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."

I’m not sure there’s a definition of ‘proposes’. I think it can just be a thought in someone’s head. Expressed or not to any else. Otherwise there would be disputes over people not having said anything, or did they once say something or to whom and then declarations on paper would have to have become a thing.

So I don't see how anyone can be excluded from self identifying into the PC of Gender Reassignment. They just have to claim to have proposed this. Saying, as the EHRC do, that you're not covered unless you've proposed this is meaningless.

This is the ridiculous situation you end up in when you create a protected characteristic based around people pretending to be something they are not.

I want to know what a complete ban looks like. If it means school staff turning a blind eye to the child’s (and any in their peer group who choose to use preferred name/pronouns), then that’s fine.

If we’re going down the route of, for example, the child’s friends being told off if they use preferred pronouns for the child, or any pressure on the child to not refer to themselves as nb/the opposite sex etc, then I don’t support it.

The focus needs to be on the actions/words of the trusted adults in that child’s life. If it extends to peer group/the child it’s opening up a whole new world of problems impacting the child.

Above comments in the context of “just do a complete ban and let it go to court”. I think there are all sorts of caveats around a complete ban- eg children who have started down the medical pathway, where their parents have changed the child’s legal name etc.

Ie if they are testing out a complete ban, it needs to be done in a manner that does not add new problems to the mix

This is one of those situations where Sex Matters seems to have grasped the heart of the matter in a way that the Attorney-General hasn't, which seems astonishing, but that's where we are.

The point the Sex Matters document makes is that if a school refuses to use a child's preferred pronouns or recognise the child as the opposite sex, it is not actually discriminating against the child. Because you are not treating the child unfavourably on the basis of its protected characteristic. You're not denying it an education, or denying it the right to play sport or take exams or go on school trips. You're treating it exactly the same as any other child. You're simply saying that you're not going to go along with the preferred pronouns - which is a rule that presumably applies to all children, not just ones with a protected characteristic.

That's exactly the NHS advice

Whatever headline words Sunak might use "of course I know a women is an adult human female, unlike my honourable friend the leader of the Opposition...", he remains unprincipled and a coward here. He's run away from the decision on trans conversion ban legislation, and he's running away from this.

I'm sorry to say, that the tide will only turn in the Tory party if Badenoch or Cates becomes leader.

This period in history reflects incredibly badly on the misogyny and lack of interest in women’s rights of all political parties and the absolute normality of smoothing the way for male sexual entitlement common to all mainstream political parties.
^^
The phallocentric thinking at the time by majority male lawmakers would I imagine have been that for a transsexual man to want to cut off his penis and live (with the shame of) ‘being a woman’ , that this man must have terriblly poor mental health therefore be an object of much pity and need of special concern by the state. Also that this would only ever be something that a tiny number of men would ever want to do.
^^
It also reflects the back room nature of the GRA build up

Lawmakers gave it enough attention to make sure that older sisters couldn’t acquire a GRC and then snatch her younger brother’s male-only inheritance entitlements from under his nose. Funny that.

Agree; we don't want to move away from compelled totalitarianism towards a different kind of compelled totalitarianism. The impact on children's mental health - the mental load they are carrying from all this shit - must be enormous. They should have some basic freedoms and being able to use basic words in English the way they choose should be one of these.

However, I suspect once adults stop doing it, there will be very few kids who will. It's hard, it goes against the rules of English and instinct, and most kids are doing it out of fear and because the adults are modelling it.

definitions are so unclear that at the time MPs might have thought they were supporting a tiny number of cross dressing men who wanted to have ‘sex change’ surgery and be married to a man,

No 'might' about it. It was explicitly and repeatedly said in parliament by those proposing the GR bill that it would only apply to about 5,000 people - and therefore the impact on society would be insignificant.

(That number turned out to be roughly correct for those actually getting a GRC; the impact on society has mainly come from the vastly greater numbers who don't get one but still claim all the rights and advantages under the EA - or Stonewall's interpretstion of the EA.)

By using preferred pronouns for a select few, you're discriminating against the other children and raising some children up as more special and deserving of accommodation.

To be fair, to NOT discriminate, you'd have to ask all the children in the school if they would like to use gender based pronouns and what those are. And if you're signing up to gender ideology this includes things like zie / zir and fae/faer. Good luck with teachers actually managing to teach once you have 1000+ separate pronouns to remember alongside names (which I think some secondary school teachers already struggle with if teaching a lot of different classes).

There is no need for different pronouns. It doesn't help those children in accessing the curriculum (unlike some interventions for SEND children) - in fact it's likely to do the opposite as everyone will be pissing about getting pronouns wrong and correcting themselves and apologising rather than focusing on education.

