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

The trouble is ALL the teaching unions, including Heads, the PSHE associations & even bloody Ofsted are in thrall to the trans lobby. Ofsted only dumped Stonewall in 2021.

Getting these massive egos over this golden bridge is going to need a multitude of cranes. They are never going to openly admit they've been fostering the sterilisation of children. They're never going to admit that they failed to check the backgrounds of numerous unsuitable adults they allowed into schools to gaslight children they've been born in the wrong body (just look at the revelations about the nature of people in Mermaids).

The best we can hope for is that safeguarding for these children is again prioritised, that schools are forcefully reminded to return to political impartiality and that the activists desperate encourage child transitioning are removed from influencing schools - as is slowly happening in the NHS. And that the guidelines empower parents to challenge trans activism in schools and keep their children safe.

We also have a young set of teachers and very much teaching gender ideology. One of the teachers himself went through three sets of pronouns in three years. He was apart from that a nice young man and didn't heavily impose his beliefs. It was genuinely more like having a teacher with an eccentric belief system, which is probably a good end goal. The school's overall indoctrination and safety/privacy for girls is more of a concern.

The NEU is certainly not going to change its views any time soon. I was on an lgbt+ network meeting at the weekend and the message was very much 'we're going to continue doing what's 'right'(my scare quotes) even if the government don't want us to'.
The NEU have released and lgbt+ inclusion charter which is all about changing pronouns on request, wearing rainbow lanyards, gender neutral facilities. Nothing has shifted at all.

They could at least be honest and call these children transsexual. They are starting on a medical pathway to change their sex characteristics. It's not just about changing names, pronouns and uniforms.

By claiming that they are covered under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they are admitting that they are on this medical pathway. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment only applies to someone who "is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Social transition is the first step on this medical pathway, which ends with irreversible medical treatment which will result in impaired sexual function, sterility and being a lifelong medical patient.

They're doubling down aren't they? Which is why the political impartiality aspect of this is so important.

If the guidelines are well written with safeguarding at the centre, they'll be forced to say the quiet bits out loud. That boys have complete access to girls when undressing etc, that women's sport doesn't matter and that adults in schools know more about transitioning children than Hilary Cass!

This is the real problem for women and children

This amount of capture

An excellent point.

It says 'physical or other attributes'. Those other attributes could be a hair cut, a skirt or a head tilt. There is no assumption in the law of medical transition.

@ValancyRedfern as depressing as the NEU double-down is, maybe someone will throw in Old Crone's observation. It could be asked in a very open way e.g. "now that it's been clarified by the Attorney General that gender reassignment does apply to children, is there anything we need to think about when children take the first step on the pathway with their social transition?" or similar. Another question might be "How do we best make use of the Cass Review?"

It's either ignorance or activism leading the way here. Or a combination of both. Some open neutral questions could be helpful to clear this up.

Educational psychologists who work in schools with vulnerable children and advise schools, are also totally captured by gender ideology.

If schools are seeking advice from their visiting psychologist on a 'trans child' they are highly likely to be advised affirmation and social transition.

Schools do use educational psychologists in this way. Most educational psychologists will have 'trans children' on their case load. Usually because they often also have social and emotional difficulties. At the moment the Trans identity is treated as a separate thing to their mental health needs. It's regarded by schools and psychologists as just an incidental fact, like their eye colour or height.

There are only a few training courses for educational psychologists. One has a mtf trans tutor, and heavily promotes trainees to research 'lived experience' in this area (someone was looking at something to do with drag queens. All queer theory based), another course has a full on TRA tutor.

Affirmation only is the only openly shared and tolerated opinion by educational psychologists.

If the government thinks the advisory professionals are any less captured than the schools they are very mistaken.

@rogdmum my children were at that school and he is definitely TWAW. I asked him for details of the school insurance policy and where it said that boys could play contact sports with girls. I also asked about the junior school toilets being gender-neutral and how upsetting that would be for girls starting their periods. His reply was that he would only talk to me if I accepted his position that TWAW.

He's an arse

This was a thread about the influential Trans t educational psychologists who shared 'her' funny arousal story when being examined by a nurse:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4797167-multiple-sclerosis-video-features-transwomans-anecdote-of-getting-an-erection

This Trans educational psychologist also has a podcast:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6dxpPqdhb9iYOw2E7kf0mD?si=RWMtIDm5SsWqYozGPHThZA

I hope the Cass review refers to psycholgists in schools as well as the clinics.

Did you ever doubt this would be the case. “Except in exceptional circumstances” or however it was framed means:

1. This is totally allowed.
2. Those with the power to decide what is and is not an exceptional circumstance get to decide.

