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/

Yes, but again children cannot reach sexual maturity if they have their puberty blocked

This cannot be emphasised enough. We KNOW that boys given puberty blockers at Tanner stage 2 don't develop normal sized penises. It's been discussed at length in the Jazz Jennings documentary and in televised interviews with Susie Green - both 'pro-TRA-agenda' programmes. They also can't have normal sexual function.

Blocking the puberty of a child is a deeply serious thing to do and yet it's happening as part of 'affirmative' 'healthcare' for gender questioning children with no robust evidence base at all for the medium to long-term impacts on health.

It's really shocking that anyone is willing to defend this.

Puberty is essential not only for normal sexual function but also for brain development. It's a huge experiment on children because of the vested interests of a tiny minority.

And as has been noted on here SO. MANY. TIMES. The vast majority of adult male transitioners retain their sexual function and working penis. So the rush to medicalise children is even more weird when set against this vocal declaration that you can be a 'woman' whilst retaining your penis and all its functions.

How anyone defending an ideology that sterilises children (with no robust evidence of benefit) sleeps at night I don't know.

You make a really important point Name5 about the sexualised culture which girls are subjected to, although I’d say it’s more than ten years. Children being given smartphones at a young age with all the Internet horrors that entails is another factor.

I note that that those who want to embed gender identity theory into society and schools do everything they can to distract attention from sexism and misogyny as a likely factor in the astonishing massive sudden increase in girls around the age of puberty trying to escape from being girls by saying they are boys or non binary. Whether it’s claims about “developing science”, long winded and incoherent philosophical theories, false claims about suicide risk, or misinformation about the legal framework.

Interestingly, I note that the person on this thread who is trying to argue that gender identity theory has some science behind it, rather than being wholly dependent on sexist stereotypes, is the same poster who airily declared that any expectation that teenage girls should have the privacy and dignity of single sex spaces when in a state of undress is “just basic prudishness”.

@pronounsbundlebundle thank you for your post. I have been in the 'hell' of a DC who wanted to transition for 8 years. If I hadn't fought like mad for my DC who would have had surgery long ago. Puberty blockers were a no as they were too late with that one.
In my experience all the noise comes from mtf (complete with penises and options open). It's the young girls who have irreversible surgery. They don't realise you can never have a functioning penis. You still pee from your vagina which is hidden behind a faux skin shape. Your breasts are gone and your womb. You're given testosterone that causes brittle bone disease.
Chloe Cole, Kiera Bell etc confirm. It is rare a woman can look like a man. We need to stop focusing on clothing especially in schools and see if that has a sea change. And also take filth of the tv and Internet.

“How anyone defending an ideology that sterilises children (with no robust evidence of benefit) sleeps at night I don't know.”

Probably the same way that someone who thinks that teenage girls having the privacy and dignity of single sex spaces away from teenage boys when in a state of undress is just “basic prudishness” sleeps at night, pronouns.

Thanks for getting the discussion back onto the topic of the thread, which is the schools guidance. I came back to the thread after reading the media coverage so I was pleased to find someone else raising it.

I completely agree with you that the gender identity theory campaigners are doing everything they can to cast doubt on the schools guidance and undermine it in the minds of the general public, teachers and the children themselves.

I agree with your reading of the coverage that trivial or irrelevant points are being presented as if they represent some kind of fatal flaw. I can’t see anything of the sort in the points described.

The guidance says there is no general duty on schools to socially transition pupils. The lawyers didn’t say in their critique “oh but there is a general duty, and here it is…”. They said that in some specific cases there may be a duty. Well that’s not a general duty, then, is it. So the guidance is accurate.

The other critique was that describing gender identity theory as “a contested belief” is a “political decision”. What that means is: describing gender identity theory is not a matter for the lawyers. The reason it’s not a matter for the lawyers is because “gender identity” is not a concept defined in UK legislation. Which means that Ministers are free to describe it as a “contested belief”. Just as Stonewall, and their fellow gender identity political lobby groups, are free to make all sorts of claims about what they believe gender identity to be.

What the captured media organisations are doing is “running interference” on behalf of the gender identity theory lobby groups.

Very well said @LoobiJee & @pronounsbundlebundle.

