Plan to let children change gender at school a 'political disaster' - row has broken out within the Government

[IwantToRetire]

So many speculative articles about this which have become threads so thought I would add this one.

Do you think they are re-writing it each day as further revelations appear in news papers?

Gillian Keegan, the Education Secretary, is facing a backlash from Conservative MPs and figures in Downing Street and the Equalities Office over plans to allow pupils to choose their own pronouns if their parents give consent.

Mrs Keegan pledges to make the considerations of parents central to the proposals.
She said: “At its heart will be parents, ensuring their voices are central to decisions being made about their child in school.”

“Department for Education officials have attended too many Stonewall meetings and think social transition is acceptable. It isn’t. These are children dealing with serious changes and doctors should be involved. The guidance will reflect that.” Another source said it would be a “political disaster” if the guidance was not strengthened.

It is understood that the guidance will say that schools must consider the needs of other children in the school and must be convinced it is in the child’s best interest before affirming a new gender identity. It will also say that nobody should be compelled to use a pupil’s preferred pronouns if they don’t want to.

DfE is expected to meet with Downing Street officials next week to review the planned guidance.

Mark Lehain, head of education at the Centre for Policy Studies, said: “Confirming that parents must give permission for social transitioning in school would be a helpful clarification, as it most definitely should not happen without this.

“However, it’s essential that the guidance also makes it clear that schools should not do this if they do not feel it’s in the best interests of the child, or that other underlying issues need exploring first.”

It's another Telegraph article (just how many have they written?) which you can read in full at https://uk.style.yahoo.com/tory-backlash-children-set-gain-150444837.html

Absolutely and I agree with your other post too

And all pp saying this could be the turning point for the U.K.

It only worked when lies could coerce reality into submission

Compelled speech is going to be the issue.

And yes to this

Humans can't change sex and neither can they become cats. This whole time-wasting nonsense needs to stop.

I think Paterson would love to prove Truedeau wrong and meet the UK government to advise a way out with ex Tavistock staff like Sonia, the Dr Nurse couple and Bell.

Agree that compelled speech is an issue. GC parents and children could argue that they have rights too and shouldn't be forced into supporting this ideology.

Another thought. If it's state sanctioned social transitioning, then it's the state on the hook when it comes to legal cases against the government and the inevitable inquiry - however far down the road that is. It's immensely unwise if that's what they're doing.

I found this a useful thread:

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1672843772860702721?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"It is very concerning that @ GillianKeegan is considering promoting the idea of "social transition" at school.

This is a major intervention in which teachers and classmates are forced to provide an experimental and ideological socio-medical treatment

If a school accepts that a child has "transitioned gender" they have to apply the gender ideology framework to all the other children - "boy" and "girl" are seen as gender identities not sexes.

Schools should not do this.
They should be clear that every child has a sex and this cannot change.
They can change their name or be known by a nickname but this does not change their "gender"

Rules that apply to girls or boys must continue to apply.

There can be no concept of "transition" at school to being a child for whom normal rules (to protect everyone's privacy, dignity, safety and fairness) no longer apply.

Neither parents nor doctors can demand that schools discard material reality, safeguarding, and responsibility to uphold the rights of other children."

I don't think there should be any leeway for schools to led by parents or clinicians on social transition. Sadly most of the clinicians involved in trans medicine are themselves blinded by ideology.

The greatest potential harm of social transition is that if everyone around a child is pretending that they have actually changed sex, a child will believe that this is actually possible. They are effectively being told a lie, and at some point in their lives they will realise it's a lie, and sadly for some that will be after they have damaged their bodies with hormones and surgery.

Schools need to be told to support and celebrate gender non-conformity, but adhere clearly to the scientific truth that sex change is impossible. If parents want to socially transition their child at home, that's fine - but a child needs to know that while they will always be protected against discrimination and harassment, they cannot compel the rest of society to pretend they have changed sex.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-pupils-our-daughter-school-furries-transgender-treatment-c09lqffzb

Is there a share token for this available?

You can't have this, you can't have a sacred caste with fabricated induced illness running around not being convicted, why is this happening?

Devouring mothers, paedophiles - whatever is going on with the teachers, they must be punished, these are white collar crimes the police and CPS are not prosecuting.

Is it because they are middle class like MPs? Send the Tory Biological sex Westminster debate ex builder MP in, he has no loyalty to white collar criminals.

It's funny how so many schools happily remove items from a child's lunchbox prepared by a parent and refuse a parent's right to fill it with sweets. There are all sorts of instances when parental demands for special treatment for their child are refused by schools with good reason. Yet if a parent demands the school community distort reality and recognise their child as the opposite sex, schools immediately obey?

These are political decisions made under the influence of political activists with the needs of children not taken into account.

Here you are FedgeHund - share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c4af6f1c-1276-11ee-9673-09365d127a9f?shareToken=8c95cc236885d4f632790bc6c344696e

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4834933-parents-kept-in-the-dark-by-teachers-about-their-16-year-old-daughters-medical-transition

So legalised rape has been joined by legalised fabricated induced illness now? Poor men they were ugly they just wanted a shag. Poor professionals, they just wanted to look edgy and trendy, poor things.

Will full eugenics be used to shorten NHS waiting lists, will it progress to assistance suicide becoming legal by the backdoor also? Poor professionals they have so much work.

You are spot on there mrs o

The kind of thinking I hope occurs to Kemi in her role on this - and that snap inspection around equality breaches.

I don't agree with lunch box police. Who the neck do these people think they are? They see FII in colleagues and do nothing them pick on some year 2 for a rich tea biscuit, humiliating them. Reorganisation of deckchairs on a sinking Titanic.

https://twitter.com/patricej36/status/1672886954168393729?cxt=HHwWgoC9ycn0pLcuAAAA

We have had this in the UK also. This is what's happening in hate speech, self ID utopia.

