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 is any other area covered by school guidance where it is framed as holy and righteous to ignore it as polluted and wrong, as it is with this. The DfE guidance has gone almost completely ignored. This is an increasing bid for TQ+ to be above the law.

When Suella Braverman was attorney-general, she gave the exact opposite advice. She said gender reassignment didn't cover children.

Regardless of whether it covers children or not, the Equality Act still allows for single-sex exceptions, so the guidance could still mandate that boys are not allowed to use the girls' changing rooms, however they identify. That would probably reduce the appeal of social transition to some extent.

There’s another point as well, of course, which is what constitutes discrimination. At the moment the EHRC Technical Guidance for schools includes this example (the bullet point has been changed in the guidance but I don’t have time to search for it right now).

Is this discrimination? Hopefully this is one of the points the EHRC is looking at

The law needs to change if it’s blocking a way forward. What a bizarre set of knots that isn’t working for the majority of children.

Thanks Rodgmum. I have always felt that ‘should’ in guidance to be really bizarre. But people tell me I come from a nanny-state, so I accept that I like to have things spelled out clearly. Either it is policy, guidance or by-law or it is not where I come from. ‘Should’ makes things sound very grey. I was horrified with parking regulations being ‘should’, and everyone ignored them, so I wasn’t sure what it means for school guidance.

I would hope that an interim guidance would at least give some protection and some direction.

Having read the article what is allowed is so weak that it’s pointless

Fgs just rip off the bandaid and get mandate for a robust response.

I haven’t checked, but isn’t it the GRA 2005 which restricts the awarding of a Gender Recognition Certificate to over 18s?

If applying for a GRC is/used to be a two year process, then the implication of that would be that 16yos could start on “a process of” reassignment and start changing “other attributes of sex”. Given that the legislation mentions “physiological” attributes separately, the “other attributes” must refer to non-physiological attributes - ie clothing, name, pronouns, stereotypical behaviour, stereotypical hobbies and interests.

Feminists would, of course, argue that regarding various sexist stereotypes as “attributes of sex” is i) utter nonsense ii) sexist drivel which perpetuates inequality iii) the depressingly predictable product of a male dominated political party system and male dominated legislature iv) even more depressingly getting worse as a result of vociferous campaigning by Stonewall, Mermaids, Press for Change.

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.

Yes, although like the Vice story, it's a partial leak. Who leaked it and to what end? What does the whole thing say? (And what does it say about protecting children and Cass? That's got to be in there?) We just don't know

Lawyers pointing out that a ban on social transitioning could be subject to legal challenge does not = lawyers saying children must be transitioned without parental consent.

The most pressing issue seems to be schools believing that they have to socially transfusion minors behind parents backs if the kid requests it (i have spoken to a couple of teacher friends whose schools have absolutely pushed this view, directed by political training. They have been told it would be illegal and harm the kids if they refused).

It's harmful and legally incorrect, and schools need to have it clearly spelt out, by the government, that they shouldn't be doing it. Teachers need to know they will be supported, not punished, for refusing to implement social transistion without parents consent.

Not keeping secrets from patents is safeguarding 101.

That’s interesting. Do you have a link to that? Did it pre-date Haldane?

Oh ffs transistion not transfusion!

“the situation and evidence has changed massively.”

Such an important point.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/27/attorney-general-says-schools-do-not-have-to-accommodate-childrens-gender-wishes

While a child can't get a GRC they can still be covered by 'intending to change gender', which is effectively a totally meaningless phrase.

I find it astonishing that laws with actual legal effects are based on such vague, waffly language, with ill defined meaning and no actual way of proving or disproving them.

Anyone could feasibly have 'intended' to 'change gender' at any moment, from minute to minute. It's law based on a hypothetical thought in someone's head. Wild.

Yes, this is important.

What this article seems to be saying is that the advice is that the govt cannot implement a blanket ban on social transition.

This does not mean (or at least we haven’t been told) that the attorney general feels that all children must have their social transition supported by schools. There will be a whole range of competing rights and safeguarding points to be considered for individual cases.

I am assuming that the “leak” came from someone in the Attorney General’s communications team. People expect the Government to move quickly on this. Indeed Rishi had promised. But the lawyers, reluctantly, have said no. The law needs to be changed.

The leak/briefing then provides the reason to tidy up the law, and hopefully can be included with sex/biological sex amendments. Which would perhaps bring the whole gender divide before Parliament before the GE. This should not be political, and the Government will say that the changes are needed for clarification in order to protect women and children and in line with public opinion. Tidying up of existing legislation happens all the time. As for Labour….their choice.

“Who leaked it and to what end?”

Having read the article, it’s clearly No 10 who’ve leaked it. The purpose is to enable the PM to get his defence in first as to why he hasn’t delivered on / won’t be delivering on the commitment which the article says he has made.

I note that the article seeks to prevent the Attorney General from being accused of personal bias in favour of social transitioning by stating she personally favours a ban but the law doesn’t permit.

Whether any of the presentation of the position in that article is accurate is any one’s guess but that - “we would tackle this, honestly we would, but our hands are tied” - is the message which is being put out to The Times’ readership.

And whilst the lawyers and the politicians argue the children suffer.

Any chance they can sort out this shit show before the new school year in September?

“This does not mean (or at least we haven’t been told) that the attorney general feels that all children must have their social transition supported by schools. There will be a whole range of competing rights and safeguarding points to be considered for individual cases.”

I suspect parental consent will be the key “rights versus safeguarding” point being debated before the guidance can be finalised.

Completely. And open to interpretation by sexist adults.
I remember one bit of TRA guidance saying that baby girls who pull their hair clips out may be showing early signs of being trans. This is the level of ridiculous and dangerous readings of ‘intention’ we are up against.

LoobiJee Yes, and also worth bearing in mind that even the Scottish Govt admits there is no law obliging schools to affirm a child’s identity and trust me, if there were, the ScotGov guidance would have been all over it!

Up to a point. But if a school is challenged and has ignored non statutory guidance, they need to have a shit hot defence as to why. And "we were being kind" just won' cut it.

Reading the comments, the Times readership - who have been at the forefront of challenging all this - are very aware that the government was in thrall to the queer theory groups and entryists in the civil service etc and are 100% responsible for this shitshow.
Now what matters more than anything in all this is that the toxic claws of trans extremist groups are removed from education and that safeguarding children once again takes priority. We shouldn't be distracted by all the political squirrels designed to distract women and parents from safeguarding children.