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."

2010, sorry. Not enough coffee yet.

Trying to brush women's equality and rights, children's rights and gay rights under the carpet as a 'culture war' to provide TQ+ political supremacism?

It's getting desperate. Which is probably a good sign.

Here is a sharetoken, more than 800 comments so far and increasing quickly

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a694726a-259b-11ee-9959-3da1f328ac3c?shareToken=347894c6ac37454a067ab01f0886234d

It is clear that teh Equalities act needs to be amended. It is also clear that the sudden recent movements/departures/ramping up of things in trans activist camps signals a determined move to further their aims and goals.

I'm imagining this is going to be by getting closer to the law and to legal actions and rulings. That senior leawyers have blocked this move suggests that the law is going to become the main battleground.

It seems clear now that law change is needed. What a pity that was not decided 2 years ago!

It seems absolutely extraordinary that legal advice says that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic for primary age children.

Have I misunderstood?

Do we think this would be because little children would be covered by “is proposing to undergo” gender reassignment if they identify as trans?

They should just go with the term “should” as mentioned in the Times article and get the guidance issued while they then decide how/whether to change the law in the background.

If we’re going to have to wait for politicians to now argue how the law should be tightened up, we’ll never get this guidance out before the next election.

The guidance can be updated once/if the law is changed, but in the meantime, using “should” is a good interim step and will give schools pause for thought- it certainly works for ScotGov up here who have pushed the opposing view onto schools using “should” with great effect.

I feel like banging my head against a brick wall though. So many of us have spent YEARS telling the govt they would come up against exactly this issue and they’ve been sticking their heads in the sand about it. This could have been sorted out ages ago.

I'm wondering who has given that legal advice? Lawyers can famously disagree on points of law.

With this apparently meaning

• Yes social transition must be unquestioningly facilitated
• No parents cannot be informed against parental rights and normal safeguarding practice
• No watchful waiting or consideration may be given to the future being dumped on a vulnerable child due to the pushing of a political lobby with zero interest in anyone or anything but themselves, and who will disown and sneer at the kid if they later detransition

At this point the govt should be well aware that anything that is not statutory will be ignored due to the capture situation and political indoctrination of schools, and that 'should' will be ignored.

@RebelliousCow

"But the government then commissioned legal advice from Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, about whether a ban on social transitioning in schools was possible. Last week she concluded that such a move would be unlawful and said that the government would need to pass new legislation if it wanted to go further"

Yes, I've been wondering about this too Ova.

How much more " information" does Sunak think he needs?

Gillian Keegan clearly has a vested interest - I suspect a trans identified family member.

The problem is not that a law needs tidying up. The lawyer herself seems to agree with what the Government is trying to do, but professionally needs to give her advice to protect the Government from future legislation.

The problem is that the opposition will do their best to oppose and delay any tidying up. It will be political rather than administrative. As we saw from the recent Westminster Hall debate on sex vs biological sex, there are a significant number of people who oppose protections for women and girls and Labour Party leadership is not willing to challenge them.

This is a constant issue isn't it? Adults with skin in the game with the power to weight the law against others to enable their child's political beliefs. It's like integrity and professionalism no longer matters.

I genuinely don't get it. I worked in local authorities in the early 2000's, approx 2004 to 2009 and The Children Act was key legislation, very much on everyone's mind, referenced frequently etc.

Fast forward to now and it's as though it no longer exists.

For everyone questioning where social transition fits in with the PC or GR, it has been in the EHRC Technical Guidance for Schools since 2014. It is finally being updated (though we don’t know exactly how it will change), but yes, it has long been deemed that children, with no lower age boundary, come under the PC as soon as they “make their intention known” to anyone.

Sections 5.113-5.116 here are the relevant bits

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/technical-guidance-schools-england

“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”

I agree with others … if the person is a child, they cannot personally make this proposal. It seems clear to me that it is aimed at persons who can make such decisions for themselves. Otherwise the wording would need to say something like “the person (or if a minor, parent or guardian acting on the minors behalf). But it does not. Legal texts must surely be unambiguous.

I suspect Sunak does not have the stomach for this; it is not in his list of priorities - leaving it to individual MPs such as Kemi Badenoch and Gillian Keegan to fight it out, and struggle with.

The schools guidance is then 9 years out of date when the situation and evidence has changed massively.

If Sunak and the tories do not have the guts for this, then no one else will. He is mad; this is a vote winner.

Maybe they should release the ‘should’ version. However. Knowing that an update was coming, would schools take notice of the ‘should’ and ignore them.

It is massively in the Tories interest to come out against gender ideology - its basically a free vote winner.
I cant help thinking there is pressure coming from abroad on them?

This is what I understood from the article.

Small children can intend / propose (without even understanding the meanings of these words) to do many things but by teatime they will have changed their mind at least 72 times. Any sensible parent knows not to even ask an eight year old what they fancy for tea because by the time the pasta is ready, they’d actually prefer sausages.

The idea that gender reassignment/proposing to undergo this (whatever the hell it actually means, because how can you reassign an abstract concept that is part of a controversial ideology?) is applicable to school children is frankly absurd/terrifying/fucking stupid.

Helle They’d know if any update does come it would be even stronger than “should” so they’d be hard pressed to ignore it. “Should” is a strong word in guidance and if a school were taken to court they would need to justify why thief didn’t follow it.

Thank you @rogdmum. As someone new to this guidance, this seems absolutely extraordinary and completely wrongheaded if it applies to primary age children.

My 8yo has expressed an intention not to go to secondary school because she doesn’t want to go on the bus on her own. I mean… these are young children with no concept of how they will change as they grow.

And seems the wrong call too for even upper secondary children given all that is now known about interactions with mental health, being in care, neurodiversity, same sex attraction, idea that gender identity doesn’t settle until mid-20s etc.

I’m catching up with others here, I’m aware, but good to spell this out for others who are also catching up.