Sunak to drop legal plans to bar transitioning in schools?

[D1nopawus]

FFS. Just as I start to think the grown ups are back in the room.

Rishi Sunak set to drop legal plans to bar transitioning in schools

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/31645f02-4ce5-11ee-98c9-759fff07db04?shareToken=c9611eafea6f3f775129767e94bdbb46

If this is true then Sunak has absolutely no chance of even a hung parliament.

Oh ffs.

This lobby will scream transphobe, section 28, Nazi, genocide, wrong side of history, and all their other predictable hyperbolic catch phrases, it's what they do, and it's intended to intimidate people into doing what they say.

If Sunak and co are still at the point of being worried about what names they get called then this is an admission that Stonewall now run the civil service and the country, and we just have a lot of people in suits making noise in the HoC and costing a lot of money.

Any basic look at the events of the past five years would demonstrate, the I'll scream and scream til i make myself sick tactics are deployed tediously often, mean absolutely nothing but do what I say or I'll scream and hit everyone, and that reasonability and engaging nicely is pointless. It is only read as submission. Cowardice at this point will just mean things roll on a few months to the next PR disaster, eventually a government will be forced to act. Forced. And all the weakness and wittering and dithering and chickening out will mean that the disaster that finally pushes action never needs to have happened at all.

I seriously wonder if a movement needs to start about taxes, because wtf are tax payers being required to fund Stonewall running services? Particularly creating resources that women and children can't use any more? I am not funding this unethical mess, no taxation without representation.

This.

If the Tories are as weak and captured as the left, wtf is the point of even voting.

then this is an admission that Stonewall now run the civil service and the country, and we just have a lot of people in suits making noise in the HoC and costing a lot of money.

You’re not far off.

I think that there was no chance in reality. The polls indicate many more women will vote Labour than men. This issue is important, but it does not have voter traction to make that difference.

It is however good fodder for an election campaign as a leader. This is the blame game done when a party is going to lose.

Labour have done them like a kipper. Say nothing and wait. The advice they will get legally will be the same.

But guidance in this area without legislation to back it is a certain loss at judicial review. There has been some over promising here by certain Ministers. This article is the excuse note.

That hopefully works for a majority but won’t work for a vulnerable minority. Kids who struggle, who feel different, autistic kids, kids with SENs etc will remain susceptible to teachers and external organisations such as mermaids pushing the trans message. They’re the ones who desperately need the govt to step in with firmer guidelines to stop this craziness.

TBH it seems reasonable to drop plans for a blanket ban on socially transitioning in schools. The terrible problem we have atm is that social transitioning is happening waaay too frequently, as a result of social contagion causing ROGD and ideological contamination of the advice provided to schools.

We don't want to replace that with an oppositely bad situation in which the tiny number of appropriate transitions is unlawful. I can only imagine that this blanket ban was proposed by the Tories in order to capitalise on the 'culture war' aspect of this issue. It certainly doesn't seem like a helpful reponse to the actual needs of actual children.

Despite refusing to engage with women Starmer will still face incidents that make the public react.

Backlash didn’t help Sturgeon either

When is transitioning a child ever reasonable? And what of the rights of the other children?

The issue for the Tories is that this issue transcends party politics. Some Tories are invested and captured by trans ideology, most likely becaue they have young relatives caught up in it, or because they are gay and associate themselves with the 'queer' community. Whilst others are firmly opposed - such as Kemi Badenoch, Miriam Cates and so on.

I'm sure the Cass review stated that social transition was absolutely putting children on a pathway to medical interference-it is NOT a neutral act. Child safeguarding has to take priority over everything else, surely. Adults need to tell children that changing sex is simply not possible. Born a boy, you remain male for life and must use facilities provided for males...it's really not that difficult.

It really is not a major infringement of anyone's rights to not be allowed to enact a personal fiction while at school. It plays no part in education. And this particular fiction has a lot of highly harmful impacts on the child themselves and on the other children encountering their fiction, all involving adults playing with personal political hobby horses.

