Ministers finally agree guidance on trans pupils

[WarriorN]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12776337/Schools-discouraged-letting-pupils-change-pronouns-ministers-toughen-long-overdue-transgender-guidance.html

Totally agree @JanesLittleGirl My son is 9 and has demanded so many times that we change his name. For a while he tried to insist that we address him as something like ‘The Zarlu’. Then it was ZeeZee then it was Ezakariah.

Sometimes it is in the children’s best interests to hear ‘Your name is Zack, you can change it when you’re 18 if you want to, until then stop whinging, no-one wants to say 4 syllables everytime they address you and by the way ‘The Zarlu’ is not a name and sounds ridiculous.

Oh, please God... Bring it on.

Trouble is that this hasn't been tested in the courts and we know that the fake Stonewall law has wreaked havoc in schools, sport and with women's rights.
So nobody's really certain of how this will play out in practice.
The vast number of adults who've been allowed to use schools to socially groom children into believing they've been born in the wrong body are not going to give up that power without a fight.
I'm hoping that this will be seen as a return to prioritising safeguarding in schools - and just as Cass recommends - a return to professional therapeutic support for mentally vulnerable children, schools obeying the law about political impartiality with no place for political transactivism.

Kemi Badenoch wanted the guidance to ban social transitioning in schools in all circumstances - that might be what is being referred to (see Telegraph excerpt below).

While children cannot have a GRC, it's clear (and was reinforced by the updated EHRC technical guidance to schools Sept 2023) children can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

A school friend of mine of mine was beaten almost to death when her very religious parents found out she was a lesbian. You might think it's "silly" but these things do happen. Existing safeguarding protocols did not protect her.

As I've said I'm broadly supportive of this but that doesn't mean that I can't see potential pitfalls for some individuals.

While children cannot have a GRC, it's clear (and was reinforced by the updated EHRC technical guidance to schools Sept 2023) children can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

But it's not at all clear what discrimination with respect to that PC would amount to in practice.

There's a really clear exploration of this here, particularly the bit under the heading "Misgendering":

www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2023/09/

The implication seems to be that it is discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment if a boy who self-identifies as trans can't wear the girls' uniform, but it's not sex discrimination to stop a boy who doesn't identify as trans from wearing the girls' uniform.

Can someone with legal expertise explain that please? Because it seems that having the PC of gender reassignment (which people can self identify into, with no gatekeeping) gives you more protection from the EA than people get because of their sex.

Being a lesbian is not comparable to identifying as trans.

Identifying as trans implies a medical pathway which parents need to be informed about.

I recall waiting on updated technical guidance from the EHRC

Not sure if it’s relevant but they updated in September

Having skimmed it I feel too annoyed to comment and it’s late, maybe others can get something useful from it

https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/ehrc-technical-guidance-for-schools-september-2023-update/amp/

I completely agree. I wasn't making a comparison between being trans and a lesbian. I was illustrating that not all parents have their children's best interests at heart.

Not by teachers no, they're not trained or qualified to make those calls. Teachers have approves safeguarding procedures to follow if they feel a student is at risk so they should follow them.

Thank you Kemi , I bet it was a mission to get the wording correct

Unfortunately, the Australian government (especially the state governments) are people who not only think it is ok to do this to children, but have LEGISLATED so. It is horrifying and so desperately sad for the children whose lives have been caught up in their delusions, as there is no one to safeguard them at all.

The implication seems to be that it is discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment if a boy who self-identifies as trans can't wear the girls' uniform, but it's not sex discrimination to stop a boy who doesn't identify as trans from wearing the girls' uniform.
I think it could be argued as indirect discrimination on the basis of GR if you don't allow the trans identified boy to wear the girls' uniform, because the policy is making it harder for trans identified boys to attend the school than other boys. It's not direct discrimination because they're being treated exactly the same as boys without the GR characteristic.

Our school just has a gender neutral uniform policy, I think that's more appropriate in this day and age. The skirt is kilt-like so it looks suitably conservative on boys or girls anyway. (Wish someone would apply the long hair must be tied up rule to DS, he's a scruff and he's not taking hints from me. I do wonder if they're overlooking it deliberately in case he's a delicate flower with gender issues. He's not.)

I think it could be argued as indirect discrimination on the basis of GR if you don't allow the trans identified boy to wear the girls' uniform, because the policy is making it harder for trans identified boys to attend the school than other boys. It's not direct discrimination because they're being treated exactly the same as boys without the GR characteristic.

But why isn't it considered sex discrimination for there to be a different uniform for girls and for boys? Why can a boy not claim that it's sex discrimination that he can't wear a skirt just because he wants to?

Of course. But as has been pointed out to you several times, there are protocols in place for situations when a child is in danger from their own parents. The parents are always included as the child's primary carers.

Transsexualism is a medical pathway. Teachers shouldn't be making medical decisions without the parents' knowledge.

And in the case of transsexualism, it's often the ideologically driven schools which don't have the children's best interests at heart, not the parents who just want to prevent their children from making irreversible decisions while they are too young to fully understand the consequences.

But why isn't it considered sex discrimination for there to be a different uniform for girls and for boys? Why can a boy not claim that it's sex discrimination that he can't wear a skirt just because he wants to?

I believe that for a practice to be discriminatory it has to result in disadvantage. The boy would need to demonstrate he was at a disadvantage relative to the girls (not that he "just wants to" wear a skirt) and that the school had no justification for separate uniforms.

Could this really be the beginning of the end for social contagion in schools?
I imagine that there are thousands of teachers like me who will go in this morning feeling utterly relieved.

You dont say how the parents found out.
Being trans is in no way comparable with lesbian.
Existing safeguarding protocols will not always work. That's why they are updated quite often. It still is not a good idea to make schools and other pupils collude to hide someones new identity. You cannot prevent people from talking.

Guidance looks, not perfect, but promising.

The DfE must also ensure rogue 'trainers' don't undermine it with their ridiculous fecking genderbread unicorns etc etc etc.

I hope that the delays and issues being grappled with aren't linked to uniform.

I imagine clothes are an area that illuminates the different origins in concerns - those who oppose gender norms and stereotyping and those who think that boy and girls should conform to gendered norms.

I expect the majority of the DM's target demographic are the latter whilst the majority of readers of this board are the former.

I think not having compelled speech and ensuring single sex provision will help

I hope the pronoun issue is resolved

This is 'guidance' and we've been here before. Like putting a sign up in the park saying "please don't abuse the kids"

"Headteachers will be told to abide by existing laws including the Equality Act and must keep boys' and girls' toilets, changing rooms and sports separate."

Since they were ignoring the Equality Act before there's no reason to suppose this suggestion is going to make any difference

"Ministers ruled out a blanket ban on social transitioning after concluding it would require time-consuming primary legislation and could in any case be unworkable"

So there is not currently any law protecting children from the whims of any teacher, the government can't spare the time to make one and they suspect the schools would ignore that too.

I feel better already.

My concern is that this is going to be seen as “the new section 28 brought in by the evil Tories who just want to kill everyone” and the hysteria around it will bear no relation to reality.

It seems to me like almost everyone on this thread is being duped, again?

The guidelines are meaningless if they can be interpreted by those who simply want to continue doing what they are doing so.

It’s like what Suella Braverman said to Risihi Sunak in her resignation letter. It’s magical thinking. It’s willing this to stop and thinking it will with a few guidelines open to interpretation. It is typical Tory spinelessness, trying to stop this without doing anything that could upset establishment guardian readers.