Teachers need help against gender ideology - Janice Turner

[IwantToRetire]

... trans activist groups like Stonewall and <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/nDL49/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-charity-mermaids-loses-case-against-lgb-alliance-mvfgh8t9r" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Mermaids have preached in schools for years, telling teachers that a pupil whose clothes are “gender non-conforming” is a sign they may be trans. With no clear government guidance “trans toolkits” have filled a vacuum, often breaking existing equality law by demanding that boys who identify as girls can undress in female facilities, and that any girl who objects must change elsewhere alone. “Underpinning this scenario,” says one guide, “is the idea that a trans girl is not a ‘real girl’ and this would be . . . challenged through training and awareness raising.”

Yet most schools don’t indoctrinate girls against the evidence of their own eyes, but are sensible and pragmatic. Trouble mainly arises when an activist teacher, an LGBT campaigner or parent of a trans-identifying child, seizes policy. This has a chilling effect on discussion with, for example, illegal and unpopular gender-neutral lavatories rammed through while other staff are too fearful of being ostracised or reported to management to object.

Teachers are legally required to be politically neutral and the concept of “gender identity” — that everyone has a gendered soul — is a quasi religious belief. Ofsted recently noted that “school staff can occasionally confuse the legal, the moral and the political” without knowing it.

The fallacy that a person can change biological sex should not be taught as an objective truth nor be weaponised to silence, bully or cancel non-believers. The central method of enforcing such a belief lies in punishing those who refuse to use preferred pronouns. Most teachers will call a boy “she” or “they” out of politeness if asked. But a former teacher at a girls’ private school recalls how alpha pupils gleefully bully teachers who forget to say “they” instead of “she”.

A key reason for government guidance being paused is whether it is illegal to “misgender” a child. Some argue it amounts to bullying, is therefore a detriment for the child, and thus could break the law. But other lawyers say that while “gender reassignment” is a protected characteristic in the 2010 Equality Act with no age restriction, it only protects a child from discrimination, ie receiving fewer educational opportunities than a non-trans child, but does not compel everyone around them to use biologically inaccurate language.

The attorney-general is “kicking the tyres” on this matter, to forestall a future judicial review. But by the autumn, guidance will at last be published. For too long schools, misinformed by activist groups, have inadvertently funnelled troubled children towards transition when their role is to be a neutral space where, without pressure, they can figure out who they truly are.

Extracts from a much longer article in the Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teachers-need-help-against-gender-ideology-pk9bf6p2h also on https://archive.ph - just paste in Times link

(not sure why or how Janice Turner is so sure guidance will be published. Why wouldn't there be a judicial review in the autumn if there is thought to be threat of one now.)

Sharetoken here:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/074c15ac-27f6-11ee-b92f-f3b1bf190fd2?shareToken=180a045d14a39a07525f9147eb92d418

"According to a teacher who works across a group of large secondary schools, the fashion for girls identifying as boys has peaked. "

That is also what I get from talking to my two teenagers, and I also worry what will happen to the ones left behind by the changing tides.

Great article - thank you for sharing.

I thought it was a really weird article. I don’t agree it’s peaked- and I think if Janice spoke to parent groups, they’d strongly disagree.

Her “using pronouns to be polite” really worries me. It reminds me of my daughter’s former school telling me they believed use of preferred name and pronouns was following watchful waiting and they did not believe it would “encourage a course of action or mindset.”

It’s back to the message of “be kind” instead of looking at the risks involved of prematurely foreclosing an identity.

Thanks for the share token, will read later.

I have the impression that it’s peaked. My teenagers and their friends can see right through it and tell me that it’s the attention-seeking kids who give themselves all the labels. They steer clear of them.

I think it’s important to distinguish between the growing numbers of children who are seeing through the ideology and now feeling able to speak up (as in from 0 to growing numbers) and the still growing numbers of gender distressed children in schools.

The two should not be conflated.

Thanks for posting.

So this is the cause of the delay.

“A key reason for government guidance being paused is whether it is illegal to “misgender” a child. Some argue it amounts to bullying, is therefore a detriment for the child, and thus could break the law. But other lawyers say that while “gender reassignment” is a protected characteristic in the 2010 Equality Act with no age restriction, it only protects a child from discrimination, ie receiving fewer educational opportunities than a non-trans child, but does not compel everyone around them to use biologically inaccurate language.”

I'm really pleased to see that these discussions are being had a government level. The unthinking adoption of pronouns has been a real tool for silencing people.
But what a mess this all is.

The idea that using correct sex pronouns is a detriment is absolute nonsense, surely.

The word “she” is not a slur, the word “she” is not a derogatory term, the word “she” is not an insult. Neither is the word “he”.

Very important point.

Reading that article it seems to me that Janice has been given a comprehensive off the record briefing by someone in government who knows the agreed position.

This is interesting.

“But by the autumn, guidance will at last be published.”

Which means it could be as late as November.

Wonder if some scandal will erupt before November to trigger an earlier than planned general election.

I am not sure how gender-critical feminists, or teachers, can control or influence whether or not a child's decision crystalises into permanence. Social neutrality is surely as likely as validation to lead to life-changing medicalisation?

