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

Yes, I see what you mean. But to not permit him to do this would be forcing a boy to conform to masculine gender stereotypes, while at the same time saying "Gender stereotypes do not define your sex".

Why shouldn't a boy wear a skirt?

My school has two uniforms, one skirt, one trousers. They are not sex assigned.

No boys wear the skirt uniform.

No problem with boys wearing the skirt, but to pretend that a boy wearing a skirt isn't realistically making a statement of some kind is futile.

I work in a single sex (girls) secondary school, but we have some trans boys who we use male pronouns for. But the school is a single sex school so I doubt they will ever admit trans girls who are biologically male.

I think that's a pretty clear line and i agree with it; we will call young people the names and pronouns they want, but we operate as a single sex female space so it would be inappropriate for someone who is biologically male to attend the school.

Respecting people's pronouns, whatever I think, for me is not difficult. Allowing people to change their names, hairstyles, uniform too, which I think the most ardently GC people agree on.

I know a psychiatrist socially and he was saying that in his experience it is more damaging to refuse to accept people who are presenting as trans, even if you personally believe they are wrong. I don't know how true that is, and I can see a few opinions on here which say exactly the opposite. Fair enough if you think it is unfair on the rest of the class. I work in a girls' secondary, so it is clear to everyone that the trans boys there were girls when they started school, and they are older so it is probably a little different.

Of course he's making a statement, but the response should be neutral tolerance, rather than celebration and fuss.

Does anyone know what the Cass review classed as social transition then, if not name change and wearing clothes traditionally worn by the opposite sex.

Using preferred pronouns is not a neutral act. You're telling the children that they have the power to compel your speech, to make you lie.

Pronouns are Rohypnol.

IIRC it referred to name changes demanded by the pupils, sometimes kept secret from the parents by staff.

I disagree with you and that article, but each to their own.

The Church of England has completely lost the plot. They can in no way be called Christian anymore if they are supporting/tolerating an ideology that is directly against orthodox Christianity and potentially seriously harming ALL the children in their care by lying about material biological reality. Is there no low they won’t sink to?

Right, so it classes a name change as social transition. You appear to disagree!

If John wants his classmates to call him Matilda, he can crack on. But he should not get to demand that his teachers call him anything other than the name his parents registered him under.

Right, so if the parents register that he is now to be called Matilda, teachers should respect their wishes?

Right, so if the parents register that he is now to be called Matilda, teachers should respect their wishes?

I think yes, as long as everyone is clear that he is a boy named Matilda.

I'm not sure what a boys uniform is in primary or secondary, girls are usually allowed to wear trousers and the school jumper. I am very gc although I do use preferred pronouns and names, only if I have been assured by the safeguarding lead parents are aware. Our school recently reminded teachers to use the name on the register not what friends are using, and slt change if required.
It seems wrong the school wouldn't let other parents know ss you cannot treat a female girl as a boy for eg pshe and pe. Yr4 is very very young. I do agree it is harmful and social transition is no way back, how can you say oh actually I'm not trans after those around you have affirmed you, it may disappoint them, they only just came round etc...
So I guess I hope she wins although she is a bit extreme.

That is my concern with Christian Concern bringing the case. She may well win on religious discrimination or something but wouldn't it be better to argue the case and win on biology, points of law and facts?

I suppose it goes back to Maya winning on the basis of protected belief.

I have raised here before the question why the term 'social transition' is applied to children at all. It didn't attract much interest. It's as if it is actual and obvious, so much so that there is nothing to question. But is it? And what is it, actually?

Equally why refer to a child as a trans child? A child is simply a child and remains that. A child's or family request or wish at a particular time is one thing. Treating it as if a formalised, fixed meaning and significance attaches to that is something else. A step too far, I would say. What does is actually meant by it and what is the basis for it? I was cheered to see Julie Bindel recently stating that there is no such thing as a trans child. Yet it is bandied around everywhere as if it is a fact.

