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

I agree.

But I think it should be explicitly covered in the guidance.

The guidance is explicit:
"Schools must not allow a child, aged 11 years or older, to change or wash in front of a child of the opposite sex, nor should they be subject to a child of the opposite sex changing or washing in front of them".

That says to me that any boys (or girls) who are currently invading single sex spaces of the opposite sex will have to stop. No doubt they'll publicly wail and moan about how unfair it is while their peers heave a sigh of relief.

What about pupils who have already socially transitioned in school with or without the consent of their parents ?

There needs to be a review of schools transitioning children without parental consent. Why were they excluding the parents and what were they using to inform the transition? It cant have been a medical diagnosis.

I understand that.

I was more wondering re the name / pronouns / uniform bit.

I thought only parents could decide on their childs name? If the parent says the child is x, the child is x?

The pronoun thing is going to be a nightmare. Schools will have been forcing children to use preferred pronouns for certain children. Can they continue to enforce that? I hope not.

If a child is at risk in this way, surely this would be flagged up way before they have concerns about their reactions to transitioning?

Just a classroom teacher. I think they do look at PSHE provision. Lots of schools buy in their PSHE curriculum and it's unlikely that the Ofsted inspectors would be doing anything other than check that it meets the statutory standards.

As for inspecting pronouns - what is there to inspect against?

I've been involved in 2 Ofsteds in the last couple of years and both have looked at PSHE curriculum and lessons in the context of both safeguarding and personal development.

The law is that someone acquires the protected characteristic of gender reassignment when they state that they are proposing to undergo a process to reassign their sex. There is no medical diagnosis required.

The fact that gender reassignment as a protected characteristic applies to children is why this whole situation cannot be resolved either way.

With regard to the children who have already socially transitioned I would hope the school would do it gently but fairly and based on each individual. So obviously stop all mixed changing and toilets immediately but try to provide another space. Personally I would keep the name and pronouns but deweaponise them - "People can use these to be nice but they are not factual and not using them is not bullying" (obviously where they are being used to bully someone is different and anti bullying procedures should already be dealing.) Where lessons are split by sex they need to be with their own sex. In some cases I would even tell them why the new guidance is in - that (in part) it is because socially transitioning can make it harder if they change their mind and reassure the child that it is totally OK to.

These are all things for a child who has already socially transitioned - if they haven't then it should be more hard and fast rules to stop it from getting to this stage. Treat them kindly but honestly, don't start with the pronouns etc as they are not an option anymore than changing with the other sex is.

Oh and if they have all ready transitioned them for pity sake inform the parents! There will be some very uncomfortable meetings when parents rightly asked why they have not been told previously. Tough

In my experience, children use preferred pronouns and names for each other well before any teachers get the message.

Social transitioning among friendship groups is probably a bigger part of in-school transitioning than teachers using pronouns.

The guidance says that teachers shouldn’t unilaterally change names or pronouns for children. It doesn’t say anything about their peers.

Isn't part of the problem that the law has never been tested? Trans groups insist that everything covers children but we know from history that the politicians who enacted the GRA etc never anticipated that people would try to include children below the age of consent in all this.
So when they confidently assert that it applies to all children, no matter how young, that's an opinion and has never been tested in the courts? Like so much of this ideology, we're expected to accept pronouncement as facts (TWAW, sex isn't binary, safeguarding is right wing bigotry, men have no biological advantages over women in sport etc).

I’d expect girls and boys to be separated so even if another dc has changed name etc it would not impact my dd in a changing room

I’d also expect no sanctions if pronouns were not used or a group referred to as girls or boys

Plus no contact sport, and also raise it for competitive sport

As pp says it de-weaponises gender as some kind of hold over other students

The fact that someone has that protected characteristic doesn't mean that they should be treated as the opposite sex or get to have their wishes fulfilled. It means that they should not be treated less favourably than other pupils for having that protected characteristic.

