Finally: Gender questioning children: draft schools and colleges guidance

[WarriorN]

Gender questioning children: draft schools and colleges guidance

consult.education.gov.uk/equalities-political-impartiality-anti-bullying-team/gender-questioning-children-proposed-guidance/

I don't understand the secrecy thing at all. Schools dont exist in a bubble. Parents know each other, they have parent whatsapp groups their children's friends come to their house. Do teachers really think that it is even possible to hide a change of name and pronouns from parents. And if they try to and so called "abusive" parents find out from someone else isnt that likely to make things more difficult for a child. This is where it is so different from being gay. If a child says they are gay there is likely no change. The whole point of a trans identity is to be perceived differently. The only way of keeping that a secret is if all their friends, parents, support staff (who rarely get a mention) at the school etc all collude in that. I dont think that is a reasonable or sensible ask. I'd like to see the guidance explicitly state that children, support staff, parents etc will not be expected to lie to protect a declared "identity".

@Floisme I really don’t know. Helpful posters on here sent me to links to the Safe Schools Alliance in the past which I forwarded onto the pastoral team. I was told that students are encouraged to speak to parents but if they feel they would come to harm, then they won’t be forced - that I agree with, but then I don’t think we should then accommodate the transition. Tbh, many parents are aware of the change and ask that birth names are still on the register and reports but allow chosen name /pronoun. We do have three students whose parents do not know, I teach one and I find parents evening really uncomfortable.

Gender identity is your own knowledge or understanding of self as a sexed subject (male, female, or otherwise).

I know this is a while back @Tandora but you've been asked a couple of times. Could you explain what you believe one should be basing their gender identity on, in that case? What is the criteria one could use in order to identify it?

Bearing in mind, that this is about teachers' guidance, and therefore should be something that children can understand.

And, just as a heads up, I've never seen a single explanation that doesn't rely completely on rank sexism.

Or the old chestnut, that it's individual to everyone, and you can't explain it.

Which isn't what one would normally consider a useful concept on which to base laws, policy, protocols and guidance.

Just been catching up on this thread. Some great points raised.

I'm so relieved to see that gender identity has been positioned as something that not everyone believes in. This is the cornerstone to everything being brought back in to a sensible framework IMO. In a secular country like the UK, we should never have any laws or education (or healthcare) which is underpinned by a belief system, whether that's a religion or a belief in gender identity.

To add some more thoughts:

1. It would be helpful to borrow the wording from 6.42 and add it to the end of 6.41 as follows:
   "This alternative facility would not be suitable if access to it were through a toilet facility being used by the other sex."
   Robin Moira White is making noise on Twitter about cubicles being single spaces in their own right i.e. suggesting that in law, a cubicle is the same as a room (so it would be an adequate provision to have a trans identified boy in the same toilet facilities as girls because there are cubicles). Michael Foran is batting it off as nonsensical interpretation of the law but clarity in the new guidance would help.

2. More could be added to remind teachers about the Cass Review and that they are not qualified to make or support decisions about transition, where doing so is not a neutral act. A question to the teachers on here: if a school follows this guidance (and it sounds like all schools should), would a teacher who rejects it and/or actively undermines it be subject to disciplinary? Or would the school need to formally adopt it as a specific policy first?

3. In 6.3: "No child should be sanctioned for honest mistakes when adapting to a new way of interacting with another pupil."
   This wording needs changing. If a child or pupil uses the sex-based pronouns of another child or pupil, this is not a "mistake". It could constitute discrimination if they are doing it vexatiously but if it's simply a statement of (biological) fact, in line with the own protected belief that sex is immutable, it is not a mistake.

4. More needs to be added to explain the specific vulnerability of Looked After and autistic children. Something like this, bearing in mind that the word parents has been defined in a way that includes those in charge of care of Looked After children:
   "Schools should be aware that parents may not have been adequately informed about the risks associated with vulnerable groups of children (e.g. Looked After or autistic children) where the parents have received external advice about social transition. Schools should pay close attention to the current and future findings of the Cass Review in such circumstances."

And as a footnote thought, personally if I were a Head Teacher there is no way I would socially transition a single child as an exceptional circumstance unless the DfE confirmed that this was a valid case. It still puts far too much on schools to make a decision for which they aren't qualified. However, in general it's a surprisingly good document.

Gender identity is your own knowledge or understanding of self as a sexed subject (male, female, or otherwise).

Oh good grief what a lot of nonsense.

You're born with either a male or a female body. That's it. That's all. Most people do not have the time on their hands to indulge in this kind of navel gazing.

i.e. suggesting that in law, a cubicle is the same as a room (so it would be an adequate provision to have a trans identified boy in the same toilet facilities as girls

Yes.

This is all that this is really about.

How do we wank away sufficiently with language and find loopholes in law so that men can be in the same room as undressed non consenting females and make use of them and the females cannot escape .

