DfE settles in Cornwall case

[ResisterRex]

In The Times:

Parents force review of school trans guidance

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/79e44c92-3b52-11ed-a8ae-d2d57cd0511a?shareToken=0d2f7731ea5f88a5b2a41c3ab900d401

"Ministers are to review contentious guidelines on how schools should deal with gender identity after settling a court case with parents who had been accused of being transphobic.

...

The couple have now won £22,000 in legal costs after the department relented in the face of a judicial review of its decision not to support the parents in their battle with the school.

...

The Rowes highlighted to the education department what they said was expert evidence that revealed how “trans-affirming policies” allegedly can lead to “catastrophic outcomes”. But they claimed that Whitehall officials “refused to properly assess this evidence” and rejected the Rowes’ complaint.

At the High Court in February, Lord Justice Lane granted the parents permission to bring a full judicial review of the department’s decision. But lawyers for the department have now settled the case and paid the Rowes £22,000."

There is always a way to make this work. Peacefully. For everyone.

It involves having, for example, a mixed sex service for women by which is meant, politely, biologically female people and male people who identify as women, plus an additional service for female only people who cannot access a mixed sex service or surrender to a more powerful group's demand that they pretend that sex does not exist or affect them.

A rape crisis service for shattered women for example.

There can be male centred ones, LGBT+ centred ones, women's mixed sex ones, who does it harm that there is a female one too? Other than the vanity of those who wish to be more important and to have more than others, and to see raped women excluded and punished for failing to put servicing their needs first.

Or school girls unable to use toilets.
Women unable to use changing rooms.
Women who can't swim.

There are answers to all of this, really easy ones, and then everyone could co exist in peace and harmy. Why is this not happening?

Well the TQ+ political lobby would tell you it's because mean and evil witches keep saying no and refusing to obey and surrender.

The women would tell you to look at the group with all the power, all the control, and then to note the biological sexes involved. And there it is, plain as day. Males have the power to exclude and harm women if they want to by denying females access to services. Even services in other buildings, in the dark of night, miles away from any male person affected. Just knowing those disobedient women are getting their needs met makes male people angry.

Meet the 21st century. Really not that different to the 1st Century when the Romans walked in and introduced patriarchial dominance to the UK. Hi women, we own you, we own everything you own, you get nothing but what we choose to permit you after we've met our own needs.

I don't understand how anyone can be surprised that women are not responding to this with cries of joy and co operation.

This is so very easy to fix. It just takes male people coping with giving female people equality of access and consideration, and freedom of belief instead of demanding unconditional surrender.

Hear, hear, Boudica.

Genderism is all about subjugation of women - I can only presume it's borne out of a hatred of women. Pure indifference wouldn't be so cruel.

I was so surprised to get an kind of answer to 'is it okay to trans six year olds?', I failed to notice that the answer is, apparently, 'yes'.

You are welcome.

I’m happy to talk about my personal experiences in suitable venues and often do as ‘trans’ is poorly understood. But‘Mumsnet’ is no longer a suitable space for mature discussion as is is shown by the last few posts.

That’s generally why I stick to correcting misinformation.

I should have put, thanks a bundle!

Now that’s quite funny…

😆

Hopefully any review will address social transitioning in schools of minors, progression to physical interventions that harm children's bodies, AND charities' involvement:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/25/exclusive-trans-charity-mermaids-giving-breast-binders-children/

twitter.com/cforwomenuk/status/1574128870550298624?s=46&t=ll8FVDVEW8jmxPy7ouS7Tg

I agree that 'trans' is poorly understood. The explanations never seem to make any sense, other than that it is all about reinforcing regressive gender stereotypes.

It isn’t. But I wouldn’t attempt the explain here.

Thanks - shocked, but not surprised, by that Telegraph article.

If it's not about regressive gender stereotypes, please explain!

Why not?

cos we might pay attention and ask questions which would be altogether rude

I remember naively attending a talk by a female non binary person and asking them what characteristics they didn't have that made them definitely not a woman (I genuinely wanted to know. back then I thought there might be an answer). the stare I got nearly froze me in my seat

The usual explanation is that it's all about feelings, which can't be explained, because they're feelings. And even though it's just about feelings which obviously can't be measured or shown to actually exist, it's much more important than biological reality when it comes to making laws. And of course those feelings have nothing to do with stereotypes, even though they're all based on stereotypes (Robin's blog is a good example of this).

It's also too difficult for us silly women to understand, even though trans toddlers and even babies can understand perfectly. Google 'Diane Ehrensaft' for details. And even though her explanations are all about stereotypes (which the children in question are too young to even know about), it's actually nothing to do with stereotypes.

We answer questions all the time 😄

Questions from lay clients on anything from procedure to what to wear to court. Questions from solicitors on strategy and tactics, time limits, case law. Questions about prospects of success. Questions on cost : benefit ratio especially if we do legal aid work. Questions on the advisability of accepting an offer to settle. Questions on costs. Questions from the other side. Questions from judges, and if you can't answer those you're in difficulties.

Just to reassure any MNetters who are in current legal proceedings, if you have a conference with your barrister, it is positively encouraged to ask questions. The last thing we want is an unnecessarily anxious and unprepared lay client who is wishing she'd asked more questions but felt too overawed to do so. Sorry for the derail but I do think this is really important especially as there are so many women in here who are dealing with court proceedings.

Helpful, thank you!

it did occur to me that when you are so sure about something that you think the rules of language and the law should be rewritten to accommodate it, you’d be ready and eager to explain why at any opportunity

I mean if you’re so sure you’re right it must be super easy to articulate why, no?

some people seem a little coy though

Thank you Bliuebell - it’s very reassuring to see that some barristers are able to maintain a professional demeanour even while posting on Mumsnet.

There is another current thread on a legal case involving schools transing children that our learned plopper has weighed in on - would be grateful if you could add some professional insight over there, should you have the time.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4641071-teacher-sacked-after-refusing-to-use-preferred-pronouns-without-first-checking-with-parents?page=5&reply=120280512

Bluebell - how embarrassing, I bolded my own typo 🤣

Still not as shambolic as those bundles though, eh?

Astonished.... but not surprised at all...

Naughty, naughty wims!

😆

I know that the bundles have their own place in MN lore now, but in fairness, they weren't Robin's responsibility (or even Robin's client's responsibility IIRC - I can't be bothered to go back and check)

Unfortunately it's not unusual for bundles to be a complete nightmare. It prompted Lord Justice Sedley to write Sedley's Law of Documents. At least with virtual hearings the Eleventh Law can be dispensed with.

www.civillitigationbrief.com/2020/05/10/covid-repeats-17-sedleys-law-of-documents/

Sedley's Law

The bundles I had no involvement in producing?

Your point was?

If you say ‘bundle’ 3 times while looking into a mirror….