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 how you can disagree with an objective fact?

The European Court of Human Rights has found that Article 8 encompasses a right to legally change gender. That's not a matter of opinion, it is an objective fact.

Scrapping the GRA is not compatible with the ECHR.

This is going to be the new 'thing' now isn't it?

Women can't ever have equality back cos EHCR membership stuff type tenuous thingy.

The goalposts keep on shifting. It's a bloody awful law that was created for all the wrong reasons and does not work for anyone other than a small group of people who do not mind the damage they are doing to others' rights and equalities. It needs to go.

I mean you can keep setting out all the reasons you disagree with the ECHR.

The point is that the ECHR position is pretty clear, and scrapping the GRA is not compatible with it.

Except it's not tenuous.

No GRA, no ECHR.

You're perfectly entitled to support that approach. Plenty of people who object to immigration also want to leave the ECHR.

But you shouldn't pretend that you can scrap the GRA and remain compliant with international law.

There is a practical difference between not taking active steps to comply with an international obligation, and taking active steps to contravene an international obligation.

Ministers and Civil Servants are prevented from doing anything that breaks the law. Including international law.

This is the crux of the ECHR issue to me. Yes other countries didn’t open Pandora’s box so they are fine

The U.K. did and now is stuck

Unless they exit the ECHR

Other legal interpretations may come up on the thread but this is what I am taking from the pp

The European Court of Human Rights has found that Article 8 encompasses a right to legally change gender. That's not a matter of opinion, it is an objective fact.

But we dont have a legal gender in the UK?

Is that why its called the Gender Recognition Act? We acknowledge that the individuals with a GRC have a gender? What we can stop is those obtaining a GRC being issued with a new birth certificate?

Or does gender mean sex? Everyone has the right to change their sex. But that cant be correct - its impossible to change sex.

<Shrug>

I'm prepared to hear arguments either way.

But considering that belonging is doing fuck all in preserving women's rights, child safeguarding, harassment for belief, prejudical policing yada yada, if it's going to be clung to as the bastion of support for continuing to oppress and subjugate women and gosh what a shame we can't stop?

Then it probably needs reviewing as to whether it's still the good thing it used to be, or has just become another outpost of political capture to a highly dodgy idology.

What do people think about Gillian Keegan’s statement today?

So we continue to bring cases on behalf of women and girls. Sooner or later one or more of them will end up in ECHR where we can show a fuckton of evidence that there are after all huge factors of public interest, and huge effects on the human rights of women and girls, to weigh against the interests of those who wish to falsify their birth certificates. We get Goodwin overturned and then repeal the GRA.

It's not so much that they are fine - those countries without gender recognition are also in breach of their international obligations.

It's just that there is no particular means to force a state to do something to comply with its obligations.

On the other hand, there are (internal, domestic) means by which a state is prevented from doing something that breach its international obligations - namely that ministers and civil servants are not allowed to break the law.

OK. You'll have to overturn more than just Goodwin, and I don't much fancy your chances - but have at it.

But until you successfully deploy that strategy or the UK leaves the ECHR, the international obligation remains.

Yes I've no problem with some sort of certificate of 'gender' that has no effect on legal sex. They could make it really pretty and colourful - maybe a nice pink certificate with little pictures of high heels and flowers and a lovely blue one with space ships and dinosaurs.

I think shes had a lecture from someone about safeguarding.

I'm not happy about the delay. I think they should release the best guidance they can now.

The trouble with releasing it half baked is that its unfair to demand that schools take it on board and work out how to apply it and put the time into getting their heads around it, when it may all change again in a month or two. Particularly as now it's been dragged into the summer break and schools won't even start getting their heads around anything sent out now until September.

Not to mention that the schools causing most concern are already going to be looking for reasons to continue doing what they want and to ignore the heresy.

And also not to mention that before schools get on this, the teaching unions will go through it with a toothcomb and look for many reasons why they can't possibly do it.

It needs to be right and certain in order for this to achieve anything.

Yes that’s makes sense.

Fwiw I don’t think we can overturn much in our favour.

I also don’t think women would be able to get us out of the ECHR on our own steam, we are low down in people’s minds

But there are other sections building in discontent and mass displacement looming. This is more powerful than women.

There are big chunks that could be released now that would be properly legally sound:

No transing children behind parents' backs
Preserve single sex spaces
Preserve single sex sports

I think an outright ban on social transition would require a change in the law and I don't think that's achievable within this parliament, let alone a month or two.

I've been reading up on this. NHSE's equality impact assessment is here:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Equality-and-health-inequalities-impact-assessment-on-interim-service-specification-for-Specialist-Gender-Inco.pdf

In January 2023 the High Court agreed that not every child or young person referred to a specialised gender incongruence service will have the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’. The Court agreed that children and young people who are referred to such a service do not – at the point of referral or while they remain on the waiting list - share the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ as a class or cohort of patients.

The whole cohort of patients cannot be treated as “proposing to undergo” a process (or part of a process) for the “purpose of reassigning” their sex “by changing physiological or other attributes of sex” as a class or cohort. To apply such a definition to these individuals is to make assumptions upon the aims and intentions of those referred, the certainty of those desires and their outward manifestation, and upon the appropriate treatment that may be offered and accepted in due course. This is particularly likely to be true in the case of very young children.

However, as the Court found and as NHS England accepts, many children and young people will individually have the protected characteristic at the point of referral or while on the waiting list, although determining that will involve a case-specific factual assessment.