Parent 1

Parent 2

Parent 3

No mother produced by a surrogate. I can see where this is going.

Random professionals removing parental responsibility and adding themselves as parents without court orders and not being sent to prison.

They need to be arrested and told to stop this over reach.

Go into their homes assess what they do to their own children, they deserve to be safeguarded as much as children at work.

This is such an important discussion, thank you.

It concerns me greatly that the issue of consent is itself being manipulated by activists. There is existing statute and case law that even adults cannot consent to harm. So how are under-18s able to consent to the physical harm of 'transitioning', the starting point of which is 'social transition'? It's not as straightforward as the activists like to make out.

There are also limits to parental consent in case law. Does anyone remember this case? (The child was very young, admittedly.) (NB in the case I've linked, the judge criticised social workers, who were possibly captured as early as 2016.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/custody-boy-living-as-girl-with-mother-awarded-to-father-high-court-judge-a7374761.html

Don't know if this has been posted already but this is a brilliant essay about the cat story.

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/the-man-who-mistook-the-point-for

Sadly that is not my experience. We had an assembly only last week saying students must use preferred pronouns. Most children are fully on board, it's a small minority who question it, and even those with doubts are far too scared to speak out.

Wow, gaslighting an entire generation. Well done adults, great work. Fucking genius.

You're right @MrsOvertonsWindow - schools override parental consent and parental wishes every day, don't they?

Lunch box 'policing'
Refusing authorisation for family holidays
Refusing authorisation for appointments that aren't seemed 'urgent'
Sending children out of lessons for uniform infractions
Not admitting children on to the school site at all because of uniform infractions
Not letting children go to the toilet when they need to go
Not letting girls manage periods with sufficient privacy and dignity
Not fulfilling the school's legal obligations around SEN provision
Ignoring or refusing requests to administer certain medications

I could go on.

The point is, the school will say that they are acting in the best interests of the child, and/or the best interests of the school ('aligning needs and policies with available resources') and we all understand that.

So why is the 'social transitioning' political crap different?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4733732-disturbing-dr-em-article-about-furries-their-links-to-snp

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4834957-furries-widely-accepted-by-lgbtq-community-according-to-this-article-are-they-represented-in-the-new-flag

The devoring mother/ Grim Stepmother teachers at school will have the trans species experts in next week.

The parents will find their parental responsibility removed without court orders and the children emancipated earning a living in the local fast food restaurant run by a big bloke named "Daddy" .

Why is this allowed?

They need a good hard virtual cane by the government, police and parents, the media should ridicule them.

No other professional goes on about wanting respect.

They get respect when it's earned. When they quit queer theory boundaries breaking and behave themselves, quit behaviour like narcissistic feckless immature teenagers.

£34k plus pension, for 8 months work and they won't even safeguard properly.

Pink Floyd! Leave those kids alone!

This is the main problem here

The point is, the school will say that they are acting in the best interests of the child, and/or the best interests of the school ('aligning needs and policies with available resources') and we all understand that.* So why is the 'social transitioning' political crap different?*

I think it's because the DfE and schools are terrified of being responsible. This way, if anything goes wrong it's all the parents' fault.

Miriam Cates believes the guidance needs to be clear there should be no social transition in schools:
Saying no to school transition | Miriam Cates | The Critic Magazine

I've also just spotted this thread of hers, ending with her article:

https://twitter.com/miriamcates/status/1672653417938841602?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"Discussions about the draft ‘trans’ schools guidance seem to be confusing three distinct concepts: parental involvement; parental consent; and parental demands.

The right to parental involvement means parents have the right to be involved in their child’s life, so schools and other agencies should not keep secrets from them without good reason. Parental consent, in the context of schools, is required when a school seeks permission /2

to do something to or with a child outside of the normal in loco parentis arrangement. For example, schools must gain parental consent to take children on a school trip or administer medication. Parents do not, however, have the right to have all their demands met by schools./3

For example, a parent can ask for their child to be excused from wearing uniform but the school has no obligation to agree to this. When I was a teacher, a parent once phoned me to demand I sit with their child through my lunch break each day to help him finish his coursework,/4

which he had failed to hand in on time. It was a very short conversation. Schools frequently do not give in to parental demands; this is not, in itself, a breach of parental consent or parental involvement, rather a function of the fact that schools have rules and policies /5

to which all children must adhere.

If a school decides to socially transition a child (as huge numbers of schools currently are) then of course parental consent and involvement ought to be required. However, it doesn’t follow that schools do or should have /6

the legal, ethical or clinical authority to transition a child. Those who are saying that schools can’t refuse a parent’s wishes in this regard are confusing parental consent with parental demands. If the government decides (and who else’s job is it to decide?) /7

that the State should not transition children (as I argue in @ TheCriticMag below) it will then be perfectly legitimate for schools to refuse to transition a child even with parental consent, just as they would refuse to allow a child to vape on school grounds, /8

even with parental consent. It a mistake to take a managerial approach to this issue by drawing up a glorified flow chart to decide who gets to transition and when. This is not a management issue, it’s a safeguarding issue. No child is born in the wrong body /9

and there is no evidence that social transition benefits children; if the Government really believes this then it must ban schools from transitioning children.
If there was no legal minimum driving age, plenty of parents would be persuaded to allow their child to drive before/10

the age of 17. Having a law to prevent this is not a breach of parental rights; it’s a necessary and evidence-based boundary to keep citizens safe. This should, after all, be the primary role of any government. /11"