Kemi Badenoch to face Women & Equalities Committee’s questions on equalities issues - 13 December 2023

[IwantToRetire]

Sorry I am sure there was a thread started in preparation for this but cant find it.

Happy to delete this if someone can give me link as search hasn't.

Still happening I think,

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/19766

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/41208ebe-60ce-4f19-99d4-0edc4e99e384

I'd also think it's helpful for Downing Street to see that this lobby believe they make the laws in the UK, not the government. Which basically renders the MPs, HoL and HoC irrelevant if an extremist lobby group can just tell people on tv which laws to comply with and what to just not bother with them.

I mean who needs democracy? We've got an extremist lobby with rainbow laces.

Goose getting cooked ever faster.

Goose getting cooked ever faster.

Totally.

When the government recognises that the abandonment of child protection is a feature, not a bug, they'll be on that bloody law change in a trice.

We saw this before with the census return.

I know not everyone will agree with me but I see this separating out issues. For example a hard stance on sports, facilities etc being single sex. The statutory guidance and the recent judgement I.e. no child can have a GRC so their legal sex is the same as recorded at birth support this.

A hard stance on bullying and harassment of children who believe sex is binary, those who are questioning their sexuality, gender etc. In fact a hard stance on any bullying or harassment.

A more nuanced approach based on the individual child, in relation to changing name, pronouns etc. with parental involvement unless it is a safeguarding issue.

Apparently something to do with relying on US funding?

re Guardian - their editor, a woman, said years ago that everything she does is influenced by her queer politics. And it is the queer that has turbo charged an issue previously only relevant to a tiny minority, into an onslaught of challenging social "norms". eg gay men can no longer just be man who happen to be gay but must parade themselves in lycra and worse, and of course the ultimate social norm, to think that sex is a biological reality.

Long before the TRAs had the profile they have now the Guardian was regularly censoring radical feminist comment. And as an employer has not problems with allowing a male journalist to bully female colleagues, until they leave.

A more nuanced approach based on the individual child, in relation to changing name, pronouns etc. with parental involvement unless it is a safeguarding issue.

Where did this idea come from that parents can sometimes be excluded if there is a "safeguarding issue"? What sort of "safeguarding issue" would warrant the exclusion of parents?

What sort of "safeguarding issue" would warrant the exclusion of parents?

If they are known "terfs"?!

I can see if the issue was about questioning their sexuality, and the parents were for instance very religious, it could be a concern as to how the child might then be treated at home.

If the school feels that a child's parents represent a safeguarding issue serious enough to warrant exclusion, surely they should be reporting this risk to other authorities.

What's TROSH?

It stands for 'The Right Side of History' AKA 'God is on our side' (IMO).

I can see if the issue was about questioning their sexuality, and the parents were for instance very religious, it could be a concern as to how the child might then be treated at home.

I don't think that would be a fair assumption unless there is already evidence of emotional or physical abuse. Parents have responsibility for their children, they get to make decisions about how they raise them, including religious beliefs at home.

Exactly this.

As mentioned on the threads discussing the new guidance, a MNetter who is a social services manager pointed out that the threshold for them, as social workers, to exclude parents on the grounds of risk, is very high and has to be evidenced.

It was never meant to be weaponised to prevent parents being able to interfere with adults in a position of trust exercising their personal political agendas on their child. Excuses like this is how this awful situation has been achieved. And it has also been achieved by trying to make 'parents having other views' be seen at the same level of abuse as 'serious physical harm'. Remember that useful little phrase we've all had dinned in about 'literal violence'?

It's time for everyone to stop being useful idiots, and I'm pretty sure KB's department are gathering up the evidence on this.

If the school feels that a child's parents represent a safeguarding issue serious enough to warrant exclusion, surely they should be reporting this risk to other authorities.

Absolutely. But there are some times where information is withheld from parents on the advice of social services. I do not think that “they’re religious” would be an acceptable reason for keeping things from parents, but perhaps one of FWR’s social workers could give insight into which instances parents are kept in the dark.

Not a social worker, I'd also appreciate insights on this. The one time I have ever seen parents not informed immediately was when the child was being removed into care, and it was important parents were not able to attempt to physically remove the child by force (based on a long evidenced history of events carefully recorded) before the social worker could get there to take the child off the premises. Even then as soon as the child was removed, those very difficult conversations then had to be held.

