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.

Let’s hope so. That she and her team do a very thorough job so that no guidance is left unchecked to create ambiguity.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/09/suella-braverman-set-firm-trans-guidance-schools/

There is a copy in the archive site.

I think the fact that she will have to sign off the new DfE guidance is very encouraging. She seems to understand the issue, whereas the DfE has been vague and still very much using ideological language. If schools are told to not support social transition without professional medical advice, that will be a major step forward.

What would be useful is if she didn't just say they weren't legally obliged to accommodate children into the opposite sex facilities, but that they may have been led to believe they were by lobby groups.

It's one thing to say you don't have to do something, it's quite another to suggest that you may have been led to think you do. It shows that it's politically motivated and that you may have been manipulated. Thereby straightening your backbone if you decide to go in the opposite direction.

It makes governors and headteachers more aware of the processes by which they have been led to a certain conclusion. And forewarned is forearmed.

Saying you can if you like, but you're not legally obliged to, indicates that it's all rather neutral, and just dependent upon individual discussion. When it's far from neutral.

*individual discretion

Dr Cass has already made significant changes with just an interim report.

‘If schools are told to not support social transition without professional medical advice, that will be a major step forward.’

Absolutely vital. HTs and safeguarding leads need a direct instruction they can refer to in a meeting with a misguided parent: “No, we are not allowed to do that under the law. Please come back with a doctor’s letter.”

Obviously this is bound up with a failure of broader mental health services for kids, but, if the parent’s response to “no” is that they believe their child will present a suicide risk if a school doesn’t “affirm” them, then they need to be referred for psychiatric care. That’s just basic safeguarding.

Goodness Datun! That would cause eruptions! Reminding schools and previous Dept of Ed committees that they have been guided into perhaps misunderstanding Acts and overarching guidance by over reaching lobby groups… I’d be getting out the popcorn. But I do agree that eventually, if it can be unpicked over the years, the source of that misleading should be identified!

I would think it part of the overall issue of the power the lobby groups have within Government, and not just on this issue.

Helleofabore Yes, but I don’t think it has filtered through to captured schools. Even after the interim Cass report, my daughter’s former school was adamant that legally they had to support her social transition. They had no interest in the Interim report and only said that if the final report resulted in changes to the ScotGov guidance to schools, would the school change its position on supporting social transition (I know the DfE guidance won’t affect us up here bit Braverman’s speech will or at least should). I think ideological schools need to be directly told that they are impacted by Cass.

If they're framing this as a legal exposure issue then it seems better than from DfE (which seems stubbornly captured). I wouldn't be surprised to be told that teachers feel exposed and not sure if they could be brought into proceedings of some kind. I would worry about this if I were a headteacher.

I'm speculating but I wonder if it's possible that if schools are found to have "encouraged social transitioning" and that led to the terrible medical consequences we are seeing, later down the line there could be claims made against schools for not keeping children safe? Or something like that.

I can sort of see their point, wait for the final to see if Dr Cass has made any softening or indeed hardening of the stance. But on the other hand, if they were not discussing policy changes now in preparation for that report, they are foolish.

Also, I would assume that DoE guidance would be discussed with Dr Cass prior to this speech. Otherwise, Dr Cass and her team would be reaching out by now to senior ministers telling them that they are wrong for moving ahead of the final report.

So, on the other hand, if the DoE makes these changes, it should be considered that they are doing so with consultation, or at the very least initial clarification, of Dr Cass and her team. And that this advice from her isn’t going to change. Just like the closing of the clinic at the Tavi is a swift and decisive action from the initial report.

Accompanying comment in the Telegraph by Stella Braverman which is also very good (and is also accessible in the usual place)

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/09/schools-should-know-law-trans-rights/

Missed a bit.

So. I hope that the DoE has been in discussion with the Attorney General’s team and DR Cass and that they are drafting new guidance as a result. But that might be eternal optimism on my part and completely wishful thinking.

Yes, I know it would cause trouble. But essentially that's what happened to Allison Bailey's chambers, and Essex University, in that they thought they were applying the law (Stonewall law), when they weren't.

You wouldn't have to explicitly say they've been manipulated. They'd realise that on their own, as soon as you say we understand that certain schools think it is the law to supply opposite sex facilities, when actually, it isn't. And it isn't, by a longshot. In fact it could be discriminatory.

My point is, it's not enough to contradict what they've been told, you have to acknowledge that what they've been told isn't the full story.

If schools are told to not support social transition without professional medical advice, that will be a major step forward.

And yes, this ^. Get it back onto a medical footing, rather than a social one.

Blimey

Schools should consider each request for social transition on its specific circumstances, and any decision to accept and reinforce a child’s declared transgender status should only be taken after all safeguarding processes have been followed, medical advice obtained and a full risk assessment conducted, including taking into account the impact on other children.

I hope that understanding the law will free schools to act in each and every child’s best interest rather than being driven by a misunderstanding of legal duties.

Furthermore, schools and teachers who socially transition a child without the knowledge or consent of parents or without medical advice increase their exposure to a negligence claim for breach of their duty of care to that child.

My point is, it's not enough to contradict what they've been told, you have to acknowledge that what they've been told isn't the full story

Yes. I think it should be done. Wholeheartedly agree the full story needs to come out.

Children should also not fear punishment for refusing to take part in activities promoted by trans-lobby groups such as Stonewall or face any disadvantage for questioning what they are being taught on gender identity.

These are all quotes from the Telegraph article. Bloody hell, she's gone for it.

I’m so pleased to see this. She’s saying EXACTLY what all of us have been saying for years (and I’m a relative newcomer of just under 3 years)

I have friends who will be using this to attempt to change how the school socially transitions children without any diagnosis and without telling parents.

This combo of Cass and Attorney General, may be just what is needed.

The fox killer is now calling Braverman ‘quite, quite wicked’ for confirming that my daughters can’t be forced to call a boy a girl.

Minors in the US are being offered hysterectomies.

Oh, and killing foxes with a bat is wicked, Mr Maugham, in case you were in any doubt.

I just wish it wasn’t linked to uniforms, as it makes our side of the argument look mad and right wing and pro fixed gender boxes and stereotypes. Boys should be free to wear skirts if they like.