Social transition is a separate issue. It isn't a neutral act, it's an intervention which has implications for the pupil's long term health and well-being. A formal diagnosis by a specialist should be a minimum requirement. If schools don't accept self-diagnosis or parental diagnosis of ASD or ALN or other health conditions, they should not accept a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (or 'transness' which some seem to think is an inherent condition) or make their own decisions in relation to social transition. They are dabbling in matters they have no relevant expertise in at best, with potentially dire implications for children and young people's future lives if they get it wrong. The teachers who say they'll ignore the guidance need to give their heads a wobble.

"Social transitioning among friendship groups is probably a bigger part of in-school transitioning than teachers using pronouns".

This is why it's time for the adults to step in. When you work in a school with poor behaviour, adults have to influence & improve poor peer cultures, inappropriate playground / corridor behaviour to stop it impacting on lessons and learning. In the same way we know that in many schools trans ideology is negatively impacting on individual children and sometimes the school community. It's weaponised against teachers (children complaining about "wrong" pronouns) with some parents being demonised for raising concerns about their children being socially transitioned.

It should never have been allowed to escalate in this way.

It is abundantly clear from the minimum age set for applying for a GRC that the legislation was always intended - explicitly - to apply to adults.

it is absurd that people are now handwringing about how they have to affirm children’s professed gender identity on the basis of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Absolute and utter bullshit from beginning to end.

At some schools there's going to be chaos. At least initially. Although teachers, such as those whose case studies are at the end of this article, might feel more supported and braver

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12880675/Ministers-warned-new-trans-guidance-LAW-activist-schools-immediately-vow-ignore-pleas-tell-parents-children-want-switch-gender.html

The law is that someone acquires the protected characteristic of gender reassignment when they state that they are proposing to undergo a process to reassign their sex. There is no medical diagnosis required.

The pc of GR would mean that the child couldnt be excluded from school for GR, not that the school should transition the child without parental consent.

Are you referring to children referring to their friends how they have asked to be referred to as 'poor behaviour'?

I'm not sure as a teacher I would be stepping into children talking amongst themselves to police pronoun use. The guidance doesn't suggest this either.

GRCs are required for very little. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is what dominates the vast majority of discussion around the law on this topic.

It's why the school guidance cannot simply ban social transitioning in schools.

If you're aware of children talking among themselves to reaffirm and support a child in starving themselves and hiding their food intake from their families would you feel that was none of your business either? Children talking amongst themselves and affirming and encouraging a child sending inappropriate pictures of themselves to another child or adult would you feel that was none of your business?

It's a very difficult line to walk, but supporting transition is not a neutral act, it is a potentially serious safeguarding one, particularly when it is happening without medical guidance and parental knowledge and consent.

The main issue to begin with is that some adults see any response but affirmation as the safeguarding disaster - as they have been trained to do by the political lobby. Therefore there will be a lot of 'but this is harmless and it's unkind/unfair to stop them' that really believes underneath that adults who have concerns are actually abusive and wrong.

This will take a long time to turn around and I suspect that yes, it will have to involve law to make teachers step back behind the line of professional duty of care and objectivity. And I suspect Prevent are going to need to help, because this is programming. This is a trained system to make caring adults believe that caring means transitioning and resisting adults who do not see things as they do, while seeing them as at best uneducated and uninformed, and at worst as a direct threat to the child.

The point is that it’s clear that gender reassignment was never intended to apply to children.

Just like the protected characteristic of marriage.

Stonewall confusing the waters and poorly worded legislation not making this abundantly clear in the EA (and including the nonsense about intending to) has caused this.

No one should have been socially transitioning children without parental consent and medical supervision.

One main difference between adults and children is the opposite sex will not be using their changing rooms etc

Thankfully for children they will not have to say yes to boys in girls’. As women do atm, unfortunately

No compelled speech either but that may not be consistent for adults

The point is that it’s clear that gender reassignment was never intended to apply to children.

And the point is that lawyers have confirmed many times that it does. Whether you think it should or not.