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/

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.

I think this would be a problem too. Parents who want to support their child’s transition would just home ed them, though that would be interesting if the new identity wasn’t being reinforced day-to-day by peers and teachers. Some children detransitioned during lockdown, partly because of lack of reinforcement.

In the case of a family wishing to affirm and progress their child's transition, I'd be interested in what they would want the school to do that the loss of would mean withdrawing the child.

The answer for schools because of child safeguarding and freedom of belief is neutrality, to simply take the heat out of it. For staff to neither encourage nor discourage, to give space and time, to not participate in steering a child in any direction, to not give biased, political information, and to provide the support and care offered to all children without any politics getting involved.

Other than not using spaces for the opposite sex for toilets/changing over the age of 8, (which shouldn't happen anyway), what would this neutral approach deny a child?

This could be treated the same as any other safeguarding issue.

But the current issue in hand is how to protect children from being socially transitioned in schools. One law change or guidance document is not going to solve everything.

We would end up with full self-ID.

What a bizarre response to the Tories suggesting protecting women's rights and clarifying what being trans means.

Had it been a statement from the Labour party your comment would have made sense.

Its getting stranger and stranger that comments on FWR seem to assume the TRA position.

What is the point in lobbying the current Government if you think they are just going to take up the TRA analysis.

Why would the Tories be bothering about what is going on in schools if that was their mind set.

Totally illogical.

But of course if the tories get kicked out at the next GE then all your over the top remarks would be relevant to a Labour or even a Lib Lab government.

I wonder whether this is being bounced around in Conservative HQ as a possible “issue” to hang the GE on - having just narrowly scraped Uxbridge on anti-ULEZ. I can imagine they think people who will scream discrimination aren’t Tory voters anyway. Leak to the telegraph being the standard way to test a policy!

What is the point of lobbying the government if you think they are just going to take up the TRA analysis?

On that basis you could say "What's the point of lobbying Labour, LibDems etc?" It's time to hold the government's feet to the fire. Now, because we'll have a different government soon.

Right now we need them to sort out safeguarding in schools before the children return in September. And nothing in the Telegraph article or KB's rebuttal is filling me with confidence on that front.

There are even many GC feminists who have openly stated that they support the PC of GR in the EA2010 because it protects all TP against discrimination.

It doesn’t make sense though does it?

‘TP’ are only unfairly discriminated against for:

1. Gender non-conformity and defying sex stereotypes. This is sex discrimination.
2. Homosexuality or presumed homosexuality. This is discrimination relating to sexual orientation.
3. Neurodiversity or mental illness. This is disability discrimination.
4. Belief in genderism/queer theory. This is discrimination based on religion or belief.

There is no need for a separate protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ without enshrining sex stereotypes in law, which is sexist.

’TP’ can be fairly discriminated against for:

1. Attempting to use opposite sex facilities and services.
2. Promoting genderism/queer theory as though it is a fact.
3. Crossdressing and behaving in an inappropriately sexualised and intimidating manner.
4. Attempting to work in an opposite sex role where others are entitled to retain a single/same sex environment.

Good points. I hadn’t thought of it like that.

So guidance for schools at the start of the summer term (April) was promised, never happened, then end of term, postponed. Now talk of law in the Kings Speech in November. No doubt other bills will take priority such as another migration bill or others that are just talk and no action.

So probably no change at all this side of the general election. Seems like the Telegraph were given another story to detract from the two by election losses.

My take is there is talking on this but no consensus yet

Badenoch and Cates are up against Keegan

There’s also a reshuffle looming and some voices will be prioritised. The other day Badenoch was mentioned as someone who would do well

The Telegraph was a non Kemi leak, hence her Tweet

I’m glad it’s being talked about. I hope it goes the way I’m after

As for this article masking by election defeat it barely touched the sides. No one really would have clocked it or cared

The Uxbridge story is dominating anyway

As pp have said, changing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to only apply to people with a GRC would embed GRCs much more firmly, and probably push us towards Self ID.

It also seems regressive for Trans people.

I think they should:
1.Change the Equality act to clarify that sex means biological sex

1. Produce guidance that Equality for the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment means being treated equally to someone of the same biological sex but without the pc of gender reassignment (NOT being treated as if they were the opposite sex)
2. Get rid of GRCs, which are pointless and the root of all this confusion

I think it's a desperate attempt to stop the loss of votes in the next election

There is no need for a separate protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ without enshrining sex stereotypes in law, which is sexist.