I'm sometimes reminded of the famous Maya Angelou saying:
"When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.”
My tolerance for posters who ignore the need to safeguard children is now at zero.

I also occasionally take a look at this wise policy from Mumsnet. Not saying that there are trolls on this thread of course, just a personal observation on the importance of engaging my critical thinking when faced with posts that undermine society's social contract and the importance of safeguarding all children.

https://www.mumsnet.com/i/trolls

"What the captured media organisations are doing is “running interference” on behalf of the gender identity theory lobby groups".

I suppose this is what has been happening for years. It's particularly dangerous when the media allowe themselves to be used by powerful lobby groups - it's why children are in this mess. But, although not perfect, the guidance is so clear that the opposition is going to have to out themselves as being interested in forcing males into spaces where girls undress, shower etc and insist that adults in schools know & care for children more effectively than parents. Which will be interesting to see - #OperationLetThemSpeak and all that.

MrsOverton the part of the leaked lawyer’s critique where I was unclear what s/he was getting at was the comment about the wording of the guidance being faulty because the wording was conflating equality legislation (or indirect discrimination perhaps - I can’t remember how the media article about the leak was worded)) with safeguarding. I was puzzled by that. I wasn’t clear whether the critique was that the wording deployed a safeguarding argument but didn’t say “this is a safeguarding point rather than an EA2010 point”. Or whether the critique was that the guidance should only be informed by EA2010 and not bu safeguarding.

As I see it, if safeguarding weren’t applied just as much to gender questioning children as it is to non gender questioning children, then that would be discriminatory towards them as well as a safeguarding fail.

edited to replace the @ with bold as I’ve just remembered about the not tagging etiquette

The law is evidently a mess about this. I still find it hard to believe that anyone argues that the original legislation was intended to apply to young children or even teenagers? But the trans lobby has very successfully influenced many in the legal profession so I suppose until it's fought out in the courts we're faced with claims that "of course gender reassignment applies to 4, 7 & 9 years olds. How transphobic of you to suggest otherwise".

I'm increasingly thinking all of this is going to have to go to court, and be pushed to a clear change in law, by which time the general public will be entirely on board from having watched all this play out.

Nothing else is compatible with protecting other people's rights. This political lobby are making it very clear that there can be no compromise or live and let live. Or sanity.

A child’s understanding of their sex (aka gender) develops overtime.

What’s being described here is an understanding of socially generated stereotypes, nothing to do with actual sex.

I honestly think that people who believe in gender identity have no understanding of sex, the purpose of sex, sexual attraction and what constitutes sexual enjoyment whatsoever. Otherwise they wouldn’t spout such nonsense.

Agreed. We really need to examine the hidden motivation behind those determined to transition children.
Tatchell's views on sexual relationships between children and adults are now in the open. Cashman has stated that safeguarding is right wing bigotry and there's even someone on this thread with the view that teenage girls reluctant to undress in front of random males are displaying "prudishness".
These adults openly promote the transitioning of children.

So let's get this out into the open and examine in the courts precisely why some are so keen on removing safeguarding.

No, we don't call them wrong. You're conflating a belief someone holds with them as a person.

We point out that they are mistaken. A child who thinks they are a dog, or a spaceman, or a superhero isn't ''mentally ill'. They're just mistaken. In most instances, these are a child playing or pretending. That's fine, and it doesn't matter.

Someone can hold a mistaken belief. This isn't a personal criticism of them.

Sex is a material reality, in almost all cases it's very clear and straightforward, and a child needs to know what their sex is.

If a boy thinks he is a girl, he is wrong.

If a girl thinks she is a boy, she is wrong.

It's really not very complicated. It's not a big deal. Children believe all sorts of stuff, all the time. Our job as parents is to gently guide them and teach them.

Adults messed up big time and created an incredibly detrimental law which overrides basic and fundamental facts and safeguarding

Children now are seeing the impact of activists and it’s so very sad they take on that falsehood

Pp included in that indoctrination

Yes, we need to get it all out in the open. Either in the courts or in open letters from TRAs objecting to the guidance. I'm going to borrow my words from a previous thread about how objections to the guidance are effectively going to come across:

*

Please complete the following sentences when replying to the consultation:

1. A boy who identifes as a girl needs to access girls' toilets and changing rooms, rather than a private individual facility, because...
2. Parents in families with no history of safeguarding concern should not be told if their children make a request which may impact their mental and physical health because...