I work with young people, some of whom identify as trans. Without exception, once they decided they were trans their engagement with education / educational attainment has fallen off a cliff. Pandering to the demands of adult trans activists and colluding in their lies (that people 'hate' you if they don't have the mental capacity to change the standard rules of English for you correctly every time) is not helping these children at all.

It would be like disability discrimination - you have to have informed your school / employer / service provider that you have a disability in order to be protected. They're not liable if they don't know and could not reasonably be expected to know.

After that, I can't see any difference between 'social transition' and 'proposing to undergo ...' or even undergoing 'part of a process'.

If a boy says to his teacher, 'I identify as a girl, I want to be known as Emily and my pronouns are she/her,' has he:

a) socially transitioned
b) proposed to undergo ...
c) undergone part of a process ...
d) all of the above?

If Dan wants to call himself Dora- whatever, do it. But Dan/Dora still changes in the boy's changing room and, for statistical purposes, is counted as a male child.

As with any other child Dan/Dora shouldn't be subjected to homophobic bullying. Or any kind of bullying.

Nobody should tell Dan/Dora that people who forget his name preferences want him dead. Nobody should tell Dan/Dora that girls are not allowed to say No. Nobody should tell Dan/Dora that he is in the wrong body and needs drugs and surgery.

By using preferred pronouns for a select few, you're discriminating against the other children and raising some children up as more special and deserving of accommodation.

This. You are requiring other children and staff to participate in one child's belief system whether or not it conflicts with their own or they consent. (And asking for consent in itself at present involves heavy pressure to say 'yes' and go along with it to avoid harassment if not active punishment.)

And you are enabling that child in a belief that they can be something that in material reality that they are not, and agreeing with them that there is something wrong with their body and if they became someone else they would feel better. It isn't a neutral act, you are actively helping that child lock into a pathway as opposed to leaving them in safe neutral ground to make their own decision over time.

The LGBT groups in schools also come up a lot in conversations with adults and children experiencing problems: staff with a bit too much enthusiasm and personal investment in their own personal politics, getting too involved and using their own personal belief biases with vulnerable children.

I really think it's as if the students of one religion demanded that all the other students in the school wore clothing considered respectful / necessary in that religion because not to do so would be disrespectful of their identity and a sign that others did not accept them. Which, to be clear, is absolutely not my experience of the religious families in my DD's secondary school - they are incredibly respectful of difference and whilst very happy to explain their religion do not foist it upon others.

Forcing people who would otherwise used sex based pronouns to use gender based pronouns is a bit like that, what's the difference? You're demanding that people act as if they believe in something they don't that has no basis in material reality. You could just as easily say 'oh, what does it matter, be kind' to slightly different clothes. Wearing clothes certainly has less of a mental load than suddenly having to change all the rules of English when speaking.

What I don’t understand is how the government can expect schools to navigate the situations which will inevitably continue to arise in September where a teacher or another pupil refuses to collude in the social transition if they don’t issue any guidance before then.

This isn't some hypothetical scenario whereby children won't social transition without the guidance - lots of children have already socially transitioned and more will do so, and regardless of the social transition piece, schools need guidance on how to handle these issues now as they are already happening.

It cannot be left to individual headteachers to decide whether they should treat the gender critical child/teacher like they're misbehaving (which has occurred in some cases involving dissenting staff and pupils so far), or whether they should explain to the socially transitioning child that some people have different beliefs. This runs into its own issues though, as many trans people don't accept that gender identity is a belief and so, without government guidance, a school would be incredibly wary of discussing gender identity ideology in these terms.

The schools guidance is needed urgently for schools to appropriately and consistently navigate these issues regardless of where the govt comes out on allowing or banning social transition further down the line, because lots of children have already socially transitioned already and other people have lost their jobs or been excluded for not colluding in social transition, which is likely to continue until schools have clear guidance as to how to handle these inevitable situations.

I don’t know whether Sunak has genuinely allowed himself to become distracted by the red herring question around the relative merits of social transition or whether he is merely hiding behind this “legal issue” to be able to kick the can down the road on the whole guidance. He knows Cates et al will kick off if he doesn’t outlaw social transition in the guidance, and Labour will use it against him in the next election if he does. But sitting on the fence is no longer an option for him as schools can’t sit on the fence and are forced to manage the actual situation on the ground, with or without his management.

Which is why he needs to follow Sex Matters’ thinking, and stop hiding behind the bigger question of “should children be allowed to socially transition?” that Cass has already admitted we don’t have enough data to be able to definitively conclude one way or another. It’s just a sneaky way to ensure this guidance never sees the light of day, as the huge question on social transition (which requires an answer to “what is gender identity”?) is obviously not going to be answered officially for ages, so any guidance that must include advice on social transition that even the medical experts aren’t clear on is necessarily not going to be released.

