority (imo) simply need better guidance. 99% of teachers want what is best for the children they teach. As guardian reading lefties it is going to take quite the push to get the correct info to them and I think that’s what we need to focus on now. Most don’t have a clue about the potential harms of social transition. If / when they find out they’ll be horrified. I’ve been writing to my local MP on this issue, and I’m part-way though a letter to the union asking to what extent their professional indemnity insurance covers me if children make claims regarding inappropriate social transition. I’m hoping that asking the question will prompt them (and the underwriters) to check their own guidance.

If you compare to where we were 5 years ago (when I joined the debate) we are a million miles better off. Protected beliefs, closure of GIDS, the beginning of the end for puberty blockers etc. One step at a time, but we’ll get to the right place eventually.

In Suella Braverman’s recent speech she categorises trans-women as biological men who identify as a female. I assume she also believes trans-men to be biological women who identify as men. Biology should not be denied and for most people their gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth. Sexual biology is much more interesting though when you learn more about it. Some people can live their whole lives happily as the sex they were assigned at birth without ever knowing that they would be classified as the opposite sex if their chromosomes were inspected. Other people are born with more obvious differences in sexual development and may be neither male nor female. And some people are painfully aware of the incongruence between the sex they are assigned at birth and their gender identity. Often referred to as transgender people, they do not have any choice in this. Their only choice is whether to seek treatment or to hide in fear of what they perceive to be an intolerant society. A recent study has shown that British attitudes to transgender people are very accepting, especially among the younger generations.

The equality act specifically recognises gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. This refers to people who are living as a different gender to the sex they were assigned at birth, ie their gender has been reassigned. The act also presumes that there should be no discrimination except in cases where such discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The explanatory notes to the Equality Act give an example of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault. In that case, it is clear that an individual with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (e.g. a trans-woman) could be lawfully excluded, if organisers believed that otherwise, women would be unlikely to attend the session. This talks about an individual being excluded at the discretion of the organisers.

This exception does not allow blanket exclusion of transgender people from single sex spaces that align with their gender identity. Trans men should not be automatically excluded from male only services and trans women should not be automatically excluded from female only services. Excluding an individual from a toilet facility is allowed if it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However insisting all people use the facilities that match their sex assigned at birth seems very disproportionate and would result in the bizarre unintended consequence that trans men would be expected to use the ladies.

It is also difficult to identify a legitimate aim. Is the perceived problem that some women feel uncomfortable if there is a masculine looking person in the ladies toilet. A trans woman who does not look masculine would therefore not cause any discomfort. Should they be excluded? And similarly, a biological woman with masculine features could cause the same discomfort as a masculine looking trans woman. Should they also be excluded? It seems there is no legitimate aim in a blanket exclusion of transgender people from single sex spaces. The law rightly provides for case by case exceptions.

Suella is right when she says emphasising difference creates a sense of ‘otherness’ and pits different groups against each other. The solution is to consider each person as a minority of one - an individual. Treat everyone as an equal, and only discriminate against them if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I think you are showing your ignorance here. The Attourney General has degrees from Cambridge and the Sorbonne. They do not give those out to thick people. I’m willing to go out on a limb and suggest, for example, that you have degrees from neither. Would that be accurate?

Sexual biology is much more interesting though when you learn more about it. Some people can live their whole lives happily as the sex they were assigned at birth without ever knowing that they would be classified as the opposite sex if their chromosomes were inspected. Other people are born with more obvious differences in sexual development and may be neither male nor female. And some people are painfully aware of the incongruence between the sex they are assigned at birth and their gender identity.

You are using people’s medical conditions to destabilise the well established definition of the sec categories here, for your own needs.

This is offensive, please stop. People with differences of sex development have asked people to stop this.

If you knew anything about differences in sex development you would be aware that almost 100% of them are reliably sorted into either male or female categories. Their conditions are dependent on their sex. In this way, they actually fully support the concept that sex is binary. To prove your point requires a incredibly rare condition involving mosiachism.

People we differences in sex development may be trans in the expected proportion as the general population. But apart from that Trans people are not connected to people with differences in sex development.

If you read this from a blog post on American Scientist, I would broaden your reading list considerably.

I would suggest you stop spreading misinformation over the internet. On Mumsnet.

And I would think your low bar of people not accurately identifying a transitioned male is misguided at best. Females are very good at not being distracted by makeup and hair and identify sex from other cues, gait, hands, feet, skeleton proportions, facial proportion (if not modified by extreme surgery) and voice are just a few.

Your use of ‘discomfit’ in single sex spaces is laughable in its attempt to minimise. It is rare that a female (without taking testosterone) will be mistaken for a male in the toilet by another female. They might for a brief moment; until they speak to the person. There are few examples of it genuinely happening and not the over exaggerated frequency activists use.

@Hjft what are you blithering on about? Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. This means that you can't discriminate between a transwoman and any other male. It doesn't entitle the transwoman to push into any spaces that other males are not welcome in.

Treat everyone as an equal, and only discriminate against them if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Yay, fully mixed sex everything!

That is what you're arguing, right? No sex or "gender" segregation at all? (Or even age?)

If not, you need to fill in why what you say is unacceptable for transwomen is acceptable for other men. And how you justify segregation by "gender".

If you listened to Suella's speech - that was a repeated point made. If you can justify direct discrimination against men to create a single-sex space, you can also justify indirect discrimination against transwomen to uphold that single-sex space.