I thought this too, but someone pointed out to me that there are situations where someone is in the correct single-sex space, but still needs to be protected from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment - e.g. a transwoman being turned away from a "Man Shed", or indeed a transman being discriminated against within maternity care. The imposition of any rule or culture within a single-sex space can't be legally sex discrimination, I don't think, and it could still serve to exclude people who are trans-identified. As you say, it's arguable that it's discrimination on the basis of belief but I think that's tenuous (not all people with GRCs believe in gender ideology, and a defence could argue that the culprit knew that and made no assumption about the trans person's beliefs) and it would require test cases to establish. And it would apply to trans people who are in need of, or prefer to use, the correct single-sex spaces, which they have every right to access. So I think it does confer some kind of genuine protection, as it should - it's much better to strengthen the other protections and be clear about conflicting rights than take a step which can (with some reason) be seen as "rolling back trans people's human rights".

Also, what JustWaking said. * *

I really hope you're wrong.
Shame though it's the tories doing it. Another way to divide the vote.

It doesn’t make sense though does it?

‘TP’ are only unfairly discriminated against for:

1. Gender non-conformity and defying sex stereotypes. This is sex discrimination.
2. Homosexuality or presumed homosexuality. This is discrimination relating to sexual orientation.
3. Neurodiversity or mental illness. This is disability discrimination.
4. Belief in genderism/queer theory. This is discrimination based on religion or belief.

Whilst that is absolutely logically true in a world where all discrimination is successfully prevented, I think it's complicated in our imperfect world by how embedded sex discrimination is in our society.

There is unfortunately lower representation of women in some areas (especially senior roles) and they are paid less than men in the same roles.

This could leave a MtoF trans person without a female comparator to prove discrimination. And any comparator is probably themselves already being discriminated against - so the bar is lower already.

Yes, that is incredibly unfair to women. But it isn't a race to the bottom. And I don't think it's reasonable to make fairness to Trans people depend on fairness to women being achieved first. (Equally, we won't let fairness to women depend on fairness to Trans people being achieved first - hence women's sports must be protected even if there isn't a solution for Transwomen yet.)

I think Trans people should be protected from any genuine discrimination. So Transwomen need to be able to use men as a comparator, which means gender reassignment needs to be a separately pc.

There is obviously a debate to be had around whether or not TP would be still be protected from discrimination without the PC of gender reassignment. At the very least it would probably make things more complicated when making a claim.

But the perception of the “rolling back of rights” is a massive consideration for governments even if protections are (arguably) available elsewhere in the law.

I guess this is why self ID would be such a blow. Because once it’s enacted it’ll be virtually impossible to get rid of.

There is unfortunately lower representation of women in some areas (especially senior roles) and they are paid less than men in the same roles.

This could leave a MtoF trans person without a female comparator to prove discrimination. And any comparator is probably themselves already being discriminated against - so the bar is lower already.

The comparator for a male trans person would be another male, not a female.

The comparator for a male trans person would be another male, not a female.

At the moment it would be, as the PC is gender reassignment. But the point JustWaking is making, as I understand it, is that if you got rid of that you would have to make a claim for sexist discrimination, and that would require someone of the opposite sex as a comparator. E.g. if you were a male wearing skirts and being discriminated against for it, you would have to find an appropriate female comparator who also wore skirts to prove that you were being treated less favourably. And in some professions that would be harder than finding an appropriate male comparator without the PC of gender reassignment.

I also agree with her broader point about legislating for the real world, and not making rules and hoping human nature catches up - the latter has a lot in common with the "men and women should be treated equally, let's pretend they already are" school of "feminism". (Not suggesting they're equivalent, but I think there's a common strain of hopeful idealism which doesn't work for e.g. drafting legislation.)

in some professions that would be harder than finding an appropriate male comparator without the PC of gender reassignment.

Are you saying his because some professions are so male dominated there would be no woman to compare to, or that in male dominated professions the women would probably also wear trousers, so a man wanting to wear skirts couldn’t find a female comparator to claim sex discrimination where his is being denied wearing skirts to work?

I am not Tory but right now they look like the only party cable of doing anything. Starmer is in a position where he is afraid to speak and when the Tories do he just accuses them of stoking a culture war.

I don't disagree @Heliotroper it's like being between a rock and a hard place. Starmer seems to have been captured by the extreme anti women lobby.

Are you saying his because some professions are so male dominated there would be no woman to compare to, or that in male dominated professions the women would probably also wear trousers, so a man wanting to wear skirts couldn’t find a female comparator to claim sex discrimination where his is being denied wearing skirts to work?

Both/either, I suppose. Obviously I am not saying that it would definitely be sex discrimination if a man wasn't allowed to wear a skirt, it's just an example to highlight the problem JustWaking was responding* *to. You would have to find a female comparator who was comparable in every way, including the factors which would previously have been covered by "gender reassignment", to prove that he was being treated differently. And that is much harder than finding a male who is comparable in all ways except "gender reassignment".

...I think. I may be wrong. 😁

...I think. I may be wrong.

Lol, I think I should write this disclaimer at the bottom of all my posts.