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."

How many more loyal voters do the Tories want to lose in 2024?

Why do people keep saying this when the alternative is worse?

We all know this. I don’t get it. Why will something that’s worse in power?

This is what we’ll get

And the new MP Keir Mather labelled the marvellous Germaine Greer an 'abhorrent transphobe' for knowing that biological sex is real.

That's interesting .I guess it should be ECMR though rather than HR (Court of Men's rights) because GRAs do not protect women's rights. In which case we should leave it and have a much more equitable legal framework.

Frances Weetman has Tweeted that Labour are institutionalising his attitude, it will become the default for the future.

This thread is about the schools guidance which the UK Government Prime Minister claimed to be committed to issuing.

Why are you derailing onto the actions of the party that isn’t in government and can’t issue instructions to DFE civil servants? The next UK Parliament election could be 18 months away. The current government need to get this sorted now while they are in power. If it’s actually true that they are committed to it.

Kemi Badenoch and Miriam Cates must be so frustrated by all this.

And why is someone else repeatedly derailing the thread onto the GRA 2004, which doesn’t apply to under 18s, in a thread about schools?

I can post as I wish.

I don’t need your permission.

As for current situation obviously there’s legal barriers that need to be resolved: Badenoch and Cates are our best bet now and if it’s after a GE

Not if they’re out though

@SunnyEgg sorry for being irritable, I’ve been getting impatient about derails lately (possibly because of the number of them which appear to be in bad faith) but, on the plus side, at least I haven’t just waded through pages and pages of cake and cheese chat.

How can pointing out what the alternative will be be posted in bad faith?

It scares the crap out of me, genuinely.

Thanks for the apology though

Yes. Colluding with people’s fantasies is rarely a good idea. And passing laws to enforce it is an assault on human rights (which must include the right to believe in reality rather than anyone’s pretence).

Irritation is understandable. It does seem that derailing often happens when women on here are discussing children / schools. The last thread about these guidelines suffered from interminable word salad posts from a trans person about their personal issues that very successfully derailed the thread.

I'm not criticising anyone for their posts - and completely understand why a discussion about legal issues is relevant given the halting of the process.
But it would be good to discuss the intersection of education / safeguarding law that appears to be actively suppressed in favour of trans activist interests.

I didn’t mean you were posting in bad faith in that particular post, just that there are a lot of in bad faith derails generally on FWR, as the general context to me getting impatient about derails.

Not being able to talk about what the actual government are up to or not up to, without the discussion being diverted onto another topic (and one which has been absolutely done to death on here), gets frustrating.

Well I don’t think I deserved that criticism and the derailing post was aimed at me

If people think that sorting this legal mess out is easy or fast and that it’s taking time is a reason to get Labour in, then I’d say think about the reality of doing so.

There are very few people gunning for women’s rights and I’d like to not bump them off because it’s taking time. The alternative will mean we are toast.

It’s a one liner which was in addition to the previous post. The whole thread is about the government

Just scroll past and post what you want instead of criticising others for posts you are not keen on

Anyway, here was my suggestion, in page 3 of this thread.

“I can see how the lawyers have reached a view that banning social transition for over 16s could be subject to legal challenge.
^^
That doesn’t stop the UK Government on issuing clear advice to schools that:
social transitioning is not a neutral act,
social transitioning risks putting young people on that pathway leads to significant, life changing physical interventions,
there are increasing numbers of young people regretting the loss of the fertility and the significant and irreversible physical harm done to them by going through this process,
the claims of suicide risks by certain lobby groups/commercial provider as part of their campaign to press for social transitioning and hormone treatment are unevidenced,
the emerging evidence is that cross sex hormones can exacerbate mental health issues.
^^
The guidance could also state that - in the context of legal action against the NHS - the government understands that, whilst X teachers union is in favour of social transitioning of school children, individual headteachers, teachers, and school governors may have concerns about the potential risk of future legal action against them on the grounds of them having actively encouraged young people towards, or failed to protect young people from, this life-changing course of action. The purpose of this guidance is to support schools in keeping school children safe from harm and advises the following: etc.”

The UK Gov Education Minister could have put something like that in her written statement.

Indeed. It does seem as if they're creeping towards that. It's also worth remembering that trans extremists deliberately targeted the law and the judiciary. If you want to avoid democratic debate / scrutiny, then get the judiciary to follow fake Stonewall law and ignore the actual law. Which may be why we are seeing so many legal cases going in favour of women?

I'm going to write to my MP and ask him to urge the government to issue clear clear advice to schools about political impartiality and getting organisations politically campaigning to remove women and girls's rights out of schools. That in iteself would be a major step forward.

“It does seem as if they're creeping towards that.”

Hmm, I don’t know. This worries me somewhat.

“So, we have made the decision to allow more time – to speak to teachers, parents, lawyers and other stakeholders – in order to ensure this guidance meets the high expectations that these groups rightly have for it.”

They are not going to be speaking to teachers in the next six weeks as it’s the school holidays. That suggests we’ll be lucky to see something before Christmas if they start some form of engagement process in the Autumn. Or by “teachers” does she mean the teaching unions?

And who are the “other stakeholders”? Mermaids? If so, what might meeting the high expectations of that particular “stakeholder” look like?

I'm worried about the whole thing LoobiJee.
Because this government have so fucked up with their uncritical alliance with Stonewall and all the other trans lobby groups they think they need to be careful. They can never admit their culpability and the extent to which they were captured by queer theory groups - often with the encouragement of the powerful gay men at the centre of their party. That opens them up to the massive lawsuits coning down the line from children as they mature.
It's a mess of epic proportions but at least they seem to have recognised that children and parents deserve them to step away from that queer theory activists. Doing it without admitting their culpability is their challenge I think?

Those of us who lived through times before the Good Friday Agreement might not find it as amusing as you do.

So leave the ECHR, ditch the Good Friday Agreement.

You really think both of those things would be good outcomes?

A pp mentioned the right to change sex due to ECHR

Not scrolling back as long thread but does this apply to children?

And do other countries say this applies to children

As far as I know, all of the case law has only concerned adults, and there is no case law that says children have the same right.

Yes - nobody has looked at the grooming of children in all this - perhaps because society naively reckoned that only open predators would target children about sexual matters - not supposedly mainstream trans organisations.
How wrong we have all been.

This comment bears no relation to my post. The situation of children in the UK has nothing to do with the GRA as it stands.