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

Has the country become more or less liberally progressive since 2010 under a so called conservative government?

Central government does not have half as much power as media driven consumerism.

'What cannot really be explained is the continuance of this even after the facts are becoming clear'

Naively, I had thought that once the harms were exposed, things would change.

We now have Stonewall and Mermaids tropes, distorted and mudleading as they are, taken as the norm.

So called 'gc' beliefs are defined a d protected in law, which is great, but absurdly implies that genderist beliefs are the norm that doesn't require explanation.

We need genderist ideas spelled out clearly in law.

That's not what I understand by the term "institutional capture". My understanding is that this describes a situation in which an organisation is "captured" by a lobby group outside the organisation, and thus loses its independence and instead becomes an arm of the lobby group. Obviously it's the people running the organisation who are targeted by the lobby group, and those lower down may be unaware of what is going on at the top.

This is an interesting thread (from a few years ago) on regulatory/institutional capture.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture?page=1

From that really helpful thread:

When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

This additional issue here is that lobby groups have also, via charities and general online or media networks, also captured the public. And 'captured' members of the public generate their own media on social media.

So it's not just 'top down' any more.

...the older senior staff have outsourced their thinking to these bright young things and are scared of offending them.

That's been exactly my experience too, Valancy, particularly when the bright young things are "LGBTQ" themselves.

They'd have to define "boy" and "girl", otherwise the guidance to keep toilets separate is pointless

I have a big concern that in the independent sector (and just speaking about the independent sector here), capture is at the very top with those running sector conferences etc. HMC, one of the big associations for independent schools is completely captured. Concerns have been raised time and time again to Simon Hyde their General Secretary but have been fobbed off with condescending, patronising responses.

When Melvyn Roffe (then Chair and Principal of George Watson’s College) had decided to platform Bobbi Pickard at May’s Spring Conference, Simon sent a snotty email to all members defending their choice of speakers. I don’t have permission to share the email but it made it crystal clear that the organisation is captured and determined to push gender ideology from the top.

Obviously there are Heads at independent schools who are not on board but none are speaking out and this silence lets others like Melvyn hold disproportionate influence.

Helen Semple is another good example. Former DH of St Paul’s (Girls) - a school absolutely notorious for gender ideology (in my view, our former school Watson’s comes second only to St Paul’s) was co-founder of Schools Inclusion Alliance which has rapidly become the “go-to” place for independent schools:

https://www.schoolsinclusionalliance.co.uk/about-us

It greatly worries me that it is embedded so deeply at the top of the sector and parents, IME (not only me but others as well both at Watson’s and other independents) are treated atrociously if they have the temerity to raise concerns with the Head or Board of Governors.

See also; universities running teacher training courses.

So the very top trains the very bottom (as in new teachers not a judgmental description!) leaving the middle experienced layer, who still remember what safeguarding is and understand child development, squashed.

I think it's a mistake to think that schools guidance can be what puts the kybosh on all of this.

It's one piece of the puzzle, but there are limits to what it can do and there always will be. The same principle that says that schools can't change kids names without parental permission, also says that parents are the final arbiters of appropriate medical interventions, along with doctors.

So as long as there are doctors spouting gender ideology, and parents, it's not going to be schools that stop that from happening, It's just not their role. To try and undermine parents would just be another

That's going to limit the degree to which they can say they will never allow kids to transition in school.

What should be happening is that schools stop hiding stuff from parents, promoting GI or queer theory in the school itself, and focus on safeguarding elements that are really part of their remit - rules for sports, rules for toilets, and rules for the degree to which other kids need to "respect" kids who change names etc.

Stopping medical and social transition of kids is going to require changing the medical side of things, and the ideology, directly.

So depressing. Individual schools can be very isolated if things go wrong so to be alienated from an important source of support is a problem for them. Again it all raises the question about why these adults are so determined to influence schools in this way?
I know that the Girls' Day Schools Trust is also fairly captured in terms of signing up to gender nonsense BUT have held the line about being single sex schools for girls, refusing to admit boys claiming to be a girl. To date no legal challenge as far as I can see.

I think this is spot on. The guidelines & the consultation process will empower those the transactivists have been so desperate to silence including parents & responsible professionals centring safeguarding children. But change will be gradual, not instantaneous.
And yes to prioritising safeguarding children rather than trans ideology.