According to the Times' lead article this morning, the Tories are going to weaponise trans v women's rights issues. I have always said this would happen if the Tories were in trouble. On the one hand, Labour and the lib Dems won't be able to point out that the erosion of women's rights has taken place on their watch (because they support it). But on the other, it will entrench tribalist support on the left for the opposite position.

It's interesting isn't it because on the one hand they want to keep it a secret from parents when a child identifies as trans in case those parents are a risk to their own child but presumably that also means that those parents (and also family and friends outside of school) are going to be calling that child by pronouns according to their sex.

If being called pronouns according to sex is considered to be abusive and a detriment to the child how could this situation (of parents / friends and family being kept in the dark about a child's "trans" status) possibly be contemplated?

Good point @Signalbox

Presumably ‘misgendering’ would only be an issue if parents did give their consent to “social transition” as the guidance will prevent schools from supporting social transition behind the parents’ back. So under the new guidance, assuming it does say what Janice believes it will, the tricky question will be: if parents use opposite sex pronouns at home, is it bullying if teachers and pupils don’t also do the same in school? And can other pupils be forced to use opposite sex pronouns or is that an infringement of their protected belief and therefore a detriment?

I don't see how they can be wishy-washy about the pronoun usage. You get loads of parents who embrace the ideology. So they will be expecting wrong sex pronouns. Minefield.

The government will have to unequivocally say that no pupil or teacher needs to use wrong sex pronouns if they don't believe in the ideology.

They can't possibly call it bullying. Because it's made up. Where does it end? Are they actually going to say we don't believe there are seventy neo pronouns but there might be one or two? And no one can be a cat, but you can be the opposite sex, or no sex at all?

It's all nonsense.

As Janice says, the concept of discrimination should be explained as being restricted to what it was designed for. Not for compelled speech.

In relation to older teens, I think things have peaked. Being an 'ally' and fighting for trans rights has run its course. This is particularly the case where schools have young TRAs for whom nothing is enough and who demand to be centred in everything. Teens tend to have a lower tolerance of demands being placed on them than adults. I think work places won't be far behind.

What hasn't peaked / changed is the level of unmet mental health needs and vulnerable young people desperately hoping/ believing that 'transitioning' will take away their pain. It is an invitingly simple belief to cling on to (oh, all this pain is because I am really a boy and in becoming one all will be ok). These young people rarely make it in to school and when they do they aren't demanding access to spaces, they usually wish they were invisible and are desperate to be under the radar.

The schools guidance needs to hold in this in mind/ cover all bases. What educationalists think it should achieve tends to be significantly influenced by their experiences with the young people in their setting.

I think teachers are perfectly capable of handling difficult conversations they are well practiced

re the Times editorial

Sunak is also expected to put a renewed focus on transgender issues. As well as pursuing stricter guidance for schools, the government is also expected to press ahead with plans to change the Equality Act to introduce explicit protections for biological women in same-sex spaces such as changing rooms and hospital wards.

I cant understand why standing up for women's rights is weaponising anything.

Only those who submit to the Left's agenda (who would prefer we didn't point out they are erasing women's rights) think this is weaponising.

Have noticed a shift in the language of the Times in the last week or so.

Does anyone know if there has been a change in editorial policy or posts.

I hate that they write like this. Its sort of Guardian speak.

I thought Janice Turner was far too blasé in her coverage.

I am sure it is very different across different schools, but there is no doubt that in some schools it has far from peaked and if anything become entrenched. Many parents may not want to challenge this culture, because for many families chose of schools is limited.

But all this, it will blow over nonsense, isn't the point. The point is the damage that has been done and will be done.

Seems amazing to say, but Gillian Keegan's written reply seems the best we can hope for.

And as to the concept that children might be misgendered and this would be illegal, there is no legal obligation on any to use gender specific pronouns for a child. Unless they are 16 and over and have started the recongnised process of moving towards gender re-assignment.

The problem is that society, as brain washed by the media (captured by Stonewall) that somehow this is what adults should do.

I have got to the point now where there will always be objections found by TRAs at any attempt to point out that what they say has no basis, that we should:

• adopt a Red China policy of all school children wearing tunic tops and trousers
• only have gender neutral pronouns

because at the moment freedom of choice in facts means that the freedom of choice of a minority is then being imposed on others by bullying and a social vaccuum created by nobody knowing who a child is answerable to, and who is answerable for a child. Is it schools, is it parents, is it government.

It will be interesting to hear Starmer's response. Although, I think he may be too scared to say anything at all.

Interesting that the Telegraph obviously got a different briefing to the one the Times got saying that No 10 would ban schools from letting children change gender. The article has been taken down from the Telegraph website but by going to archive.ph and pasting in https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/22/no-10-ban-children-change-gender-schools/ it can still be read.

Also a reminder that share tokens expire and as posted in the OP you can also find the article that this thread is about by going to archive.ph.

Starmer's support for women's spaces is blatantly dishonest given that he believes males are women if they say they are. He will be confronted with this, and it's good if the Tories will make it an election issue - AND finally do something. They've been in government for god knows how long and presided over the instutionalisation of gender ideology in the UK so I'm not sure they're being particularly genuine either.