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 think this guidance is fantastic, beautifully easy to read and understand it clearly aims to protect all children.

I'm so hoping this will impact on the NHS, in my local hospital the female toilets are self ID but they are used by adults and children every day.

Bring it on. Let's see coverage of the legal case in which teachers insist a teenage boy should be allowed into the girls' changing rooms because his "heart is pink".

in a way, I hope it is contested. Because we all know that any kind of confrontation exposes the lack of logic, the lack of safeguarding, the ridiculous language being used, the conflation with sexual orientation, and of course all the lies about statistics.

The more people see this, the better.

And it might force the government into a more stringent course of action. Or, at the very least, we will get to watch Kemi annihilate anyone who has the bollocks to address it.

The lawyer was introduced as Joseph Navas from the firm Britton and Time. Based in Hove. How surprising.

My understanding is that one of the reasons it's taken so long because they've had to make sure it's legally water tight.

Which is why there are some exceptions.

There's no way this hasn't been looked at by lawyers.

I think this guidance is fantastic, beautifully easy to read and understand it clearly aims to protect all children.

I'm willing to bet the well written guidance in plain English is a result of Kemi’s influence on all this

The lawyer was effectively saying "don't worry, we'll find something that can be challenged in court" but seemed not to have a grip on what this might be and sounded rather vague.

But hey, he's now got something else to take to court and build up his billable hours.

Also it was interesting that the presenter asked him whether gender identity really was a contested belief and he didn't answer - presumably because he couldn't say no, being a lawyer, but feigning ignorance of Forstater wouldn't be a good look...

Yes.

The fact that this is an ideology and is a contested belief will be news to a lot of teachers and schools.

And that's one of the most important parts of the document.

It's a belief. Not based in science.

Agh, it will be non-statutory guidance rather than statutory guidance. Still means schools must consider the guidance and must have a good reason for departing from it if they choose to do so. What they will not be able to do is ignore it.

"Competitive sports" could also mean darts, snooker, angling, cycling and any other area we've seen TRAs try to destroy women's sports.

Yup! Any instance where you keep score could be argued as competitive. I think it is separate from “sport” more generally because many schools (including mine) have mixed sex pe lessons where they learn or practice a specific technique but don’t play against each other.

Let's see coverage of the legal case in which teachers insist a teenage boy should be allowed into the girls' changing rooms because his "heart is pink".

It won’t be teachers. Even the activist teachers won’t be prepared to fund such a case. I’d expect a legal challenge from a parent or two though, supported by stonewall or mermaids. I agree with datun though - I think legal cases are good.

My favourite thing about this guidance is the clarity of language. Anyone can pick it up and understand it means. No obfuscation and very little wiggle room. Clearly defined words and liberal use of “must”. They’ve even clarified that to count as an individual toilet facility it must have hand washing (so no arguing that a cubical is an individual facility).

That’s it - he’s just trying to drum up some business.

If it is non-statutory, does that mean my daughter (yr10) may still be sharing the toilets and changing room with the biologically male, Yr 10 child who identifies as a female and lesbian? I was hoping this would mean that would change. Said child also does PE with them. Interesting that the F-M child also does PE, changes and toilets with the girls.

DD goes into school with her PE kit under her uniform as she is so uncomfortable.

Thanks v much for sharing this. Sounds promising.

Non-statutory guidance is fine because lots of this is repeating the law already. Everywhere it says “must” they are simply repeating what is already legally required. for example:

• Schools and colleges must record a child’s sex accurately wherever it is recorded.
• Schools must always protect single-sex spaces with regard to toilets, showers and changing rooms.

Statutory guidance takes longer to put in place and is harder to change. If the government were to take that route regarding (for example) a child changing pronouns they’d probably have to wait for the full Cass report.

This is why I can't get too excited about it. it's an excellent first step. It's helpful. We've had nothing.

When the safeguarding reasoning is explicitly described and embedded into KCSIE, children will be more effectively safeguarded.

The reasoning behind the statements in KCSIE, is specifically taught to teachers, and regularly revisited. (Or should be for safeguarding to be effective.)

They need to know what the issues are and also be able to apply that knowledge, critically.

And, across the board, as this ideology has the potential to impact all subjects and resources that enter schools.

This is such good news. I really hope Labour don't get in and reverse this.

Not at all. The use of “must” is really important. Section 6.42 is what you’ll want to quote to the school:

Schools must not allow a child, aged 11 years or older, to change or wash in front of a child of the opposite sex

If the government were to take that route regarding (for example) a child changing pronouns they’d probably have to wait for the full Cass report.

Yes, I expect KCSIE needs to be very firmly evidence based and changes always, sadly, follow massive failures, following case reviews.

Schools are meant to follow non stat guidance and have a good reason not to.
The guidance is explicit that :
"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".

In the light of that, if I was the parent of a girl being forced to share changing rooms to change alongside a male, I'd be writing to the school referencing the guidance and asking what they will do to ensure that your daughter is not compelled to undress alongside a male?
That's so grim for your daughter and her classmates to have his presence forced on them while undressing.

It's going to be pretty suspect and indefensible to want to argue that 11 yr old girls change and wash in front of boys.

A lot of the problems in schools are because the various requirements are spread out in multiple different laws. Most teachers and school leaders simply don’t have the expertise to understand how to apply them. This guidance spells it out.

The bits that are still open to some interpretation are the change of name / pronoun and (to some extent) the sport. I suspect we’ll get an update to KCSIE when Cass is finished wrt social transition. And most sporting bodies are dealing with their own sports (albeit slowly).

Honestly, as a teacher I’m so relieved with this guidance. It gives those of us working in schools the exact cover we need to say “no, I’m not doing that” if (for example) I’m told I should allow a gender questioning boy to use the girls toilets. It means I can say “no, I’m not doing that” if asked to sanction a child for “misgendering”. It also gives parents the ability to push back on behalf of their children too.

This is such an important point. The guidance removes the tyranny of "you're a bigoted transphobe, shut up" and allows professionalism and children's needs to be at the centre once more.

Agreed. If a school does not follow the guidance it is open to a parent to bring judicial proceedings against the school. The school would have to show that they have good reasons for going against the guidance. My fear though is that validation of boys who want to be in the changing rooms with girls and their validation would not be met by third spaces might still be seen by the judiciary as "a good reason".

Bigger worry is that consultation opens until end of March, then Govt have to properly consider the responses and issue updated guidance (which they do not have to change), which will take more time. Will they have time to get this done before the election? Will the media reporting be good enough to show that this guidance is pro-safeguarding and pro-children's rights, such that labour will look unhinged if they try and change it.

Joseph Navas who qualified 5 years ago appears to have a very wide general litigation practice. Highlights include contentious probate, fraud and pensions disputes. No mention that I could find in his profile on the firm's website of education or trans issues as an area of special interest or expertise. I wonder how this relatively junior Hove solicitor came to be interviewed as the legal expert on the lead item on a BBC's flagship news programme.