I know some posters are happy about prospect of Labour but do they really think this isn’t going to head down the path further? Look at Wales for a start

I can only hope people get so pissed off (probably by some event) they vote it all out with mandate. It’s not like the media is totally captured here as it is elsewhere tg

"But opinion over such a Bill is divided – and to explain the differences among Ministers and advisers in their full dimensions I must turn from policy to politics. A Bill would mean debates and, we should presume, votes. And while a majority of Conservative MPs may believe that pupils shouldn’t be allowed to change their pronouns, not all may agree.

A Bill would therefore expose the Government to the risk not only of dissenting voices but – worse from the whips’ point of view – amendments, allowing those voices the opportunity to vote in ways hostile to the purpose of the measure. So what? (Say some.) Let them – and take them on. Use the Government’s majority in the Commons to crush opposition. Send a signal to voters that Ministers will confront and challenge woke – outside the Party and within in."

Interesting.

Another challenge for Keegan. (And Badenoch. And Sunak.) Whether or not to ban transitioning in schools. | Conservative Home

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Victoria Prentis has got this wrong, and Sex Matters has got it right. If schools refuse to socially transition pupils, that does not mean they are treating children with the gender reassignment characteristic under the Equality Act worse than other children. They receive the same quality of education as other children and the same opportunities to do sport etc. They are not being discriminated against. The school is simply, and quite rightly, not treating them as if they were the opposite sex.

I'm hoping the final Cass Review will bring some clarity to this - not the legal issue, but the medical harm of socially transitioning children. I don't know when it's due but we've been waiting a long time.

Victoria Prentis is a good lawyer. Her job is to prevent the Government being sued. I doubt she was pleased to have her advice, which is confidential, in this article.

That will have upset many and makes even unlikelier that any change will go ahead.

Well she's apparently argued in favour of compelled speech so perhaps we should be told about that. There is a conflict between rights;
freedom of belief, and gender reassignment.
Sex, and gender reassignment.

Its the governments job to sort this out and what they've done is to create a hierarchy of rights putting 'gender reassignment' above both 'belief' and 'sex'; for a class of people who cannot legally obtain a GRC.

No. This is a matter of policy. It is gutless to say it's the AG; her job is literally to assess the compatibility of a measure with the law.

Yes it could be changed. But that is for politicians to establish and decide, not hiding behind the AG. And at least we have one that understands and respects the law as it is, and does not indulge in fantasy.

There needs to be a new policy. Great. Do the usual and think and then consult the lawyer. Not cop out and go, we consulted a lawyer and then couldn't do anything.

Which new laws do you think Labour will introduce around gender ID if they get in?

I don't know if this perhaps deserves it's own thread, but in the DM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12489463/Fears-NHS-fast-tracking-teens-waiting-list-treatment.html

They have also got an article on this backtracking, probably copies from the Times and something about an LGBTQ+group at GOSH putting out guidance discouraging staff from using 'gendered language' (like boys and girls) that the hospital has posted on it's website.

Perhaps we need an 'in the Mail today' thread? Although, it might give MN an attack of the vapours.

@EasternStandard - I have only got Dodd's slightly weasally statement. It tells me that self ID is nominally off the table. But no clue as to the wider policy. I would read the manifesto carefully because an announcement means nothing in terms of delivery

True. I will do

The we will strengthen but also defend the EqA also made me question what exact legal changes would be proposed

But as you say an article doesn’t mean much at this point

The other question i generally have is how much mandate overrides these hurdles

If we vote for a non gender ID set up is it doable?

It feels unwieldy and self feeding at this point

It's an interesting question because this Government have run out of road. There is not a quick fix because of all legal challenges that will come. Don't blame Prentis, blame Badenoch for overpromising. All these articles attacking her colleagues for being wrong are very her.

What you have to look at is the cohort of MPs and their views. A large mandate cab splinter easily as Johnson and May found out. So a lot depends on Labour Party discipline.

Tory friends getting a bit whiffy, eh?

It really makes no sense to pass legislation in the year running up to an election, particularly legislation that might expose a split in the governing party - you are just depriving yourself of manifesto promises and handing ammunition to the opposition if you do so. It won't win them any new voters, but might help to shore up their crumbling base and save a couple of seats.