Trans guidance for schools - "that British fudge that so often works"

[ResisterRex]

In The Times. Looks like a Cabinet split may open up. It's not clear where the extra space will come from for the gender neutral toilets. And it won't be statutory guidance either:

Ministers seek compromise on transgender advice for schools

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/006ef0b0-4818-11ed-8558-9a2089c4aed0?shareToken=6b7644896a593dcb3760a4516b1200ec

"A senior government source said: “This never used to be such a divisive issue: people just accepted trans people and got on with it. It only became an issue once the activists got involved and polarised people. We need to get back to that British fudge that so often works.” They added: “In schools we need to find a compromise that works for all pupils, whether that’s having gender-neutral toilets as well or something else.”"

Just emailed Kit Malthouse and my MP who despite being Conservative is very woolly on the issue when I have written before

Take the view that it is the least that I can do.

I agree.
We need single sex protections, but even more fundamentally we need this ideology out of schools.

Your gender identity should be irrelevant in school and saved for either support by a clinician if causing mental health issues, or expressed in your own time for your own enjoyment and experimentation.

Only biological sex, and language relating to this, should be used in schools.

I think I probably disagree with many on here as I don't think boys should be allowed to wear skirts in schools. This transgresses a societal norm, and norms should change organically with the general consent of the majority, and should not be enacted in a school setting by teenagers with the support of adults.

The kind of change that socially accepts boys in dresses as a norm, should develop through subculture, led by youth in fashion music and clubs, by interesting cultural personalities who lead, and challenge norms to provoke change, rather than be sanctioned top down through bureaucrats in education.

As these ideas then get accepted and adopted more widely (or not) and norms begin to change, that's when schools might consider getting in line with the new societal norms.

I'm totally fine with Harry Styles wearing a dress, I'm not fine with 6 boys in Yr. 10 wearing dresses. Maybe I will be one day, but I don't think we're there yet.

Seeing schools as places where children transgress cultural norms on their own whim, with the acquiescence or even encouragement of adults ..well where could that lead eh??

Schools should be conservative (small c) places where children are protected, where adults make decisions in their best interests and where learning is the focus. They should not be experimental institutions where radical ideologies are played out to see if they have validity, or where norms are transgressed to see what people will tolerate.

Schools should be free from this. These vital change processes which bring about or stifle progress should take place culturally, and children and schools should not be subjects in this experiment and schools should be entirely free from it.

That's where the Tories are wrong today. They are not avoiding the culture war, they are allowing schools to be the battle ground for the culture war rather than ensuring they are prohibited from involvement in it.

Just catching up on thread, but yes.

Great post Malaga

The guidance need to go into KCSIE - specifically importance of single sex loos, changing and lessons in pe as well as residentials, pronouns, in conversation with parents etc which is all safeguarding all children, including those ID as trans.

Then Ofsted will be duty bound to make sure they're looking for evidence guidance is followed.

Guidance isn't law is it? KCSIE is what we all have to know inside out. It fits directly between child on child abuse and online harms. Worst case scenario, sits next to fgm.

Ah, KCSIE. Recently updated to say:

"The fact that a child or a young person may be LGBT is not in itself an inherent risk factor for harm. However, children who are LGBT can be targeted by other children. In some cases, a child who is perceived by other children to be LGBT (whether they are or not) can be just as vulnerable as children who identify as LGBT.

Risks can be compounded where children who are LGBT lack a trusted adult with whom they can be open. It is therefore vital that staff endeavour to reduce the additional barriers faced and provide a safe space for them to speak out or share their concerns with members of staff."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/1101454/Keepinggchildrensafeeineducationn_2022.pdf

But what they asked in the consultation was this and so I don't think the "more vulnerable" position made it in. It would've begun a hierarchy and been contrary to the much more solid point about children at risk such as looked after children, and those missing from education. It was - as I read it - an attempt to create a special group. God knows where that would've lead (well we do know, we just have to look to other countries to see where that leads):

"Children at great risk of harm
Proposal and rationale
Whilst all children should be protected, it is important that governing bodies and
proprietors recognise (and reflect in their policies and procedures) some groups of
children are potentially at greater risk of harm. We already provide guidance on
categories of children that governing bodies and proprietors should be aware of and
reflect as appropriate in their own process, policies, and procedures. The standalone
sexual violence and sexual harassment between children in schools and college advice
sets out that children who are lesbian, gay, bi or trans (LGBT) may, in some cases, be
at increased risk of harm. As we incorporate the standalone advice into KCSIE we are
including this in the children at greater risk of harm section, along with where schools
and college can go for support.
Question 17: Is the additional information helpful for schools and colleges?
Yes / No / No opinion / Don’t know
If no, please explain."

