Sunday Times - new schools legal case

[mcduffy]

Does anyone know if there's a crowdfunder?

Primary teacher to fight legal case after refusal to call female pupil by boy’s name

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/56b58b98-4bea-11ed-84cd-44cc4c68f778?shareToken=1fafa5629e4ecfda9b9d5a4e14ca05a9

My point was what the parents would use for justification of their child's 'gender identity', given the DfE says it can't be stereotyping or being born in the wrong body.

The DfE says that schools can't teach that. That's very different to overruling parents wishes for their child to socially transition.

Braverman's legal recommendation in the summer was to not socially transition children without informing parents (not the case here) and that medical advice should be sought (no idea what these parents have done, but in any case, this is legal advice not DfE guidance).

Which is why, again, my point was what would the parents use for justification.

If this is going to court presumably that question is going to be asked. Why do you think your child is the opposite sex?

As I said, I'd be interested to hear whether or not they use gender stereotyping and cod science in the light of DfE teaching guidance forbidding it.

The presentation of gender identity and transgenderism as a civil rights issue is a tactic. One which is immediately abandoned, when calling it a medical condition is more effective.

It constantly switches depending on which argument is being used.

In my opinion, it needs to be firmly rooted in a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Which does not require the people around the individual in question to accommodate it.

If gender dysphoria is a result of the parents believing that stereotypes are innate, than I'd like to see that spoken about publicly, in court. Likewise the born in the wrong body claptrap.

The DfE appear to have grasped the issues with teaching things like the gender spectrum beloved of mermaids. Plus they know there is no evidence of being born in the wrong body. The definitions of what constitutes gender identity and transgender are getting tighter and tighter.

Cases like this will help clarify what they can and can't be. And, ultimately, I can't see the general public being expected to collude in a delusion.

The teacher is in a dispute with their school though, not the parents of the child. They are not the ones in court.

The stealth approach is horrible for the child. The one I know would be really upset at stupid things like the Hokey Cokey (boys run in) or PE games where someone would say "all girls stand on one leg.." why make a small child so stressed about keeping a secret, it's cruel, they've told her that people will hate her if they know she's trans?! So messed up.

To make it more infuriating, the mum with the stealth trans child brands herself as loudly anti gender stereotypes. She tells anyone that will listen that her son is so gentle, has female friends, likes My little pony etc. so stereotypes are stupid, but this "son" is really a girl that they trans-ed at four for basically liking superheroes and having a progressive dad. I know the mum had to fall in line with the dad pushing the transition, but it must be such an absolute headfuck for this kid, now 9.

TBF the school use their name, rather than pronouns for trans kids and have a separate toilet and changing room. Unfortunately that's because our primary has a lot of them, about 8, I think, but only one completely secret.

True. But the questions should still be asked. If I was that teacher, I would absolutely make sure they get asked.

The only way to tackle the issue of gender identity and whether or not one has to adhere to it, is to establish exactly what it is.

In this case, a girl is being put in a space on her own with boys. They already appear to segregate by sex. It's a safeguarding breach.

The reason why needs to be established. If the school don't know why, then that also needs to be established.

She argued that it could cause harm to such a young child to unquestioningly encourage the belief that she was “in the wrong body”.

This is in direct conflict with the DfE guidance. Why is she expected to teach this? Is it coming from the school or the parents?

Are you a teacher noble? Have you encountered this sort of issue, yet?

This is in direct conflict with the DfE guidance. Why is she expected to teach this?

Having a trans pupil in your class is not the same as teaching in RSE that some children are born in the wrong body. There is no DfE guidance (yet) on how to treat trans pupils so schools have been pretty much left to decide their own policy (into which gap slid Stonewall, Mermaids et al).

Schools are places where acceptance and tolerance are not only taught, but have to be taught (British values). The Cass review is extremely recent in suggesting that tolerance and acceptance may not be the right approach, and tbh it's going to be a bit of a car crash if schools are suddenly told that they should not be socially transitioning trans pupils (I don't think that will be the DfE guidance either).

I'm secondary, not primary, my school has trans pupils. I don't think any of them are transitioned without parent knowledge - I would be extremely uncomfortable if this were the case. Teachers are generally a compliant bunch though.

The details of this will be interesting because, for example, is the teacher being told that the child must use opposite sex changing facilities and toilets, without the other children of that sex being told? What about the parents of the children who are now using mixed sex facilities - do they not have a right to know what is happening to their children in loco parentis?

And what of insurance policy? If there is a trip (say, to the zoo) and the child in question goes missing, what description does the school provide to the zoo? How does that negatively impact finding the child? What if something very serious happens at school or on a trip, is the school insured or have they violated their public liability?

This is all without the fact that the teacher is being asked to do what they report objecting to.

The implications are horrifying. The school is asking teachers to lie both to their own pupils and (presumably) to parents. It's a completely unreasonable thing to ask a teacher to do. Not only that, as you point out, the potential consequences are very worrying. I'd be particularly worried about the girl herself and the risk she would be at in boys' changing rooms or toilets. Even at that age, boys can behave in a very sexually aggressive way.

Having a trans pupil in your class is not the same as teaching in RSE that some children are born in the wrong body. There is no DfE guidance (yet) on how to treat trans pupils so schools have been pretty much left to decide their own policy (into which gap slid Stonewall, Mermaids et al).

