School Guidance out Tomorrow

[Igneococcus]

I don't have time to read this fully right now, but it sounds messy:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/789e1fd3-4a82-4b71-a0bf-e165b5f410b1?shareToken=054150e42690555c0ffe751a53776e92

There'll be an issue with the guidance saying that staff should not unilaterally change names or pronouns until a school process has been followed.

So they won't be pressured into using preferred pronouns but they will be pressured into not using them.

It’s top item on BBC News at One.

He also said his staff aren’t pressured into using pronouns but most do out of respect

When he says this he is making it very clear what his expectations are. It would be a brave teacher who didn't comply.

You've made excellent points @noblegiraffe

(As always 😃)

For current gender questioning dc wouldn’t the guidance apply?

Dc no longer allowed to use single sex spaces, pronouns not enforced, no mixed contact sport etc

In theory.

I feel the pronoun part will be the most problematic if the child has switched and parents and school have endorsed it.

Single sex stuff actually seems to be less contested when listening to speakers on the five live phone in, including the trans man who transitioned at school.

I had to turn off when JO'B said that he gets his info on all things trans from a trans friend and that said friend had stated that if "trans kids" are "outed" to their parents by schools it will lead to suicides and murders!

He is a dummy.

I actually think there will be many sighs of beliefs from staff, parents and children. The adults are back in the room.

It’s not a blanket ban so the child may be one of the cases who can switch

Fortunately compelled speech by sanction will no longer apply so staff and students won’t have to use those pronouns and can say ‘boys’ or ‘girls’ to a group

There are families where this is a genuine danger. In some rare instances, a child being outed as gay or trans could put them at real risk of harm.

I think it's a very tricky line for a school to tread to be honest. I wouldn't want to be the one having to make the decision, I know that much.

In contrast, Shelagh Fogarty covering this now on LBC with Wes Streeting. Both are really well informed. Streeting citing Cass Review and Hannah Barnes book.

There are standard safeguarding policies and processes for where sharing information with a parent may risk significant harm, and a social services referral would usually be involved. Quite possibly the child going into care rather than going home that night.

It is very important that hyperbolic drama and real safeguarding risks are kept very separate and the threshold for withholding information from parents about their child is extremely high. It should only happen in very rare, evidenced situations within a wider context of safeguarding concerns. Otherwise it is just providing - as it obviously successfully is - a shield for politically motivated adults to collude with children against their parents and further the child in a political agenda while being able to usurp parental rights, parental responsibilities and their duty of care.

That a parent may not agree with the child or do what the child wants, or unconditionally affirm a set political view is not a safeguarding risk. That the parent may withdraw a child from a school placement and staff who they may feel are colluding with the child in an agenda and path not in the child's best interests is not a safeguarding risk. Homeschooling to protect a child from adults they feel are using their child in their own political agendas is not a safeguarding risk. Parents holding other views to gender ideology is not a safeguarding risk.

Yes great post frood.

Typed a post earlier about hyperbole but deleted. As it hasn't happened yet 😃 I'm expecting a lot of hyperbolic suicide stats to be dredged up as counter claims over the next few weeks. The problem is that children absorb these perspectives.

There has been far too much hyperbolic rhetoric around this and too many have swallowed it.

Great comment Frood. The appropriation of safeguarding to enable trans activists to secretly transition other people's children is unforgivable. Those of us who've dealt with managing safeguarding in schools know that parental responses are always a concern that needs managing. What isn't needed is activists using it as an opportunity to remove parents from their children's lives.

@noblegiraffe

But isn't the reason for the guidance saying you shouldn't automatically change pronouns be because the Cass review makes clear that affirmation is not a neutral act so professionals should be proceeding with caution?

That's kind of the bit that has been missing in the process in schools at the moment - the presumption has been in favour of doing what the child says they wants as soon as they say that they want it, whereas the guidance is trying to get closer to understanding what the "need" is and proceeding carefully.

Interested to hear your views on this.

Note too the useful leverage of mentioning how gay children may be at risk. This is not about gay children at all, this is about politically motivated adults and their beliefs around children confused about gender.

If you know that a child may be at risk of assault and harm at home then you have evidence of this, a wider picture, and it's not JUST about the child's gender or anything else, it's a whole picture of an unsafe home situation. And considering how very, very difficult it is to protect children who are experiencing that level of danger and harm, the level of evidence, the time it all takes, it's ridiculous that staff are appropriating bits of the process to avoid scrutiny, criticism or interference with their agenda with someone else's child.

Note too the useful leverage of mentioning how gay children may be at risk

Yes

I agree with @Froodwithatowel and there are many other examples of where school sharing information with parents could possibly result in abuse. For example if the school told parents the child had punched someone, shared pornography, self harmed, expressed far right views ... Is anyone suggesting this sort of information should not be shared with parents? Surely if there's a serious risk a parent will harm a child that risk needs acting on, whether it's in relation to trans identity or anything else?

FFS, I'm not a TRA trying to "leverage" anything.

I fully agree schools shouldn't be transitioning children.

But I'm also aware that some children come from homes which present genuine dangers to them, and I'm not going to dismiss the latter on the basis that I believe the former.

And @Flickersy, if a teacher genuinely believes that a parent would hurt their child if they thought he or she was gay or trans, they should be doing far more than just not telling the parents the child has new pronouns. That would be extremely lazy and negligent, frankly.

The fact that parents might not like something and kids feel a bit uncomfortable has been stretched to a reason not to inform that falls far beneath a safeguarding reason.

I find the use of suicide as a rhetorical tool by TRAs absolutely abhorrent and dangerous.

Why is it OK for a radio presenter to parrot nonsense about suicide like this?

In fact, surely it must go against guidelines for responsible reporting.

Not referring to you particularly but take a look; it is leveraged. It's used to give credence and cover to that this is in fact specific to children questioning gender.

As above: Yes. There are genuine dangers. There are processes for this. It will be a consistent, wider evidenced picture over time, logged and probably with processes already in action: the family you think 'I cannot share this because this child may be in physical danger tonight' will not be a family you've had zero concerns about to this point.

An additional safeguarding danger lies in not clearly recognising that this is being used as a cover for adults to evade inconvenient barriers and justify excluding parents and unwanted political views or interference from their plans with the child. And the adult's focus being in fact on preventing the child being exposed to other points of view, information and more neutral strategies that do not gel with their political beliefs. Enabling the political obfustication that parents being informed about what school staff are doing with their child and encouraging the child in is, in itself, a risk. Where the actual risk is that the parent will thwart the proceedings or have other views. Where other views are framed as 'harm' justifying extreme safeguarding measures usually only resorted to when a child is in significant physical danger.

Schools deal with this issue all the time: "Don't tell my Dad about ..., I'll get beaten" etc.
Transactivists have worked very hard to deskill teachers and tell them that kids thinking they're the wrong sex is very different and needs a very special secret approach that mustn't involve parents.
That's what's being reacted to. Safeguarding children applies to all children, no exceptions, and safeguarding 101 is "Never promise to keep secrets with a child".