I’m concerned by all these leaks that the guidance would have said this thing supporting GC rights and it would have said that thing supporting sex-based rights, “if only we could have published it", because it sounds like they’re just teeing up their position for the next election with no intention of actually helping anyone in the meantime. But how many more teachers have to lose their careers and how many more pupils need to be harmed in some way before Sunak will realise schools need him to manage the existing situation now?

Sunak needs to stand up to Cates and be firm that interim guidance protecting gender critical views and sex-based rights is better than no guidance at this stage. Otherwise he just looks incredibly weak and is doing a huge disservice to schools, teachers and pupils.

I feel like we really need to make some noise on this one as its a crucial issue - delaying the protection of sex-based rights and rights to hold gender critical views in schools and pretending they're obscured by bigger unanswerable questions about the nature of gender is completely unacceptable.

It hadn't occurred to me that this would extend to what children say to each other. Children have always used nicknames for each other, but the teachers would use their real names. I had assumed this was about officially recognising the change of names and pronouns and compelled speech.

So if Emily wants to be known as Jack and have all her friends refer to her as 'him', then this could be viewed in the same way as make-believe games always have. Of course if the teachers are aware of this, they should be alert to any risks associated with this such as breast binding.

But I think it would be absurd to have guidelines that suggested that there should be policing of all children's interactions with each other in this context unless there appears to be bullying or any other inappropriate behaviour.

Wholly agree LonginesPrime

And where if this was merely a 'moral disgust' kind of prejudice then to take the conservative route and say no social transitioning at school could be very difficult if later the position is changed.

But it isn't.

It is actively about not enough evidence yet to know if it is harmful to children, with the best possible outcome being that in the future we discover it is harmless or positive. In which case the obvious, safeguarding answer is to say no social transitioning in school until the evidence and conclusions are in that it is definitely doing no harm to children in our care, and that tax payer funded staff in a place where children compulsorarily have to be are not causing harm. However good their intentions may be.

But I think it would be absurd to have guidelines that suggested that there should be policing of all children's interactions with each other in this context unless there appears to be bullying or any other inappropriate behaviour.

What we have currently in some schools (not others) is policing of children's interactions with each other. Compelled pronouns is policing children. It's bullying of the children by the adults. It breaches KCSIE which specifically says that using children for validation is abusive. It's the adults imposing this that is the problem, not the child asking their friends to use a different name or pronouns - because then the children do have the option of saying 'no, I don't believe in gender'. When the teachers are modelling using pronouns in a totally different way to normal, then children don't feel they have a choice.

I wonder if parents can pursue some kind of class action about the safeguarding failures, particularly mixed sex toilets where the schools are breaking existing law if they have inadequate single sex provision for the number who need it. Compelled pronoun imposition by adults in schools breaches KCSIE. Is there no consequence for breaking safeguarding law?

I suppose, given Rotherham, it seems not.

Why is everyone dancing around the Equality Act which is mainly meant to apply to workplaces and adults and at the same time merrily breaking safeguarding law and the law around single sex toilets in schools left right and centre with no consequence? Schools are BREAKING THE LAW. Female children have been assaulted as a result. Is it going to take a child dying?

I would like to 👍all of dimorphism’s posts on this page.

Schools are BREAKING THE LAW. Female children have been assaulted as a result. Is it going to take a child dying?

It’s good you are posting it’s breaking the law.

Not many probably do think of this. It’s worth repeating on threads imo

That's fascinating. I always considered humanism as part of Christianity, but seperate from it.

You're pretty much saying it's part and parcel of, not possible to be an atheist and humanist.

Well, this either means I'm an atheist nihilist, masquerading as a humanist (sounds bloody awful, I hope not, lol).

Or deep down there's a part of my Christian upbringing that has informed me adult worldview as a rationalist/humanist.

One of the fascinating things in the official humanist world is the number of humanist organisations, mainly US-based who have cast Richard Dawkins out for "untenable" transphobia, and more scarily, how many male leaders of said organisations have transed.

I'm talking dozens and dozens.

I'd call these people the atheist nihilists.

Seemingly the captured activist civil servants and everyone else (the media etc) so easily frame the discussion about potential, possible, maybe (maybe not, probably not IMO) breaches of the equality act.

Schools are breaking the law RIGHT NOW on safeguarding and single sex toilets and not a peep about that. Bonkers.

I can't wait for a court case, I'm going to be donating every month for that one.