Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told

[Igneococcus]

Sorry can't do sharetoken on this device, I'll do one later if nobody else posts one.
Tougher transgender guidance for schools is unlawful, Sunak told (thetimes.co.uk)

What an utter mess this all is.

"Prentis said that a blanket ban would be unlawful because the Equalities Act states that gender reassignment is a “protected characteristic”, regardless of age. She gave the same advice when ministers asked whether there could be a ban on social transitioning for primary school children."

The Equalities Act also protects "belief". I believe in science and that people can not change sex and my "belief" is no less important than anyone else's. So to require me to, for example, use a particular pronoun is discrimination and illegal. Therefore not to amend guidance to make it clear that schools must not require this is unlawful.

Why are the government not being advised that existing guidance to schools is unlawful?

https://archive.li/LL2Ti

“Regardless of age”

Does anyone know if the law state a 6 year old is allowed to go through Gender Reassignment? I assumed the law referred to over 18s.

This is a result of political capture and this bloody government ignoring women who've been warning about this for years. Can the law can be changed (as the Attorney General favours) within the life of this parliament ? Everyone knows that the law was never originally intended to apply to children
One thing the government could do is to insist that schools follow the law on political impartiality and ensure that Ofsted check that schools have no involvement with queer theory political activist groups - Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, GIRES, Global Butterflies, Educate & Celebrate and numerous others.
That would help a bit.

Gender reassignment doesn't just mean "getting a GRC". The law talks about changing, or intending to change "physical or other attributes of sex", whatever that means.

No child will be changing any physical attributes of their sex. I assume by other attributes of sex the argument is that eg wearing a skirt is an attribute of being female. The fact that it's a social convention and a sterotype seems to pass these people by.

The confusion of using sex and gender interchangeably also doesn't help. An attribute of sex means chromosomes, genitals etc. No child is changing those.

God what a mess taking pretending seriously makes

Equalities Act has more holes than a Swiss cheese.

It's a good question. One of the toxic aspects of all this is how trans activists talk about children as if they're mini adults - a deliberate tactic. It's time that safeguarding took priority (along with the need for political impartiality in schools).
Socially (let alone medically) transitioning children is a safeguarding issue. Whether it's the emotional abuse from gaslighting children they might be born in the wrong body or the physically abusive aspects like breast binders, drugs bought online with the encouragement of adult groups like Mermaids.

The Equalities Act was poorly drafted. "Other attributes of sex" is meaningless.

Bottom line -if the law doesnt allow you to protect children it needs to be changed and very quickly. You can amend it to remove "other attributes of sex" and refuse to allow physical changes in children, require a gender reassignment certificate and not permit children to have them or remove gender reassignment completely.

Thank you for sharing this.

From what I understand from this article, “social transitioning” is being equated by the government’s legal advisers as “gender reassignment”. But they are not the same thing, so “social transitioning” is not covered by the EA.

If “gender reassignment” requires a GRC and if this can only be obtained by those aged 18+, this area of the EA isn’t applicable to schoolchildren apart from those who have turned 18.

So if I have understood correctly, “gender reassignment” isn’t a category of the EA that schools have to comply with by virtue of the vast majority of school children being under 18, BUT they DO need to allow for freedom of belief in biological reality especially since the Forstater ruling.

So it sounds as if schools need to push for better clarification of the meaning of “gender reassignment”, because “social transitioning” as defined by the article doesn’t and shouldn’t come under the GR umbrella.

Repeal the GRA, stop issuing GRCs and let’s establish firmly in law, that whatever one chooses to do to one’s body, sex change is not possible.

I think it means all nurses are now women and all train drivers are men. And all people who wear skirts are women. Not sure what they would do about a train driver who wore a skirt. I guess they'd have to take them to an indoctrination camp until they choose whether they're a man or woman.

I agree that belief is now protected. Therefore no person should be forced to uphold a belief if it goes against their own, surely.

And if that is the case, no person on the planet should be coerced by law or by ‘being kind’ to use pronouns that are not in line with the sex of a person when that sex is known. The constant prioritisation of this small group’s demands has a spotlight shining on it now and it is ever so clear that consideration is expected to only ever flow towards them. Never both ways.

But remember this is the new meaning of the words ‘kind’ and ‘tolerant’.

