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 don't think he's the problem, there are clearly people in the government who are trying to get something through, and I suspect he's one.

But it's getting a lot of pushback I think from different quarters, and he can't handwave that away. In this instance perhaps more because there is concern what they do will be challenged and get bogged down there.

If there was no stomach for it they wouldn’t bother to start with, as I’d expect Labour not to

They should keep going. And it’s possible they will, Sunak has had a few difficult paths with other laws but kept going.

Haven't RTFT so sorry if it's been said before although I think it bears repeating:

Children are not adults.

Safeguarding law trumps the equality act.

I.e. a child's right not to be discriminated against does not trump another child's / all the other children's right to safeguarding / safety.

Also, one child's right not to be discriminated against on one characteristic does not give the school free rein to discriminate on the grounds of sex or religion, which current social transition often does.

Social transition which forces compelled speech (pronouns) on other children or the forced imposition of mixed sex spaces is clearly a safeguarding red flag and often illegal. Compelled wrong sex pronouns could be argued to meet the definition of emotional abuse in KCSIE, the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools.

We know the rates of sexual assault are higher in mixed sex spaces, girls have been assaulted in mixed sex toilets in school, the majority of parents and students want schools to comply with the law and have single sex toilets. The law says schools should have single sex toilets.

I despair at how the debate is all around the law in only one tiny area (equalities) and not about safeguarding law which surely should be more important when we're talking about children? It's unacceptable.

I think this too.

It should be possible to make this very clear about schools. They have no role in making any kind of decisions like this for families. It should also be clear about dealing with practical issues like sports and change rooms. I suspect if this was all done, some of the interest in child transitioning might evaporate.

As far as the general question, I am not sure that schools are the right target. If they are out of the picture, the people transitioning kids are the medical profession, and parents, often who have been influenced by doctors or activists and have poor information. And, arguably, activists and such on tictok etc who are contributing to social contagion.

These are the things that really need to be addressed, it's not really about the school. The supposed medical basis of the trans child is the real issue, and the idea that people have that transgenderism is some kind of medical phenomena people are born with like being diabetic.

Trying to address that stuff through pressure on schools isn't going to be effective, and risks undermining parental rights around medical issues.

But surely as the PM he surely has more clout? It just concerns me that he is saying " we need more info". Surely if he was serious he'd already have all of the info to hand?

Theresa May is a strange one.....very 'Church of England'

Totally agree which goes back to my earlier point as to why the Children Act or even the Education Act does not seem to come into play. Why is everything about the Equality Act?

It's not the only legislation and it's not even a priority one when talking about children. The Equality Act when devised was primarily about employment and the provision of services.

Thanks @ArabeIIaScott

“She said gender reassignment didn't cover children”.

@RoyalCorgi Looking at that article Suella Braverman said that GRCs can’t be issued to under 18s (which is in the GRA 2005). That isn’t the same as under 18s not being covered by the EA2010 protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Under 18s can’t change their legal sex. But they could start on “a process of” gender reassignment.

A government source said: “We have consistently said that this is about protecting children, empowering parents, and supporting teachers and school leaders by providing guidance for them to implement. It’s a complex and sensitive area and it’s right we get it right. More information is needed about the long-term implications of allowing a child to act as though they are the opposite sex and the impact that may have on other children too.”

This is the same as all the handwringing over men in women’s sports. If you’re not sure whether something is harmful or not backed up by science, the waiting position ought to be the neutral position: i.e. the position that existed before the potentially harmful new changes were brought in. Hand wringing while the damage is ongoing is negligent.

Whatever my views on what I would like the guidance to say, ultimately I think it’s important that it reflects the actual law (and doesn’t get “ahead of the law”). Otherwise you end up on the slippery slope to Stonewall Law.

If they’ve taken legal advice from the AG, they would be hard pushed to justify going against her professional opinion.

@PriOn1

Indeed. The “precautionary principle” (which is a well established principle in public health) should apply.

Interesting. Im still going with pressure from very powerful foreign actors.

I think this too. There’s a divergence and it’s showing

And who do you suspect this might be?

Do you mean organisations or lobby groups such as The Pritzker foundation, or the George Soros 'Open Society' foundation, maybe?

My suspicion is more along the lines that interested/invested actors have inserted theemsleves into various legal bodies and commissions and are intent on blocking.

NRTFT Is this block because there isn’t a clear legal definition of gender reassignment?
It can mean anything, even an unexpressed thought? How is something this ludicrously vague applicable to kids?
What a mess. If the Tories ‘know what a woman is’ they only have a very short time to do something about this.

What’s the WEF stance on transitioning minors? There’s an awful lot of money to be made…

This worries me so much that the Tories are sitting on this issue to make it an election issue. Vote for us, Labour will trans your children, that kind of thing.

This ought to have been sorted because the adults know it needs to be sorted. Not tomorrow but yesterday. Children are being harmed because this has been allowed to become a manifesto talking point.

the GRA 2005

Thanks for spotting that. I should have checked.

@RebelliousCow I’m not sure who the pp was referring to but this is where I think there could be divergence

I've said this before, but I think language is important and we should be using the language which is in the legislation when talking about these issues.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons

The law is about transsexual people. Not 'trans', not 'transgender', but 'transsexual'. The effect of using the words 'trans' and 'transgender' and then declaring that children can be 'trans' has been (in the words of one TRA) to 'desexualise the trans experience'. Can we go back to using 'transsexual', and then challenge those in favour of applying the term of 'trans' to children to explain exactly what makes a child 'transsexual'.

I just heard someone from a transgender group attacking the politics saying children don’t need to be dragged into who might be a boy or who might be a girl

Yeh right. Spoken like a true male.

My dd wants to run races and do other sports with other girls (if sex divided) and she shouldn’t have boys in her spaces normalised at a young age.

The privilege of men fgs

The blurb before said they couldn’t change it without changing the law. I’m massively hoping this is the run up pitch to change the law.

“These are the things that really need to be addressed, it's not really about the school. The supposed medical basis of the trans child is the real issue, and the idea that people have that transgenderism is some kind of medical phenomena people are born with like being diabetic.”

Yes, and this is why promoting the use of “non-binary and intersex” in the same breath is a key plank of Stonewall’s campaign strategy, and why it has been so useful to the pursuit of Stonewall’s campaign goals that the civil service staff network “a:gender” which groups DSD/intersex and transgender issues together in a single network was created and that its Network Chair is an individual with a DSD affecting those with a Y chromosome who states that their condition is what makes them want to focus on campaigning for those who identify as transgender. The purpose of that Stonewall campaign is to create the impression that self-describing as the opposite sex or as neither sex is equivalent to being born with a congenital condition. If you’ve read the Vice article thread, that campaign/staff network has led to draft Cabinet Office policy on “trans and intersex” inclusion. Apparently with no questioning by anyone in Cabinet Office as to why self-perceived identity issues (gender reassignment) or belief should be grouped together with a condition related to reproductive health. It makes as much sense as producing a “non-binary and endometriosis” inclusion policy.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that having a condition which relates to reproductive health or fertility is the same as having a DSD.

100% agree.

Even on here we're falling into the trap - and IMO it is a trap - of focusing only on one piece of legislation which is NOT the main legislation covering children in schools.