The issue I have is that from a parents' perspective the difference is minimal. My children are both quite non conforming (I mean they're really average and normal, but allowed to choose hair clothes etc which seems surprisingly rare). If their school does anything affirmative beyond allowing another child to change name and uniform (both totally reasonable imo), the effect on my children is to undermine my family's values on rejecting gender stereotypes. It risks my children thinking they ought to transition too. Because my kids are often misgendered, I've taught them it's no big deal and not an insult because the opposite sex isn't "lesser than". Again, I don't want this value of sex equality undermined.

The parallel for me is religion. One of my kids attended a school where most families were very observant of a particular religion. I believe it was right that my child was taught to respect, accept & tolerate the expression of this religion by the other children. I would have been furious had my child been made to take part in the expression of this religion. Some aspects of which would have been directly counter to our family's values.

If there are boys uniforms and girls uniforms that are enforced at school without the possibility that any child is free to choose any uniform, then either the school is incorrectly enforcing the rules in this case or it is enforcing the rules based on gender identity which at age 8, has no legal status.

If teachers and students are required to affirm the belief that people can change sex, that gender and sex are synonymous with each other or that gender is associated with a set of stereotypes on which adults cannot agree then they are holding one set of beliefs over another whereas in the case of religion, they teach that different people have different beliefs and both need to be respected.

If the words 'boy' and 'girl' mean different things in different circumstances, then we need to be clear, what we mean, everytime we use those words and the only way we can be clear is of we have definitions that, for the large part, we all agree on. If we do not have this, but insist on holding one belief above another, then one group is silenced and most people are at best, unclear on how to affirm their own beliefs.

If we cannot explain why the Smith family do not believe that it is possible to change from being a boy to a girl but the Jones family do and we cannot allow those beliefs to be equally expressed and held to be equally valid, we have a situation where the holders of one of those opinions is being denied their rights of freedom of expression.

The Cass review is extremely recent in suggesting that tolerance and acceptance may not be the right approach,

Affirmation and lying to children are neither tolerance nor acceptance.

That is an opinion which I am sure you are aware is not universally shared.

Tribunal tweets will be following the case.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1581638527250419713?s=21

I realise there is a certain amount of crowdfunding fatigue and this means it is uncertain how much can be raised or if it will be enough, so if a group like Christian concern will take a case on that solves the funding issue from the start but I wish it wasn't down to them. Somehow I worry it taints the case and I say that as someone who would loosely describe herself as a Christian (the John Betjeman Westminster Abbey variety but a lot less posh ). Or if there is a risk of them seeking to win on different points than the more (to me) important reasons to do with biology/truth/child protection etc.

True. If it was, we wouldn't be in this appealing position where we gave to argue in favour of safeguarding children!

The Cass report did not claim that tolerance and acceptance were harmful, but that supporting the social transitioning of children (and the consequent lying to other children) was not a neutral act and was potentially harmful.

Tolerance and acceptance would be allowing John to call himself Matilda and wear the uniform skirt, while still using the boys' changing rooms and playing in the boys' team, and making it quite clear to the others that it would be completely unacceptable to bully him for being different to the other boys.

Appalling position! It's far from appealing.

I think some would class allowing John to call himself Matilda and wear a skirt as 'social transitioning'? Or would allowing John to switch pronouns be a key red line?

Pronouns, and pretending in any way that John is a girl.

Until the 80s many schools with uniforms would not allow girls to wear trousers in school. Clothes do not define your sex.

But Matilda is a girl's name?

So what?

I've known girls called Sam, Charlie, Giles, Stevie.

Hilary and Lesley used to be considered boys' names.

Should French Michel change his name to Michael when he comes to England?

Names, like clothes, may give societal clues to a person's sex, but they do not define sex any more than clothes do.

From the article:

'Materials provided by the local council, including some provided by Stonewall, told staff that 80 per cent of transgender children realise they are transgender before they leave primary school, and that the average age of “self-realisation” takes place at five.'

The average age is five?

Presumably they don't get an indication of 'self-realisation' from newborn babies. So, the age range is, what three to seven, with the average being five. This cannot be right.

I don't know, but I suspect that some of the arguments will be that the school is forcing a Christian teacher to lie, which is against her faith.

Calling a child by a different name is one thing, but making an adult refer to a female child as "he'" or a male child as "she" is compelling them to tell a lie.

I notice the Sunday Times uses the wording ‘an eight-year-old schoolgirl’, which is refreshingly clear.

If this little girl is 8 already, I wonder what the school will do about puberty discussions. Most primary schools separate the sexes for at least part of that talk. This child obviously needs the information on what happens to girls, not boys, at puberty.

I have found myself thinking a lot recently that banning skirts in schools and moving to a unisex uniform would solve quite a lot of problems, this being one of them...

also, the key question here is whether pronouns refer to sex or gender. This needs to be asked openly more often I think.

So what?

I've known girls called Sam, Charlie, Giles, Stevie.

Yes, but there is a difference between a girl being called Sam, and a boy who is called John changing his name to Matilda and at the same time starting wearing a skirt.

I think some would definitely class that as a social transition.