Sunak telling Robin White that biological sex is important live on GB news

[fromorbit]

'Particularly when it comes to questions around women's safety and health, biological sex is important.' Parents need to be involved in schools.

Rishi Sunak is asked 'why should LGBT people vote Conservative?'
GB News forum footage here:
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1757143443111841900

They claim to be an educational charity.

Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. As an educational charity our mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas which deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy.

https://policyexchange.org.uk/about/

There is fear around think tank papers. There shouldn’t be. There seems a trend in those considered ‘right wing’. They seem to encourage ‘left wing’ Activists to come and talk on a panel or discuss a paper at their conferences and seminars. Who the fuck should be rejecting voicing evidence and proven points just because the panel is considered by some to be ‘right wing’ (or even called right wing by the founders).

I will read and analyse any paper someone links to. Because in doing so I then think and evaluate my position with that information. That is why I laugh everytime someone feels the need to denigrate daily mail links. Because that is all to do with them personally and not necessarily even closely related to the person writing the article.

And besides which, outside of the policy exchange document, how many personal experiences will it take to change someone who has stated, ‘never seen it’ to, so maybe there is an issue and maybe I should look further into it. Maybe it is just not being reported.

There is no way the sets of parent I know even went further than a complaint to the HoY that allowed it. I doubt the school’s Head teacher even knew of the complaints. But does that mean it didn’t fucking happen?

Aaagh! I’ve also fallen into the not proof reading trap.

What I should have said is that:

Policy Exchange, whether you think it is partisan or not, is not an “educational charity” in respect of being specific to education, but its charitable purpose is educating the public.

At this point 'right wing' seems to mean very little more than 'says things that present boundaries to the absolute sexual freedoms of men'.

It's as meaningless a term as 'transphobia', 'kind' or women'.

As an insult..... yeah, poopoo head would probably be about it's level. With tongue stuck out.

Many "think tanks" are in fact lobby groups seeking to push a particular agenda and are biased.

Therefore I would not go to them for an objective or authoritative position on anything.

When a think tank says "this is happening in schools" my question would be, is it, or has it happened in one school and it suits the lobby group to exaggerate it?.

I would then go to other sources to double check. Often these statements turn out to be at best over exaggerated and at worst made up.

Most of the time I wouldn't bother. Especially with the Tufton Street lot. They crashed the economy, that's all you need to know about the credibility of their analysis.

Recommendations

1. In line with mandatory safeguarding guidance and the law, parents should auto- matically be informed when a child discloses feelings of gender distress at school, unless there is a compelling reason for them not to be informed. Parents must be central to any further decision making regarding the handling of a child’s gender distress, including social transition or change of name.
2. No school should facilitate a child’s social transition (the medical intervention in which a child adopts the social and cultural attributes associated with the opposite sex), unless medical advice clearly endorses this as the best and most appropriate action, and unless parents have been fully involved. Where this situa- tion arises, schools should co-operate fully with relevant external agencies within their local authority.
3. Schools should be required to publish all Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) material online, and have a clear process in place for parents to raise any concerns. Parents should be given an absolute right to see all RSHE materials their child will be taught at school. If it is not published online, it must be provided to parents on request, without any requirement for the parent to come onto the school premises. All agencies that provide materials to state-funded schools must accept that materials may be provided to parents in this way.
4. The Government must urgently commission an indepent review of the teaching of RSHE materials and approach to gender distressed children in schools, with a focus on safeguarding. The review must be independent and not carried out by the Department for Education (DfE) which has been too closely involved in the development of the current situation.
5. In line with the law and current guidance, certain activities and facilities should be single sex. This relates to toilets, changing rooms and sports of a competitive nature. There should be no exceptions to this.
6. The DfE should update Keeping Children Safe in Education to explicitly address issues relating to children with gender distress and gender dysphoria, empha- sising the importance of parental involvement in a child’s life. The document’s statement that LGBT is not a safeguarding issue needs to be removed, given the additional vulnerabilities of the current cohort presenting with gender distress.
7. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) must routinely consider schools’ approach to gender-distressed children as part of its inspection of safeguarding protocols. A school’s failure to meet the appro- priate standard should be reflected in the grade Ofsted awards the school, and treated with the same seriousness as other safeguarding failures.
8. The DfE should issue guidance on what is not appropriate for schools to be teach- ing children in RSHE at different stages of a child’s education. Gender stereotypes must be effectively challenged in schools, without conflating beliefs about gender identity with sex. Discussion about gender-critical beliefs should be included.
9. No state-funded school should subscribe to diversity membership schemes offered by external agencies where such organisations are involved in political campaigning. In accordance with the law, subscription to such schemes constitutes a fundamental conflict of interest. This does not prevent schools from purchasing or using external resources where no conflict arises.

Anyone care to discuss any issue they see with these recommendations?

Anyone care to provide evidence to disprove these findings?

• Only 28 per cent of secondary schools are reliably informing parents as soon as a child discloses feelings of gender distress.
• 33 per cent of secondary schools did not say they would inform
• their Designated Safeguarding Lead or a medical practitioner when
• a child discloses gender distress.
• Four in ten secondary schools operate policies of gender self-
• identification.
• At least 28 per cent of secondary schools are not maintaining
• single sex toilets, and 19 per cent are not maintaining single-sex changing rooms. 60 per cent of secondary schools are allowing children to participate in sports of the opposite sex.
• 69 per cent of secondary schools are requiring other children to affirm a gender-distressed child’s new identity.
• With regard to what secondary schools are teaching in Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE):
• 72 per cent of schools are teaching that people have a gender identity that may be different from their biological sex
• 25 per cent are teaching that some people or children ‘may be born in the wrong body.’
• 30 per cent are teaching pupils that a person who self- identifies as a man or a woman should be treated as a man or woman in all circumstances, even if this does not match their biological sex.