@JemimaTiggywinkles
If a school makes the decision to withhold information they are saying that the parents represent a serious risk to the child's safety.
This should not be something that they can do in isolation.
If the risk is real then they need to also inform social services and present the evidence for their decision.
Either the risk is real or it is not

@CheckingTheNumbers of course. I’ve been consistent on this for years - wherever safeguarding risk are real the school are not the appropriate body to make the decision to keep parents in the dark. That’s why I also said in my previous post that sometimes info is kept from parents “on the advice of social services”.

If a school makes the decision to withhold information they are saying that the parents represent a serious risk to the child's safety.
This should not be something that they can do in isolation.

I completely agree. Many teachers have had minimal safeguarding training. They are supposed to pass concerns up the line.

Yes. If there's credible evidence that the parents would harm the child for wanting to undergo gender reassignment, a) the parents are likely to harm the child for other reasons, and b) the child will be harmed if someone else, e.g. another child's parent, "outs" the child to the parents. So the school keeping a secret from the parents isn't enough to protect the child from that risk and other statutory agencies need to be informed as they may have to act quickly to protect the child.

Plus I don't think anyone should be encouraging children to live double lives, which is what a school-only social transition is.

Destabilising children and cutting them off from their parents and wider family in this way makes them vulnerable to grooming either by the people doing it or others, eg online.

Some of the reporting around this has suggested that a perceived risk of harm would be sufficient grounds for schools or teachers to independently decide to withhold information - a loophole in the guidance.
As long as it is social services that take the lead in deciding if the risk threshold is reached and information is withheld

The “when to withhold” decision needs to be the same as it is for any other piece of information. I’m not a DSL nor a social worker so I’m not 100% on where exactly that guidance is. But I actually wouldn’t want separate guidance for keeping secrets with gender questioning children. A lot of the damage has been caused by the idea of “trans” being a special case wrt safeguarding.

There is no right to exclude parents. The police / social services who remove a choild for emergency reasons MUST seek the court's permission with 72 hours. The whole safeguarding system has working in partnership with parents built in throughout the process. When a school refers a child to SS the school must contact the parent and tell them they've made the referral. There are exceptions (sometimes sexual abuse where the parent is the suspect and prior knowledge can result in them destroying evidence).
Parents are then in involved at all stages of the process - even if they're accused of abuse - sitting in meetings and expected to contribute. If children are in care, parents still retain parental responsibility and must be consulted about all sorts of events u the child's life.

Only the courts can remove parental rights and it's a long process to getting to that stage. Schools do not and have never had this power.

What are the chances of a child questioning their gender, having parents who are likely to harm them if exposed, but otherwise have no issues?

What are schools proposing to help these children, exactly? If the only risk is the parents finding out, but that risk is deemed potentially harmful, how does allowing them to transition at school guarantee saftey? The collusion of every teacher and child would be required. All it would take is one child to say to their parents x is now y, and the parents could find out.

In this scenario, the only safe option would be not to transition at school.

This is why i dont think the issues between parents and schools is genuinely harmful parents, its reasonable parents who say to the school 'no, school transition isnt right for my child'.

Its some schools and some teachers that are so TRA, they dont want parents to make this choice. Similarly, they want to force other children to comply with the policy of preferred pronouns.

Absolutely. Confidentiality is very nuanced and schools deciding to withhold any info from parents have to be really certain that they've thought through the implications and ideally consulted with other relevant organisations in the child's life if there's the possibility the child is at risk of harm.

Sometimes awful things have happened to children and it transpires that they've confided in a teacher who has kept it secret or the school has failed to refer on to SS. It always comes out in the subsequent review.

It's why we have our complex national safeguarding system - because we know this stuff. It's literally been built on what we've learned when things go terribly wrong for children.

The idea that transactivists think they can dismantle this for their own purposes is unbelievable

Previously, it would have seemed ridiculous to ponder that children could be removed from parents who practice mainstream religious adherence. That this would be viewed as a safeguarding issue. It just conjures up the junta in Chile, Khmer Rouge etc.