Shocking article about teacher being sacked for questioning transing of an 8 year old

[finallypeaked]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/11/teacher-sacked-trans-pronouns-nottinghamshire/?utmsource=facebook&utmmmedium=newstab&fbbnews_token=XZqepWvIckJyAnptmqkqdQ%3D%3D.7YX9%2Ba8k1KGoVwUQSDEMXNgp9NmwJAhY9t2fzV%2FArheTIj5DIIRdJxBvwbzdzjHTE3WrKfUptID7J15%2BxwkLDhx4wCkDtPJhE5Y2rH8roFVhamXRxOUdSHdCL5yOI%2Fb9ws5b4SoU5UXYhugwy0a1Jn9g%2FOi%2FELEnRgB7mVZlUvE2T9wXa489i2StDzjnljIhjTDurQf22ptgDRk%2BGk7X1m%2BjuuEkTqYGVNkF%2BVcq91NoEwhGzMhAa%2BwY3uSwlz1dI%2BHGprCp0Q%2Bqmv56nawUHcCrUd%2FQs7H4PaZUi6KI0FMSqpbWHH85AwTxiwLwa2bU

I find this terrifying. And incredibly sad for the poor teacher and the child they were trying to protect.

There are people who will object to the transitioning of children because they believe being trans is wrong, deviant, immoral, sinful or otherwise against their beliefs (religious or otherwise) while having no actual concerns for the well-being of the child yes.

Just like there are people who are against abortion but whose objections come from a place of ideology, not out of genuine concern for the child / mother.

In the Bell case, the initial result was that under-16s cannot consent to puberty blockers and that was in December 2020, however that was overturned on appeal in September 2021, so about the same time that this chain of events kicked off.

Not sure about the Nolan report podcast though!

But if they see 'being trans' (a phrase in dire need of a definition) as being immoral or sinful then they presumably think this is harmful for the individual (for their soul, or something - I'm not religious). Isn't it the harm to the individual that they are concerned about? Otherwise why be concerned at all about something that someone else is doing?

As for abortion, isn't their objection that the unborn child (with a soul) is being denied the chance of life?

That could hardly be considered a legitimate risk of harm though. I don't think saying you are concerned for someone's soul (or similar) is a legitimate defence in this scenario. It's the same sort of reason as to why protestors praying directly outside abortion clinics aren't allowed, and if you start ranting in the street at gay people to repent the police will probably want a word.

If someone is genuinely concerned that a child is at risk of physical or mental harm, abuse etc that is a very different matter to saying "I believe they will go to [insert purgatory of your choice] because they are trans therefore I broke GDPR".

Maybe it will stand up, but I personally doubt it. Religious beliefs are valid and are protected, but not to the extent that you're allowed to breach confidentiality / break the law.

Lockheart - "You've just copied the exact section I copied from the website. Our two quotes say exactly the same thing."

Yes. I was commenting on your leap of the imagination into "some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking".

To repeat:

What it actually says is: "For accessing and sharing information about Child X as part of receiving legal advice and raising serious safeguarding concerns"

Perfectly legitimate and no reason whatsoever to suggest that "it was starting to stray into some sort of campaign which was verging on harassment / stalking".

You know that "harassment" and "stalking" have legal definitions?

Elsewhere you quote AM, counsel for the respondents, as reported by Tribunal Tweets:

"C obsessively trawled the school records for information to support her case."

AM also describes this activity as "snooping".

It is AM's job to cast C's accessing of Child X's records in the worst possible light, eg. by using terms such as "obsessively trawling" and "snoop".

Perhaps C did. Or perhaps C was exercising due diligence in her concern for safeguarding? All that can be said objectively is:

"an audit of C's access to school records, accessing and surveilling information relating to Child X. Various dates, post dating the correspondence with the governors. No matters complained of to the school."

The facts are not disputed but you are going well beyond the negative interpretation put forward by AM and into the realms of fantasy.

Lockheart · Today 20:52

There are people who will object to the transitioning of children because they believe being trans is wrong, deviant, immoral, sinful or otherwise against their beliefs (religious or otherwise) while having no actual concerns for the well-being of the child yes.

I suspect that, like many people here, the teacher thought it harmful for an eight year old to think they can change sex, and also harmful to give the rest of the children that idea.

The teacher’s Christianity might have led to her feeling morally obligated to stand up for the child and the other children’s right to the truth about this most fundamental aspect of life. But it is a fundamental truth whether a Christian person thinks God created it or an atheist thinks it was the Big Bang alone.

I think maybe the same case could have different outcomes according to whether the teacher has brought Christianity into it or not - the introduction Christianity into the case being more likely to lead to it being lost. That is if it lays the teacher open to the accusation that they were not truly trying to safeguard the child, but just believed that the child being trans was deviant or immoral (as you hypothesised could be the interpretation).

In fact without any religion at all a lot of people would basically think it is deeply immoral to encourage a child in a pathway that could lead to enormous harm to them. But they probably wouldn’t bother with using the word immoral as a description.

It is unfair that someone religious could be deemed to have a ‘faulty’ reason for thinking that transing a child is wrong but the motives of an atheist with the same view accepted as valid.

This is all guessing though. We shall see what happens.

I suspect that, like many people here, the teacher thought it harmful for an eight year old to think they can change sex, and also harmful to give the rest of the children that idea.

Exactly. Most teachers care about the wellbeing of the children they teach. It's absurd to assume that a Christian teacher's only objection to gender ideology is rooted in their religion, and not in the harm it is doing to the children.

Her religious beliefs have the potential to colour the courts judgement and may indeed be the main driver for her own behaviour - we can't really know that either. Is she genuinely concerned for the child's wellbeing or does she just believe children shouldn't be transitioned? It's a subtle but important distinction.

I guess it will come down to whether she can prove her actions were in response to an actual risk (or a sincere belief in risk), or whether the other side can show that her actions were driven by her personal view of gender ideology and it was not in response to risk / a sincere belief of risk.

Absolutely. A tribunal judgement is made on the balance of probability, not proof beyond all doubt.
How she and her legal team frame her case, and how she holds up in cross examination will be key to this IMO.
No, I'm not a lawyer but I successfully brought, researched and fought my own case after being let go unfairly due to maternity leave. As part of my prep, I went and watched another tribunal to see how it all worked. If she gets caught up in the religious belief side of her case, either as part of her leading argument or under cross examination I suspect she'll lose. If it comes down to "belief wars", it's also then going to place more scrutiny on whether she followed the correct safeguarding/whistleblowing process. So, the actual issue of safeguarding (which sounds very real) could well get lost.
Happy to be pulled up on any of that by someone who knows about employment law. I'm just someone who dived in to it for a specific reason.

Safeguarding is a valid reason to breach confidentiality. In my work I always make it clear "anything you say to me will remain confidential and just between us UNLESS you mention something that suggests an element of risk in which case I would have to inform a third party for your own safety.
Sounds like the local authority (or whoever is responsible for the sacking) have used confidentiality breach as an excuse rather than considering the context.