Are these findings incorrect, because I am quite sure that Lottie Moore will be very happy to have any further evidence. She took these findings from FOI requests.

Lottie has also published the following papers:

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/levelling-the-playing-field/
https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-problem-with-allyship-schemes-at-nhs-hospitals/
https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/gender-identity-ideology-in-the-nhs/

Feel free to have a look and tell us what Lottie has either presented with bias, has factually incorrect or has misrepresented.

She seems rather keen on getting cross party involvement too. The Asleep at the Wheel document that is being rejected as 'right wing' has Baroness Hayton's involvement and Rosie Duffields.

Again, maybe start addressing the issues with the information instead of rejecting it before reading it as being biased while displaying your (general 'your') own personal prejudice. It is just information. Far better to find the issues with the information and present arguments that show the flaws, the inconsistencies and the misrepresentations.

It strikes me as very interesting that some posters claim to be objective, yet will not read something that they feel is biased.

Can they not sort through misinformation and inconsistencies to find thought provoking information? Or are they just not willing to read something because the supposed organisation that publishes it doesn't fit their own view point? Because they expect to discredit individual's work without even reading it, based on supposed 'objective' premises, yet, don't seem to have that trait of objectivity themselves....

So rather than even checking who has backed a document and checking that it is indeed 'non-partisan' and then reading even just the recommendations... they will write it all off as being biased. Sounds rather hypocritical to me. But hey, that is an individual's prerogative. Feel free, have at it. Understand though that your opinion will be challenged and this inconsistency pointed out.

Maybe start a separate thread on the recommendations so as not to derail this one?

But in summary, given the current state of schools I think the findings will have more to do with lack of resource than any particular ideological stance. They are getting to the point where they know they can't keep children safe.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/feb/10/teachers-facing-redundancy-as-record-number-of-english-schools-fall-into-deficit

In my opinion that needs addressing before more demands are put on them

I see that feminists are again being told to prioritise where to pay attention again. Instead of acknowledging that some feminists can work on projects that they feel is important that others are not the priority, or.... even multiple projects.

Tell us, when would be a suitable time for parents to campaign to address an issue that directly impacts them, despite others telling us that it isn't an issue because 'they have never seen it'?

Well said.

No. AdamRyan

The point being made is that a document was produced to give a poster some information about a point they said they felt was not actually happening. There is no need to start another thread. Because it is directly relevant to posts on this thread.

The recommendations were posted to highlight just how biased some posters are in dismissing a document that they wish to discredit because they have a prejudiced view about the source.

I asked one poster how many parent's direct accounts would it take to make it OK for it to be a priority to address in their mind. But I am very happy to have a number given by any poster who wishes to tell parents, and feminists (including feminists who are of course parents) that they should be ignoring what they believe is an issue and refocusing.

Seems remarkable that any person who posts on a feminist thread would be trying to tell parents and feminists where to direct their efforts. And that campaigning about an issue that directly impacts them and their children that it is either 'not happening because they haven't seen it themselves' or for any reason. And then complaining when they receive any push back at all.

But there we go.

Ugh.
I'm pointing out some due diligence should be done on think tank reports, is all.
If you don't want to do that, your choice.

That's not what I said. I said the schools don't have the resources to address the recommendations. They are struggling to meet basic safety requirements at the moment.

Why has pointing out that some think tanks may not be as they seem touched such a nerve with you?

I think I have just shown that I do do my due dilgence. I am pointing out that some people have a prejudiced view about think tanks and seem to feel they can reject them out of hand.

You have done this yourself with your 'tufton street' remark. If you don't like people engaging with your view, why post it?

And I pointed out very clearly that feminists and parents are free to campaign on issues that they feel have priority. They can set their own priorities as they feel fit. They can even work on what YOU deem is the priority and what they feel is a priority.

"In my opinion that needs addressing before more demands are put on them"

You posted your opinion. I posted mine. That is the way it works.

No one disagrees with this.

OK. Not sure why you are being aggressive to me.

Did you even read the recommendations?

Which ones do you think were not covered in the current guidance?

Or do you think that the current guidance should be parked by schools because of lack of resources? And if you think that, you seem to be like at least one other poster on this thread declaring that gender identity is not an issue in school because 'they haven't seen it'. And yet, my own teen's school actively socially transitions students without their parents knowledge. Or they did before the guidance came out. But apparently, it is not happening according to some people. Or if it is, it isn't their children or anyone they know so therefore it is not an issue.

So, where do you feel that leaves parents who are significantly impacted and immediately impacted? They should just wait until when? Some time in the distant future when schools have the perfect amount of resources to deal with it?

I don't see that it should cost any more resource to hold to basic safeguarding standards than to throw them out and come up with special rules for a subset of children.

I do however think schools shouldn't be spending money on incorrect training from the likes of Stonewall, and show a bit of critical thought.

Yes schools are insufficiently funded. But it doesn't cost anything to say toilets and changing rooms and sports are single sex, and involve parents before socially transitioning.

My opinion is I don't trust Tufton Street think tanks because they are pushing an agenda. They pushed Truss/Kwarteng. They are major donors to the Conservative party and they use innocuous, professional sounding names to cover up their actovities. Because I dont trust them, I don't bother with them.

I think they have "captured" right wing policy in much the same way others argue about Stonewall.

I'm not stopping you engaging with them.