I mean how obvious does it need to be at this point the kind of man you are dealing with?

What Frood said. There is no good faith here.

Excellent post @wherethewildthingis

Even if a child says a parent has hit or otherwise abused them, the parent is told and we then plan how to keep that child safe. You'd be on very dodgy ground withholding anything from a parent without a very very good reason

Exactly.

I've been so confused about this as in my setting (SEND, a lot of SEMH) we almost always contact the parent when an allegation about being hit has been made. In many situations it's clear that the parent is actually really struggling and needs more support which we help with.

If rates of child sexual abuse are higher among the children who were actually referred to GIDs, we do not know the rates among those who only present as trans at school.

That's a new behaviour, all behaviour is communication.

A parent may need to know about this as it's could be part of a bigger jigsaw puzzle around abuse and who is abusing the child. It can be parents, it could be other relatives.

Safeguarding is about gathering all the available information and working as a team which includes parents and carers. If a parent is identified as the direct safeguarding issue, in this context sexual abuse, the frameworks should be there to protect the child.

There's double the failure for the child here; teachers not being aware this (and other safeguarding issues) can be a trigger for trans presentation and also keeping that information secret from others (specifically parents) who might actually need to know this in order for action to take place.

You have my sympathies MrsMurphy.
Can I just check I'm correct in thinking that not promising confidentiality to a child is still the Number One rule of safeguarding? (I've not had much to do with schools for a while).
And if it is, and especially given the absence, until now, of more specific government guidance, how have school senior leaders been able to square that Number One rule with instructing their staff to withhold information from parents when there is no evidence of a safeguarding risk? Not expecting you to have the answer but the contradiction does my head in.

Worth reading up the thread and both threads on this: a social worker management specifically said they were horrified as the threshold for withholding information from parents in a reportable safeguarding incident is so high to meet.

You have also got to keep firmly in mind that a key aspect of grooming a child and increasing their vulnerability is to separate them from their parents, and reinforce that you are now their trusted adult and they have secrets with you that their parents are excluded from. That you love them and care about them more, that they should prioritise your advice and wishes.

And add that to the men flailing around in reaction to this guidance frantically trying to find a way to force a male into a space where females are in a state of undress and do not want him . Where the only interest said man has in females is how to get the male in among them without it being possible to stop him.

Third spaces are being offered for children who do not want to change with their own sex, and it is emphasised, several times that no child should be subjected to being made to undress or wash in front of a child of the opposite sex.

And these men are frantic to overturn this. To make those other children be subjected.

Fgs you don't need to have had safeguarding training at this point to hear sirens going off like a whole bloody submarine fleet are coming home.

@Froodwithatowel I've decided to skip over the contributions on this thread from the gender identity believer.
They will no doubt make sense to others who believe in gender identity but to those of us who don't, they mean nothing as far as the schools' guidance is concerned. It's similar to someone trying to argue that the immaculate conception of Jesus was proof that there are exceptions to the biological reality of sperm fertilising an egg to create a baby, so schools should teach this and science exams should allow it as an answer to questions. Thankfully in my experience Christians tend to know the difference between belief and fact, so wouldn't push for this to be accepted as a truth. But for gender identity, believers don't seem to accept that not everyone believes it to be true.

I've enjoyed exploring the idea of gender identity belief on several threads (and I've found it really helpful in my own journey from believer to agnostic to non-believer) but it does stand out somewhat on this thread that we've got someone trying to tell us to believe in it. It's almost ironic considering the statement about the belief being something that isn't universal in the document itself.

BTW if anyone is in the mood to complain to the BBC about biased reporting, this one is right up there IMO:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53154286

It completely misrepresents the guidance, using Stonewall definitions rather than the ones in the document. It also refers to "transgender pupils" in the opening section, and calls it "transgender guidance" in the headline, despite the guidance explaining that it does not use this term. So on that point alone it is factually incorrect to report that this is what the guidance is about.

@Floisme Yes, if a disclosure is made then it needs to be immediately forwarded to the DSL. We tell the child that this is what will happen, we’ll be happy to listen but to record pupil’s own words and not ask leading questions.

Thanks for clarifying MrsMurphy. This is why my patience with school senior leaders (as opposed to classroom teachers) over this is thin - because while I agree that there's been a dismaying lack of government guidance, the basic safeguarding protocols were still there and yet seem to have been ignored in - well we don't know yet how many cases.

I cannot find the words to express how I would feel had I learned that the teachers I used to meet and chat with so cordially at parents' events had, behind my back, been calling my child by a different name and pronouns, treating them as a member of the opposite sex and instructing other children to do the same. And that all this had been withheld from me even though there was no evidence that I presented a safeguarding risk. I don't think I would know what to do with my rage.