The case they refer to is one of the fox batterers spectacular failures:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/AA-ORS-v-NHS-Commission-Board-Judgment-160123.pdf

The judge said:

132 Not every child referred to the children’s GID service will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Dr Cass in her report describes those being referred as “gender questioning children and young people” who “seek help from the NHS in managing their gender-related distress”. Some of these may present with symptoms of gender-related distress, for which they may in due course receive psychological help. They may not, at the time of referral, have taken any settled decision to undergo any part of a process of changing any attribute of sex (to use the language of the 2010 Act). This is particularly likely to be true in the case of very young children.

133 But there is no reason of principle why a child could not satisfy the definition in s. 7, provided that they have taken a settled decision to adopt some aspect of the identity of the other gender. Many of the children referred to children’s GID services will have taken such a decision. Determining whether any particular child has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment will involve a case specific factual assessment.

134 In this case, there is good evidence about the position of the two child claimants. AA’s circumstances are set out in para. 36 above. She has changed her name to a girl’s name. She attends school as a girl. She has now been living as a girl for more than 2 years. She wishes to receive medical treatment to delay the onset of male puberty. She has taken a decision to adopt some aspects of the identity of the other gender. At the present time, it would be an abuse of language to describe this decision as other than settled.

135 AK’s circumstances are set out in para. 37 above. At the age of 10, she expressed the desire to be known as a girl, have a girl’s name, wear girls’ clothes and have her hair long. She has been referred to the children’s GID service and the thought of going through male puberty distresses her. Again, she has clearly taken a settled decision to change aspects of her gender identity.

136 In my judgment, both AA and AK very clearly satisfy the definition in s. 7(1) of the 2010 Act. They have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Looking at this, I think a child who said they identified as the opposite sex and wanted to change their name, pronouns, dress and hair, would be considered to have the PC of gender reassignment.

Ive not read the whole thread, so i dont know if im repeating something thats already being said, but regarding children the childrens act and the education act are important.

The nhs, equality act, keen parents and teachers or a tra media cannot ignore childrens protection set down in those laws.

I think it’s fair to assume the Attorney General knows that more than one statute exists.

Historically humanism developed in the Renaissance as part of a Christian theology. Perhaps it works within other systems too, but you have to have something foundational that accounts for the confidence in humanity, or nature, and so on. Perhaps you could be a platonic humanist, for example, though the ancient pagans didn't tend to be quite so positive about material reality as Christians, seeing it as inherently corrupt.

The philosopher John Gray argues that most modern secular philosophies and political movements,in the West are in a similar way built on the shoulders of Christian philosophical positions, and don't internally account for those presumptions. Marxism, for example. If it's a topic that interests you his book, Straw Dogs, might be worth looking for, it's meant to be read by the general public.

To go back to the subject of the OP article.

The attorney general has referred to "social transitioning" but in fact there is no definiton of what this is AND (I posted the link last night) the NHS is NO LONGER ADVOCATING social transitioning post Tavistock etc..

So first of all why has the AG even referred to it?

Secondly why are schools in any way thinking they can do this?

They are not medically qualified to say yes a child (under 16) making a self identification statement.

A child 16+ can ask to be referred to the relevant medical clinic to be assessed as needing to start the process towards gender reassignment (the protected characteristic) which one they are committed to and get the certificate can be sued if they then attempt to say they never really meant it.

It seems that everyone has been bamboozled by the deliberate attempt to change language by the TRAs.

So bad enough that schools have fallen into this trap, but even more bizarre that the AG is saying that "social transitioning" is a thing.

If what they mean is that anyone 16 or over can ask to be referred to start the medical assessment, then that is covered by existing legislation.

In the meantime there is no legal right to expect anyone to call you whatever you want to.

Social nicieties might think you should be it isn't a matter of law.

And it certainly isn't is the experience and training of teachers to somehow appear to be saying that they believe in self identification.

All of this is what distinguishes the existing UK wide law to the one that the Scottish Parliament wants to bring in, and the UK Government is challenging as not being compatible.

If they are convinced enought to go to court on this, why, by the back door bring in the provisions of the Scotish GRR.

Its bizzare.

Has anyone seen any legal advice that challenges what the AG has said.

Or are we going to have to have a high court hearing on whether the AG knows what they are talking about or are talking total TRA nonsense.

Have only just seen the link to the Gillian Keegan statement, which makes my post sort of redundant!

In the meantime, schools and colleges should proceed with extreme caution. They should always involve parents in decisions relating to their child, and should not agree to any changes that they are not absolutely confident are in the best interests of that child and their peers. They should prioritise safeguarding by meeting their existing legal duties to protect single sex spaces and maintain safety and fairness in single sex sport.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-07-20/hcws983

Although do think the Government needs to sort out what is meant by "social transitioning" and that if the NHS do NOT recommend it why they think somehow schools can be allowed to do it.

Of course social transitioning is a thing. If it wasn't, people wouldn't be getting so worked up about it.

And the gender reassignment ground of the Equality Act has no requirement for medical assessment or processes. This was confirmed in Parliament at the time it was debated and passed.

And no, there is no legal challenge to the AG's advice. It is privileged like any legal advice from a lawyer to a client.

I’m being obnoxious and quote posting myself because I think IwantToRetire may have missed it.p back on page 10.

The term Social transitioning has been around for a long time and it is well understood by those involved in the issue.