What they said.

Facilities based on sex.

No tolerance of bullying or harrassment of same sex children in facilities

No exceptions of 'some' children opposite sex facilities: this undermines and removes it from everyone else

Provision of single occupancy gender neutral facilities for those who would prefer.

Essentially: inclusion means accessible to everyone. Including non TQ+ people.

I think I probably disagree with many on here as I don't think boys should be allowed to wear skirts in schools. This transgresses a societal norm, and norms should change organically with the general consent of the majority

Kilts are pretty well accepted for men as well as for schoolgirls and might be an option.

Yes resister, it's specifically around child on child abuse / homophobic bullying but very easily misinterpreted.

But that's my point; it talks about child on child abuse which was added in response to everyone's invited and growing evidence that sexual assaults and abusive behaviour is on the increase, including primary schools.

It didn't make single sex loos and spaces a clear way to ensure safety for girls. In fact my deputy head didn't know that was law.

With the specific inclusion of lgbtq as a group to be aware of, it's very easy to actually think you're killing two birds with one stone by making toilets mixed.

Sure, it could be reasonable for a school uniform to be kilts for boys or girls. And a school could also totally reasonably just have one uniform for all, I know a school that is sports based where all the kids wear track suits.

But I think the underlying logic that we often see in terms of making the uniforms totally unisex is really flawed.

It tends to be one of two things: kids need to be able to wear the opposite sex clothes if they prefer because somehow that's more a authentic expression of their true self. That is silly, no one has to wear certain clothes to be their true self, they are just clothes. It will not kill anyone to wear something they don't like, if that happened I would be dead as a door-nail from having to wear a polyester pantsuit in one job I had.

The other idea is that somehow by making all clothes unisex, it will minimize the perception that girls and boys are girls and boys, and that girls and boys are different, and this will reduce sexism. I'd suggest that actually everyone is still very aware of who is a boy or girl, and the idea that there are no real differences is not all it's cracked up to be.

It really doesn't hurt anyone if uniforms are slightly different, especially if it just means no boys in skirts. So long as they are about equal in terms of cost and practicality, it's not actually important that boys can wear skirts.

Having read an article about the Civil Service and how they've actively helped Tavistock www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/02/how-the-blob-smothered-the-tavistock-scandal/

People need to realise the power of the civil service, potentially this article is a deliberate leak by them to force another u-turn.

They have thrown a hand grenade into women's rights and women and girl's lives and now they're telling institutions to sort something out amongst themselves.

The Conservative government have spent 12 years ballsing thing up for women and girls, now they're refusing to fix it and they don't even have an ounce of remorse.

Bastards!

That's an interesting thought.

I am sure they are driving a lot of this, that is certainly the case here in Canada. They actually had a drag contest for civil service members.

But it's so weird that more of them haven't resisted. I guess the nature of the institution makes it difficult, those who don't like it feel they need to be silent.

In the UK, what is driving this, is not the CS.

It's the Conservative policy of Self ID and gender woo that has been written into government policy since PM Theresa May introduced it 2017. Since then it has been actively pursued, defended and used to damage women, by the Tory government as well as individual Tory MPs.

The Tories can now see the hole they drove through the rights of women and girls and they still dont give a flying fuck about it.

That British fudge that so often works = works for men and the patriarchy at the expense of women and girls.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

There is plenty of evidence that the actions of the cs have gone a long way towards integrating this ideology in all kinds of social institutions where it will be difficult to remove easily.

As people have pointed out many times, many governments across the west began to adopt these ideas and laws at exactly the same time. In the UK the CP was in, in other places it was other parties. Of all of the countries where this happened, the government of the UK is one of the few that backed off without making a lot of permanent legal changes. It's difficult to imagine that would have been the case if any of the other parties happened to be in power at that time.

Very astute

And all the other parties not only give no fucks but actively applaud and push things at full steam ahead.

Safeguarding catastrophies and all.

Oh for a party to vote for with some basic grip on reality.

The UK includes Scotland, where the SNP and Greens are pushing through self ID. It includes Wales, where the Labour government want to do the same.

The Tories aren't pushing this to the same extent as the other parties.

@nilsmousehammer, some posters here have said that the SDP and SWP have a grip on biological reality.

This

“That British Fudge” hasn’t worked so well in Northern Ireland eh?

If the Tories are so ineffectual, stupid and easily manipulated then they need to go.🤷‍♀️

To be replaced by a man who says it’s not acceptable to say out loud that only women have a cervix?

😂

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1501654/Boris-Johnson-GB-News-latest-Conservative-Party-speech-woke-cancel-culture-woman-cervix-vn/amp
🙄