@Floisme I agree. I have taught said child for GCSE but they have been going by a different name and pronoun since Yr 8. 4 years the parents have been unaware and it can’t be particularly fun for the student in effect leading a “double life”. I feel my school has failed said child all round. I did make an anonymous report to Ofsted last year (another suggestion given to me by a poster) but nothing happened (or if it did, I’m unaware).

@BonfireLady re the following bit:
In 6.3: "No child should be sanctioned for honest mistakes when adapting to a new way of interacting with another pupil."This wording needs changing. If a child or pupil uses the sex-based pronouns of another child or pupil, this is not a "mistake". It could constitute discrimination if they are doing it vexatiously but if it's simply a statement of (biological) fact, in line with the own protected belief that sex is immutable, it is not a mistake.

Would just note that even if a student purposefully or even vexatiously uses the wrong pronouns, it would still not be discriminatory? If the EA protects for those with/or in the process of obtaining GRCs, and persons under 18 are not eligible to apply, then discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment cannot actually take place?

Agree with everything you say though, and as the mum of an Autistic/ADHD teen with ROGD, I’d say we are well overdue for non-biased research of and provision for autistic teens.

One of the things I'll be asking my daughters' school is what they plan to do about all of the children in this situation.
I know that they have been doing it because when a member of staff spoke to me about my eldest daughter using her "gender neutral" nickname (that she uses at school - we stopped using it at home at her suggestion), she suddenly froze. I told her that it was fine to use that name or her proper name. To which the reply was (paraphrased): oh, that's a relief. I can never remember which names I'm supposed to use with parents for these children.

Teachers have been in such a difficult situation with this mess. Backpedaling from where they have already done this will be a senior leadership headache.
Well done for trying to stand up against it at your school @MrsMurphyIWish with the anonymous report to Ofsted.

I can't load the PDF for some reason, but in the news articles it doesn't say anything about the issue of what children are taught in school.

The government have previously commented on this I think, but it seems like they may be missing an opportunity to get the message through to schools.

Schools are under a legal duty to be politically impartial generally speaking, and so they shouldn't be pushing far left ideology on children as if it's factual information.

I would hope that they would be saying, that if gender ideology is mentioned, that they also need to be explaining the GC and conservative perspectives and getting into the arguments from those sides.

I imagine some teachers would be horrified at the thought of open debate, and would rather just avoid the subject completely, which is fine by me.

I don't think some teachers are aware of the "other side" of the debate, let alone that it's a reasonable one.

Thank you to yet another social worker for reminding us what the law of the land says about professionals being required to work with parents - that it's not an option to exclude them and that they're required by law to work in partnership.
Having worked in education for decades it's distressing to see such extreme arrogance spouted by so many self important teachers. They're sacrificing the safety of children and their relationships with their parents in order to appease a dangerous toxic trans lobby.

Gender identity is your own knowledge or understanding of self as a sexed subject (male, female, or otherwise).

Unless you think trans people are suffering from delusions, I think you mean that gender is societal and cultural expectations of how a man or women should behave, and that some people feel a strong affinity for or against these expectations which is central to their identity. If a trans person lacked objective knowledge of their sex, there would be no way for them to identify as trans.

But presumably you need parental permission to take the child on a school trip, and you would need to notify them if they were in an accident at school, because you don’t have parental responsibility. I think there are also strict laws about giving children medication at school.

So in this situation parents are denied the ability to care for their child because of lack of information, but nobody else is in a position to do that either.

WRT taking children on a trip, I've never understood how different names work. If there is an accident but you've logged some of the children under different names, to what their legal names are, are you insured?

Gender identity is your own knowledge or understanding of self as a sexed subject (male, female, or otherwise).

It's interesting that a proponent of gender identity as a feeling gave this as a definition. This looks to me very like the original definition of gender identity as used in studies of child development, that is, the understanding a child gains that they have a sex and that this is fixed and based on their genitalia. Although there are only two possibilities: male and female, not 'otherwise'.

I would hope that they would be saying, that if gender ideology is mentioned, that they also need to be explaining the GC and conservative perspectives and getting into the arguments from those sides.

Unfortunately, the statutory RSE guidance requires that children are taught “the facts about gender identity”. I have personally asked my MP for advice on this (ie can someone please tell me the “facts” cos I can’t find any) and she contacted the relevant minister. The answer that came back was “we’re looking in to it”. That was about 6 months ago.

Having worked in education for decades it's distressing to see such extreme arrogance spouted by so many self important teachers.

Completely agree. I wonder if part of the problem is the shift in what school are expected to do. For instance, schools and teachers are acting more as mental health support than they used to and this has caused some teachers to genuinely think they are experts in mental health. If we could just push some of that back on to the appropriate services (eg by funding cahms) we might be able to reset. Possibly even to the point where a teacher’s time is mostly spent actually teaching.