I think social transitioning does come under the EA ("other attributes"), but I'm sure the legislation can still be tightened up. You can't ban social transitioning in school, but you can make it clear that schools must have single sex sports / spaces. You can make it clear that any name changes have to be formally requested with parental permission. You can make it so the school databases record sex and not gender and therefore cannot be altered.

Of course children who think they are transgender should not be discriminated against in school, but as with other areas of the equality act there needs to be a balance with other areas.

If “gender reassignment” requires a GRC

It doesn't. And even if it did, the Act covers those 'proposing to undergo' reassignment as well as those who are doing or have done so - so it could still cover those too young to get one. The Act's a mess, and fails to define many things properly, which allows all sorts of bad faith (or just daft) interpretations.

Quick reminder that it's the Equality Act, not the Equalities Act.

Here's what it says about the protected characteristic of gender reassignment:

Gender reassignment(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons

As you can see, this is tremendously vague. I am not a lawyer, but to me the wording suggests that it refers to adults rather than children - can a child really be said to be proposing to undergo a process "for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex"?

To my mind, the people who drew up the law clearly had adults in mind. The phrase "other attributes" is problematic, but someone on here has previously pointed out that some attributes of sex can be biological without being physiological.

The use of the word "transsexual" shows that the legislators were operating in a very different mindset from the one that prevails in 2023.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Well, I'm sure it would be easy to ban social transition in school. Teachers are not medical staff so are not the appropriate people to be unilaterally facilitating this - the Cass report noting in particular that social transition is not a neutral act - teachers should be sacked for permitting it in the absence of medical care as they are practicing outside of their competence which is harmful.

In terms of "presentstion", there is no reason why boys and girls can't have the same uniform, hair and jewellery standards, this is one of the last bits of vestigial sexist distinctions, but otherwise agree that single-sex distinctions should be retained where it matters.

Yep.

Well isn't it interesting how often the EqA2012 keeps coming up as the barrier to women's rights and equality, to gay rights and equality, and now apparently to child safeguarding. It seems legally incompatible with other people's rights.

With all this evidence piling up, yes it does need to be re written and this time certain political lobbies kept firmly in a box. It's about equality for all, not supremacy for some at the cost of others. And any party that is behind that supremacism? Good luck in selling that to voters.

I would suggest too that in drafting the new laws, no lobby groups or pressure groups at all of any kind are permitted involvement or say. And anyone who has attended training by those groups or belongs to a department with a current or historical relationship with those groups is regarded as compromised and unable to participate in the drafting. Complete impartiality only.

I think that ‘gender reassignment’ needs to be removed from the Act altogether.

All the protections transgender people need could be provided by appropriate protection of their protected characteristics of ‘sex’ and ‘belief’.

People shouldn’t be treated differently on the basis of sex, unless their sex is actually relevant. So it should be fine for a man or boy to go to work or school in a skirt, with long hair, and a full face of makeup if it’s ok for a woman to dress/ present like that. The law should protect a man’s right to do this on the grounds that otherwise he experiences SEX DISCRIMINATION.
The law should not be pretending he is any kind of woman.

Where sex is relevant, women only spaces would be protected by the allowed exemptions to treat the sexes differently when it is justified. Transgender feelings are irrelevant- if it’s ok to exclude some men, it should be ok legally to exclude them all. If transgender persons feel their exclusion is unjustified, they should have to prove that sex is not relevant in that particular situation, so the sex discrimination exemptions should not apply.

And people who believe they have a different ‘gender identity’ should be protected from harassment and discrimination on the same basis as people holding any other belief, such as Muslims.

Both the GRA and the EA are an absolute mess. Both drive a coach and horses through safeguarding with their vaguery, failure to define terms and interchangeable use of 'sex' and 'gender'. They are not fit for purpose. The GRA needs repealling and the EA re-writing or replacing.

As pp said, if the current law forbids safeguarding, change the law.

I’ve just heard Miriam Cates talking on Times radio - she’s so clear about all this. Unlike the Gendered Intelligence spokesperson who is currently speaking (‘culture war’ etc)

Genuine questions.

Does the the Children's Act not come in to play re schools and children, particularly with reference to safeguarding?

In terms of legislation top trumps is it not more relevant than the Equality Act for children?

Why does the Children's Act never or rarely seem to be mentioned when discussing children?