Primary schools given advice on children who want to change gender (supposedly now agreed)

[IwantToRetire]

The government had been planning to introduce an outright ban on social transitioning, under which children can change their names, pronouns and uniforms.
However, Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, said that an outright ban would be unlawful under the Equality Act and would require new legislation.

The guidance will instead urge schools to proceed with caution and allow pupils to identify as the opposite sex only in limited circumstances.

Schools will be urged to take particular care with younger children amid concerns that social transitioning could have a more significant impact.

The guidance will also ensure that nearly all parents are informed if their children tell staff that they want to change their gender identity, except for children with safeguarding issues. Campaigners have raised concerns that many parents are being kept in the dark.

Ministers had weighed up putting the legislation on a statutory footing. However, Prentis said that a blanket ban would be unlawful because the Equalities Act states that gender reassignment is a “protected characteristic”, regardless of age. She gave the same advice when ministers asked whether there could be a ban on social transitioning for primary school children.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/primary-schools-children-change-gender-caution-new-guidance-9fzhbp66z

Also at https://archive.ph/XuEfX

There's no parallel with being trans and being gay from the point of view that you do not need irreversible medical intervention to be gay.

Being gay has no impact on others eg males wanting to access female loos and changing spaces, sports and potentially sleeping spaces when on school trips. Being trans and being treated as the opposite sex, affirmed, potentially can.

Teens can spend time considering if they're gay, straight or bi and it doesn't physically harm them, nor (as long as the law, consent boundaries and respect is applied and followed) have the potential harm anyone else.

Therefore it cannot be treated/ approached in the same way by the adults who are loco in parentis for these children and responsible for their safety.

This really isn't rocket science.

But clearly schools / teachers and some parents need it spelling out in great detail.

Adding this here as v interesting

x.com/transgendertrd/status/1736718190976135467?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Indirect discrimination is lawful if it is proportionate and has a legitimate aim, for example for prevent direct discrimination against girls by providing single sex spaces and sports.

However, Prentis said that a blanket ban would be unlawful because the Equalities Act states that gender reassignment is a “protected characteristic”, regardless of age.

I would not be taking legal advice from someone who calls the Equality Act the Equalities Act. It is also a clear sign of being stonewalled.

This was updated today https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities

From the above:

Someone has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process or part of a process to reassign their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. Authorities should take care to undertake their assessment by reference to the protected characteristics set out in the act. They should not use concepts such as gender or gender identity, which are not encoded in the act and can be understood in different ways.

Many people are under the misconception that the act protects groups. It does not. It is about protected characteristics. It is important to remember that every single person has a protected characteristic therefore the act protects all individuals. The 9 protected characteristics in the act are:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

I would like to be clear that there is no ‘hierarchy of rights’ under the act, therefore we should not hold one protected characteristic in higher regard than another.

Letter from Kemi Baddenoch to Public Authorities https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities/letter-to-public-authority-leaders-from-the-minister-for-women-and-equalities

It's a good foundation for sex based rights being upheld

Whilst hopefully encouraging third spaces

Anyone would think the Government has been reading this thread. I seem to remember at the start of the thread there were posts about how the EA has been undermined by the GRA.

At least the Government is prepared to put out a statement making clear how the EZ is meant to be used. No hierarachy.

I thought that the proportionate and legitimate test applied only to sex discrimination so could not be used to excuse gender reassignment discrimination. Either way, it's a genuine conflict between trans and female rights, thanks to bad drafting.

My preference would be to remove the test altogether, so that female-only spaces revert to being always possible and sometimes mandatory.

Then, to avoid indirect discrimination against trans people, institutions would be forced to provide third spaces, which would have been the right solution all along.

I thought that the proportionate and legitimate test applied only to sex discrimination so could not be used to excuse gender reassignment discrimination.

The comparator for a male with the PC of gender reassignment is other males. It is not direct discrimination to stop him using female spaces and sports. It would be direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment to stop him using male spaces and sports.

Indirect discrimination can always be lawful for any protected characteristic if there is good enough reason for the conditions that give rise to it.

That will teach me to look things up first! You are correct that this test is universal for all protected characteristics and for both direct and indirect discrimination so my pipe dream of getting rid of it for single sex spaces will have to remain just that.

The problem is that the bar is being set stupidly high. And the Haldane decision. And Victoria Prentis's advice that failing to make provision for trans people - who feel they really can't use the facilities for their own sex - is indirect discrimination because other members of their own sex are not disadvantaged in the same way.