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.

Saw on Twitter an assistant principal of a college said this:
"Thanks for the advice Suella, I'm sure we'll be more than happy to ignore it and continue to put the wellbeing of our students above your horrible agenda"
He has since deleted the tweet.
But that's going to be part of the problem, isn't it.

Thank you midC

I'd like this projected onto Holyrood

"Once there are X Y chromosome adults using it, however they define themselves personally. It becomes mixed sex, the existence of a gender recognition certificate creates a legal position, but cannot change biological reality."

Thanks for the advice Suella, I'm sure we'll be more than happy to ignore it and continue to put the wellbeing of our students above your horrible agenda"

But not the female ones obviously.

Yes, we're going to need this to be legally enforced with teachers and head teachers being prosecuted if necessary.

And it will be a problem for that College once the guidance is out and enforced by Ofsted so maybe that assistant head principal better wise up fast.

The horrible agenda......of knowing humans can't change sex 👀

Since she's got a back bone in full operating mode now, it might be the time to explain that under Stonewall cross dressing fetishists are considered transwomen too. And to ask schools how they safeguard staff and pupils from unconsenting participation in someone else's sex life.

Gendered Intelligence not very happy. “Education isn’t about doing the legal minimum,” they say.

Nobody said it was. There are excellent reasons why the law is the way it is, and actually schools that find themselves in breach of it are neglecting their duties, not ‘not doing enough’ or ‘just doing the minimum’.

She has asked for them to do an equality impact assessment on the (female) pupils who will be affected.

Surely, no one would have to the slightest problem with that?

She is making those in charge accountable for their actions.

It's more than revealing how some people are seeing that as malign.

The only reason you would object to an impact assessment that covered all relevant groups is if you only cared about outcomes for one group.

this has provoked an outpouring of accusations of Suella being ‘as thick as mince’.
Because intelligent people believe mammals can change sex at will.

One charming person wished her dead.
Isn't that a standard transactivist greeting?

Someone else said we ‘don’t get to’ disagree with Suella on other things and then agree with her on this.
So you'd damn well better not have any opinions of your own ...

I'm glad she has stated this so clearly. If there's justification for a single sex service to discriminate against all men, then there's very likely also justification for it to discriminate against the smaller group of transwomen.

"So by way of example, a women only rule for a women's judo class excludes all men, and that will be lawful under paragraph 26. If a joint service would be less effective, and it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, it will no doubt put people with the protective characteristic of gender reassignment for example, a trans woman and by that I mean a biological male who identifies as a female at a disadvantage compared to those without that characteristic. But in my view, if the benefit that it confers is sufficient to justify direct discrimination against a whole class of men, it will in almost all circumstances, be sufficient to justify indirect discrimination against a much smaller class of trans women."

Remember Stonewall's advice to organisations, I think including schools, encouraging them to 'go beyond' the law? As people pointed out here, going 'beyond the law' is in these cases actually breaking the law.

That particular college is a Stonewall champion and gives links to the usual bunch- Stonewall, Mermaids, Proud2Be etc. It’s going to take an awful lot to turn round schools like that but at least they are making their position clear and out in the open (or would have, had the assistant principal not deleted his tweets…)

‘But that's going to be part of the problem, isn't it.’

It is. If you are putting your politics over your responsibility to the law and your students, get out of education. We (taxpayers) employ you, you’re not in charge.

It's really going to need Ofsted to enforce.

And that may mean we need a new head of Ofsted who isn’t captured.

The thing about ScotGov is that they’ve always known that they can’t tell schools that the law is that they MUST support social transition. They have distanced themselves from it by saying their guidance is just guidance and that schools/local authorities should take legal advice. Plus LGBTYS have been distancing themselves from the new advice saying it belongs to the Scottish Government, not them (despite it being a beefed up version of their old advice).

So schools will try to justify their approach on ScotGov and/or LGBTYS while ScotGov/LGBTYS put the responsibility onto individual schools.

i suspect ScotGov will remain completely silent on the issue and we’ll be decent on the media picking up on it to spread awareness to parents that yes, they have a old leg to stand on if challenging schools.

(I tweeted some evidence of positions: twitter.com/rogdmum/status/1557374989103513602?s=21&t=tbvUzoJRtnNs3rpDPTaadQ )

I thought Maya's question was excellent here, drawing attention to the need for enforcement. The answer from the AG seemed to refer it back to the DfE. Hopefully, with a new PM there might be some attention to who is appointed here. It seems clear that Sex Matters will be on the case, which can only be good.

@rogdmum re: So schools will try to justify their approach on ScotGov and/or LGBTYS while ScotGov/LGBTYS put the responsibility onto individual schools.

In the light of Allison Bailey's case, how familiar that sounds eh? It was Stonewall what told us to do it! Yup, but it was you who did it! No dice.

This with bells on.

I've watched my school dance to ofsteds tune for the last 12 years and it both does my head in (as schools Gp ott on the wrong shit) but I have also now seen how useful they are.

They switched the data obsession back to board and balanced curriculum (thank fuck)

They make schools embed safeguarding. (Though I see shite left right and centre, especially among those who've been left leaning with their outstanding status for many years.)

If Ofsted make a point of checking a trans policy and they then judge a school outstanding and mention it, whatever the school publish in that regard on their website will be plucked and go viral via Facebook slt groups in a week.

I've seen it too many times recently.

I'm catching up after a long day at the beach but Maya asked this v important question I see.

Ofsted's

And Ofsted aren't great in other regards at all - too much they seem to want that's frippery, but safeguarding is one thing that can make sure is scrutinised.

Saw on Twitter an assistant principal of a college said this:
"Thanks for the advice Suella, I'm sure we'll be more than happy to ignore it and continue to put the wellbeing of our students above your horrible agenda"
He has since deleted the tweet.
But that's going to be part of the problem, isn't it.

Yes it's going to be the problem.

I mean - the arrogance of the man to not only ignore the guidance, but to tell the whole of Twitter he's going to do so, from his account that is linked to his position in the college. Don't these schools have social media guidelines?