*

There really is no objection to either of these key points that I can think of that doesn't sound predatory.

The Gender GP open letter doesn't cover these two points specifically but it does sound rather waffly and nonsensical, not really addressing anything at all (it reads more like a sermon about gender identity):

https://www.gendergp.com/schools-guidance-statement/?tw=1

Apologies if this is posted up-thread. I can't remember if I read it from here or on Twitter. I'm multitasking with Christmas wrapping and my brain is slowly giving up 😬😁

And you are free to reference any affirmative care guidelines that state what you said.

I am talking about reality, again. What do clinicians actually say and do.

@Tandora you wrote that, when children claim to be the opposite sex, correcting them is “known to be harmful”. Could you post you evidence please? That’s not something I’ve ever come across before

Thanks for posting the link to the commercial hormone-selling enterprise / campaign website of the woman (Helen Webberly) convicted of running an illegal clinic in Wales, bonfire lady.

Astonishing that someone who claims to be giving medical advice would include this statement to justify their activities:

“Being transgender is not a lifestyle choice, a preference or a cool thing to do. It is an innate sense of self. It comes from the deepest knowledge and understanding of someone's own identity, their heart, their soul, their brain, their being. Themself.”

Normally one would associate references to heart and soul with the evangelising of a religious group. Or with the meme-based marketing of a “mumpreneur”-focused MLM scheme. Not with a supposed medical professional.

But I guess one could see it as on brand for the marketing wing of an online drug-selling commercial enterprise.

I hadn’t read Helen Webberly’s entire web-post when I posted that. It gets worse.

“This mystery and fear is being fuelled by a group of people who are responsible for the pain that this hate, murder and death causes. Some of these people are leading our country”

Says the above, but fails to mention the death attributed to her husband’s lack of appropriate clinical care for a distressed young female patient. For which he was struck off the medical register. No sloganeering about her on Webberly’s website,

“No one child deserves any better treatment than another child. White, cisgender, able children do not need to be protected from any child that is black, trans or less abled simply because that is what they are.”

Jaw-dropping. Nothing is beneath her, is it. She uses mud-slinging to denigrate families seeking to protect their children from commercial drug-selling enterprises and other activist adults, by claiming that families are attacking other children rather than protecting them from zealots like her, and throws a claim of racism in the mix too. Fails to acknowledge the “disablism” of drugging gender-questioning children who are autistic, rather than supporting them with their autism.

“All children need to know that when they tell you something you will keep it confidential.”

Opposed to / doesn’t understand the basics of child safeguarding.

“To not believe children who are asking for your help and support, will end in pain, murder, death.”

I suppose that lies and hyperbole are the only way she can justify to herself her commercial decision to sell drugs which put children on a pathway to future sterilisation.

And don’t forget to finish on a slogan:

“Every trans adult was once a trans child.”

And the final line gets to the heart of why targeting children has been such a key part of the male sexual entitlement activists’ decades-long campaign to give adult males unfettered access to spaces where women and girls are in a state of undress. Because targeting children enables those adult males the opportunity to play the “born this way” card and attract sympathy. Of course, there’s no explanation on Webberly’s hormone-selling website of why the so called “trans adults” are predominantly male whereas the huge numbers of gender-questioning children we’ve seen in the last eight to ten years are predominantly female. If Webberly’s marketing slogan is true, where are all the middle aged female “trans adults”?

I agree with this all and would like to add sexual orientation. The students I teach who are transitioning I think are lesbian yet I don’t know any young lesbians at all. I really feel we gone backwards in society. The only none gender stereotype conforming teens I know are the ones who are transitioning. As someone once commented that I hadn’t left the 90s (I don’t wear make up and live in Docs) I really thought my own DD would be relaxed about appearance too - even she (at 12) wears make up to school! She’s a massive TS fan and although her songs promote female empowerment (supposedly), she wears little clothing.