The Tories are treating the feminists like fools. If they wanted to stop this they could, they would just have to introduce primary legislation to stop it and include all the necessary notwithstanding clauses to put the legislation beyond challenge. Then they would task a public body/institution with ensuring the legislation was enforced and staff it with people who actually wanted to enforce it.

The trouble is the other side are even more in thrall to unions and look at the reality there

Total capture

If we slide backwards after next GE… well that will be really depressing and crap

But they can't just do that as they don't have the backing. And lots of tory mps would refuse to follow the whip. Because for some unaccountable reason this has become the correct belief, gendered souls, sexism on steroids and they think of it as a vote for genocide etc. They must be wilfully blind but they believe this is right. The gov can't pass a law sadly. And labour and all the other opposition parties are even more captured somehow. This will take generations to change, probably to less surgery.

@Freddder I think you're right. (Definitely not surprised at the Guardian's coverage BTW, just frustrated at how easy it is to spin it that way)

It would also explain why Gillian Keegan has moved on this. She's presumably satisfied that there is enough of a door left open to maintain enough of a status quo on social transition. I often find myself wondering what is motivating her on this. It certainly doesn't seem to be safeguarding children.

The obvious first loophole is the Educational Psychologist reports in every EHCP 😔 Thank you for posting the linked thread @MartinEPSeligman I hadn't seen that one so will take a look.

The EP report is the most important document around which all the other inputs and assessments are based. For context that means every autistic i or other SEN child who has an EHCP is vulnerable to the risk that this poses. They are the first "exceptional circumstances" 😔 It's going to rely heavily on school safeguarding leads and parents of autistic and SEN children having awareness of the implications of social transition - and then challenging EPs in the very long and laborious EHCP process 😔

“BonfireLady · Today 20:32

@Freddder I think you're right. (Definitely not surprised at the Guardian's coverage BTW, just frustrated at how easy it is to spin it that way”.

yeah because unfortunately it is that way, the way the Guardian spin it is actually how I see it working out in practice. The Tories are scared to upset the Guardian reading elite.

“Because for some unaccountable reason this has become the correct belief”

It’s the ‘correct belief’ because since the 1960’s the elites have believed in liberal progressivism. Their belief system doesn’t have an end point and this is just the next logical step in it. Once the progressive elites win this battle liberal progressivism will dissolve the next taboo or social norm.

Some of those who supported liberal progressivism seem genuinely upset and puzzled to find out we have arrived where we are, I think they must not have understood what they supported.

Most ordinary people are not ideological and just believe what they see, they don’t have an ideological lens to filter everything through. The higher up you go in society the more onboard people are with liberal progressivism because the higher in society people are the more they are aware that there are certain things you are supposed to believe, in fact it’s very difficult to get high in society if those already there sense that you don’t believe what you are supposed to believe. Liberal democracies don’t really tolerate elites that don’t believe in one of the many shades of liberalism.

It’s the ‘correct belief’ because since the 1960’s the elites have believed in liberal progressivism. Their belief system doesn’t have an end point and this is just the next logical step in it.

Why is the next logical step this sexist and homophobic quasi religious belief system?

"PUPILS should be allowed to identify as the opposite sex only in very limited circumstances, schools will be told under strict new rules.

Any chance that limited circumstances are 18 and 19 year old students in Sixth Form? If an 18 or 19 year old pupil has a GRC will it take precedence over the guidance ?

The Tories are scared to upset the Guardian reading elite.

What on earth about the last 13 years makes you think that? The Rwanda plan, for example?

What this and the Rwanda plan have in common is legal challenges.

I think progressives will try and take away parents rights next. ‘Belong’ isn’t the right word but you probably know what I mean. They will say children primarily belong to the state and don’t belong to their parents.

Sorry I miss read you. I thought you asked what comes after this when you actually asked why was this next.

The reason why this happened was it was the next logical social norm to dissolve in order to let everyone be whoever they wanted to be in a society that doesn’t believe in absolute truth anymore. These people think truth is relative and think social norms are wrong because the pressure people to conform to a standard.

Lots of reasons but did you miss the one where Suella Braverman, one of the few Conservative MPs who is actually conservative told us that? Occupying one of the great offices of state she would be one of the few people who knows how the Tory Party in government actually works.

In her letter to the Prime Minister she wrote:
”I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR, the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off the ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced "notwithstanding clauses" to that effect.
Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do "whatever it takes" to stop the boats.
At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat. You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position.
If we lose in the Supreme Court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one.
Worse than this, your magical thinking - believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion - has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible Plan B.”

And there you have it. The government would not even allow their own Home Secretary to do what it would take to deliver on their Rwanda plan/promise due to a fear of upsetting polite opinion. And it’s exactly the same with these guidelines, they won’t work, they won’t do what it would take to actually stop this because of a fear of upsetting most of the very same people.