Telegraph: No 10 drafts laws to ban children from changing gender in school

[Signalbox]

Downing Street is drawing up laws to ban children from changing their gender identity in school, The Telegraph has learnt.
Primary legislation is being prepared ahead of the King’s Speech in November as Rishi Sunak seeks to reset his agenda with policies thought to be supported by many parents.
The Government is planning to amend the Equality Act 2010 so that it can publish stricter transgender guidance for schools.
The legislation would be introduced in the next session.
A Whitehall source said that one option being considered is to amend Section 7 of the Equality Act (Gender Reassignment) by stating that it only applies to people with a gender reassignment certificate.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/22/no-10-ban-children-change-gender-schools/

Kemi has shut it down pretty quickly

https://twitter.com/kemibadenoch/status/1682787934703960064?s=61&t=8CxL28ZCFDq66yuIWhY6_Q

That’s interesting. Is someone shit stirring?

Kemi’s tweet won’t load for me. What does it say?

What a mess!

It's certainly an interesting step forward that a change to the EA is being considered.

However, it does seem appropriate that someone should be free of discrimination for "gender reassignment" regardless of whether they are applying for a GRC or not. If you're applying for a GRC you need to have lived in your acquired gender (I presume that means following stereotypes of the opposite sex) for 2 years, but presumably during those 2 years you're allowed to be unsure about whether you want a GRC or not i.e. you're exploring your thoughts.

I would have thought it better to clarify a) that sex means biological sex b) the definition of "legal sex" and how this differs from biological sex and relates to a GRC and c) what is meant by discrimination under the gender reassignment protected characteristic. It should simply mean that nobody should be treated unfavourably in direct relation to their gender reassignment e.g. a male undergoing gender reassignment should be treated no less favourably than any other male.

It should not mean that pronouns and social transition need to be affirmed by others. The existing guidance which states this should be removed as incorrect and unlawful. Nobody should be able to compel someone else to affirm their belief. The case law following Maya Forstater's successful tribunal appeal presumably renders all the existing EHRC guidance on this point unlawful anyway?

Betty Kemi said:

”This is a legally incoherent, silly season story. It hasn’t come from anyone in my dept or No10 working on Equalities policy.
I know there’s much interest in this area but pls wait for facts. If it isn’t coming directly from me, its probably not accurate!”

Telegraph has removed the story from website.

Ah OK. A weird non-story....
Odd.
Anyway, good to have it all being discussed and journalists swarming on it. The more it gets out there, the closer people will look at the current non-sensical wording of the law just to see what all the fuss is about.

Ha ha is that the speediest story removal ever?

https://archive.ph/eD4m8

Archive for anyone interested.

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.

As the Times editorial is saying something really different can only imagine the warring factions in the cabinet are putting out very different briefings.

There's a war within DfE and it seems there's a real drive to discredit KB and No 10. And surely, the Telegraph didn't publish something without fully verifying it first?

I think they should just remove gender reassignment as a PC (and stop issuing GRCs)

Discrimination against gender reassignment is already covered by the beliefs section of the EA.

Pinknews. OK.

Wouldn't be the first time the govt has floated an idea in a 'no no, leak, accident, ignore pls' way to see what kind of a reaction it gets.

I wonder what bit she's disputing. That No.10 are drafting a law? Or that the law being drafted contains a ban on children changing gender in school?

Ye Gods I knew it was too good to be true.

I was just coming to comment on this but I see it's gone.

A Whitehall source said that one option being considered is to amend Section 7 of the Equality Act (Gender Reassignment) by stating that it only applies to people with a gender recognition certificate.

This would be a terrible idea. Can you imagine the pressure to 'simplify' the GRC process if EA protection depended on having one?

There's a really simple thing they could do to protect children - just amend Section 84 of the EA and add gender reassignment to the PCs that do not apply to school pupils.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/84

If they're going in to make amendments to clarify the meaning of sex then why not just do this at the same time?

This would be a terrible idea. Can you imagine the pressure to 'simplify' the GRC process if EA protection depended on having one?

Yes I thought the same.

Terrifying to think that not only does this "educator" not understand safeguarding but they're so fucking arrogant that they reckon they can keep secrets from parents! That's parents who have the legal responsibility to keep their children safe yet this utter fool thinks they understand a mentally unwell child better than their parents.
These are the professionally dangerous adults who need exposing and challenging every single time.

This would be a terrible idea. Can you imagine the pressure to 'simplify' the GRC process if EA protection depended on having one?

The "simplification" has already happened following the consultation that many of us responded to.

There may be pressure from certain groups, but because of that doesn't mean that the obvious (for legal clarity) need for a GRC to then be covered by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, shouldn't be accepted.

The same as the need to clarify that the word sex in the ERA is about biological reality.

It is the failure to clarify what thinks mean, that suddently a notion that has no reality in law (social transitioning) is being thrown around as though it were a reality, rather the weasel words of a group who through distorting language are getting the outcome they want without the legal scrutiny to say whether it is right or wrong.

And of course, prick news are so equally ignorant about the principles of keeping children safe that they give this person space to share their self important lack of knowledge .

No. When the previous consultation took place the GRA was basically obsolete (as it is today).

If a GRC was needed in order to be protected in the EA then it would cease to be obsolete and something almost nobody bothers getting. EVERY person with a trans ID would suddenly be clamouring for one and public opinion would shift.

It's fine for us to say just scrap the lot of it and all the obfuscatory language (and I agree, that would be ideal) but that's not how the world works.

We would end up with full self-ID.

Oh well I’m glad I didn’t bother to wonder what that was about

There’s a lot going on behind the scenes

Agree.

It needs to be that women's rights, spaces, resources and access and child safeguarding is properly and fully protected regardless of how a male person identifies, what papers they hold, how excluded they feel, yada yada.

GRCs could then be handed out like sweeties, and it won't matter. The needs of those who wish to identify out of their sex can be met without mugging women and children for their rights and equality. If the argument is that they can't, then those needs are highly debatable, and not ones that can be facilitated, any more than a 'need' to steal cars or a 'need' to go around kicking people can be facilitated and catered for.