Is there anything to protect teachers being bullied from their jobs by implementing the guidance? If a school has a leadership team or culture that supports 'trans children' I still see it being a problem a teacher being openly.sceptical of the whole ideology. One other thing I may have missed is whether there is going to be a change in PHSE lessons where LGBQT still includes the T and I presume that a 'be kind' message is still being given with a curriculum that may be at odds with guidance.

another thing that is important is how this topic surfaces (or doesn't surface) in teen drama e.g. shows like sex education. Are 2458343 going to portray the new guidance as a new section 28 with brave gender questioning teenagers oppressed by the 'system' with 'horrible' adults taking away their freedoms? Are we to see people arguing against the guidance on day BBC breakfast shows etc.?

I can't see a post - sorry if there is.
Michael Foran has commented on the bbc report of the leak

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1738636843166421475?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

If this is what the advice actually said then that seems to me to be very poor indeed. It contradicts what we know about general vs specific legal duties and it is inconsistent with previous judicial treatment of government guidance.

The lack of a general duty does not imply that there is no specific duty that may arise in certain circumstances. There is nothing misleading about making it clear, as this guidance does, that there is no general legal duty to permit social transition.

It's very long, seems to say lawyer advice behind closed doors is sometimes different and was never intended to be seen publicly. Mentions grasping at straws.

Misinterpretation can happen. That doesn’t mean the guidance is misleading. I wish I could see the actual advice given because the reporting of it has parts which make little sense. Some parts I agree with - strict pronoun policies are open to challenge either way.

He goes on: that doesn't mean the whole document is an issue.

Yes, it is very disturbing that the BBC has published this piece of blatant propaganda. I hope they get challenged about why

Thanks for parsing this. I find it too distressing to engage with these people. My child was not even non conforming but as soon as periods began decided they were a boy. Later we established they were ASD/ADHD. I’ve worked with children for decades (teaching, childminding business, guides/scouts volunteer incl as a district commissioner) and never encountered a child who was ‘trans’ until 50% of my child's year group ID’d as gay, lesbian, pan/ace/trans. Half of those labelled themselves as trans.

My child is, in fact, deeply gender conforming, likely lesbian, but now self harms and wears an ugly costume of masculinity (why do these girls think that black, shapeless clothes that boys won’t wear, hyper short hairstyles and exagerated ‘masc’ mannerisms make then male all of a sudden?) her puberty began in the summer of #metoo / Weinstein/ Trump’s p*ssy grabbing exposé - ie when we decided to tell young women they were vulnerable, that it had always been thus and that there was no chance of this changing, they would always be vulnerable to (old, white) sexual predators, even if they were lesbians. Then came lockdown.

The online hyper sexualised ‘version’ of womanhood has created a generation of young women who feel fake brows, fake lips, a tonne of make up and as little clothing as possible is the epitome of femininity. And drag culture seems to be the counterpart with its parody of woman.

My ASD/ ADHD/ anxious/ sensitive child cannot make sense of this even at 18, although she is finally questioning whether the fight to be trans is worth the hassle as her desisting friends head off to uni and she is stuck at home unable to get through her A levels. She was affirmed at school - the pastoral lead (progressive private school) would not even engage with me - and, frankly, it served to isolate her from her peers even more.

If this guidance had been in place [and statutorily enforced], we might have been able to create an extended environment of support that might have encouraged her to engage in therapy. Instead, it meant that her family were cast as bigots and our efforts to help were undermined - by CAMHS too. Social Service visit (annually for three years) failed to a support this, as I have a degree in psychology (amongst others, inc law) and was able to make it very clear that my education in neuroscience and experience with young people made me more of an expert than they were - but the damage as far as my child was concerned was done. The school should have followed the advice and guidance of her (ex-Tavi) therapists and parents instructions - instead they undermined everything the team of experts were trying to achieve in encouraging her to explore her reaction to puberty as an ASD person and to cultural misogyny - and she refused to engage.

Certain people on this thread should take their ideology and keep it well away from children like mine. It has destroyed her teens, damaged the lives of her family - including a younger ASD brother who is seeking a funded boarded place for 6th form to escape his sister-related stress, further fracturing our family.