In the Sunday Times article "Under the policy, backed by advice from the local council, the charity Stonewall and the Church of England diocese, the teacher was told that the child must be treated as transgender."

What does that mean for a child? What is the basis for it, what are you doing to that child by saying that, where are you going with it and what is the formal, legal, medical or institutional framework for doing it? Other than a 'policy' based on a lobby group's say so?

This can't be enough surely: "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."

There it is again being bandied about as if it is a fact: 'transgender children'.

”…I think that's a pretty clear line and i agree with it; we will call young people the names and pronouns they want, but we operate as a single sex female space so it would be inappropriate for someone who is biologically male to attend the school.“

@SuzySangfroid I wonder how your school deals with the parents? Does it ask them or tell them that they’re socially transitioning their child? Or does it depend on the child’s age perhaps, can children of a certain age give consent themselves? Is there a policy for this? I’m just interested as I know parents who would be easy with any of these options and some who would be concerned -livid-.

I have raised here before the question why the term 'social transition' is applied to children at all. It didn't attract much interest. It's as if it is actual and obvious, so much so that there is nothing to question. But is it? And what is it, actually?

Doesn't "social transition" ( for a child or an adult) simply mean pretending they are the opposite sex? What else can it mean?

For those arguing that socially transitioning children is harmless, this experienced clinical psychologist details the psychological dangers to young children of socially transitioning them:
www.transgendertrend.com/childhood-social-transition/

They have also written about the dangers of transitioning older children as their body develops in contrast to what everyone around them tells them they are:
www.transgendertrend.com/teenager-says-theyre-transgender/

So many good points in the articles and this sums it up:
Agreeing with young people that they were born in the wrong body and organising their life around that belief is not a low risk thing to do. It’s a serious psychological intervention based on denial and avoidance. Believing their happiness is conditional on denying reality puts young people in a fragile state, dependent on the pretence of others for their psychological wellbeing. Affirmation feels like such a relief, but it’s a seductive illusion. Holding options open and sitting with uncertainty has never felt more difficult, or more important.

The thing is, there is no formal protection under the law about not being compelled to lie. Because before gender ideology existed there was no need for it. This is why these cases have to proceed down the discrimination route as there simply is no legal mechanism to argue against being forced to lie about something.

These are children, in this case, primary school children, not adults. I think that makes a huge difference. Little children.

There is an Act of Parliament which defines a framework and conditions for gender recognition.

As far as I'm aware it doesn't apply to children. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm happy to call anyone any name they choose. I'm happy to call a boy Matilda if they choose to be known by that name. But forcing me to refer to them as "she" is a lie, as I know the boy is not a girl and I should not be compelled to refer to them as a girl: it is simply a lie and no one should be forced to tell a lie.

Agreeing with young people that they were born in the wrong body and organising their life around that belief is not a low risk thing to do. It’s a serious psychological intervention based on denial and avoidance. Believing their happiness is conditional on denying reality puts young people in a fragile state, dependent on the pretence of others for their psychological wellbeing. Affirmation feels like such a relief, but it’s a seductive illusion. Holding options open and sitting with uncertainty has never felt more difficult, or more important.

This affirmation approach sounds like creating a co-dependent relationship or fabricating illness/special needs by creating a fragile and needy state in the child.

Any teacher who supports forcing other children & adults to lie in order to placate a child who wants to pretend to be something they are not is not fit to be near children.

This is abusive to both other children & teachers who should not be dragged into one childs personal issues.

If a child in the school is anorexic, we don't force other children to hide all food & agree that child is fat.

In school, one of the things you learn is that it is not all about you.

At home, you might be the centre of your families attention.
Everywhere else, you are supposed to be learning to fit in so you can be part of the community in which you live.

You are taught to wear the uniform, follow the time table, do what the teacher says etc...
There are rules & they are not written purely to suit one child, everyone is pressured to broadly conform to societal expectations.
You should be able to translate that into the workplace one day where it also will not be all about you.

The community any child in this country lives in, is not twitter or some incel forum where misogyny is the norm.