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

It is about the clip in the thread. A question from White plus the extended question.

The OP included the clip that they wish to discuss. Are you now telling us that you know the OP’s mind better than their own actions ? Are you the OP as a sock account ?

The original post

Sunak telling Robin White that biological sex is important live on GB news 425 replies

fromorbit · 12/02/2024 21:09

'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
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1757143443111841900
OP posts:See next

Erm... More like telling us they haven't actually read the opening post or watched the clip.

Only the parents know their own situation, I think its not really anyone's business how parents choose to handle their child's identity issues. Again, not controversial.

And yet there are schools where children are socially transitioned at school by the staff, who do not tell the parents about this. If you really believe that the parents should be the ones deciding how to "handle their child's identity issues", you must agree that this should not be happening.

This pigeon chess stuff is like talking to a politician. It's why people distrust politicians.

Even better Boiled, I posted the time stamps of the clip in the OP where Sunak discusses the very thing we are told is not covered in this thread.

You didn't say don't judge, you said mind your own business.

Only the parents know their own situation, I think its not really anyone's business how parents choose to handle their child's identity issues. Again, not controversial.

Of course it's other parents' business. Transing children is a public affair. It requires the compliance (or not) of everyone else.

Including other children.

Bingo!

I know you are so helpful like that!

💐

I did watch the clip actually. I commented what I thought upthread
I would have thought a detailed critique of the Policy Exchange paper was a derail but it appears not. It's going to take me a while to fully check their methodology as I'm on my phone, but from a first read they haven't included the questions they asked so it's not clear what "reliably informed" means. E.g. does it mean not in every case or does it mean they don't know? Did it not happen within a certain time frame?
It's quite important because the word "reliably" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. And usually in research papers there would be discussion of the questions.

The "teaching materials" bit I also have a concern with, going back to my point about teen pregnancies. The author appears to be objecting to any mention of gender identity at all. Which is at odds with how teens experience the world today, I think the schools should be giving information to children about "gender identities" to avoid them being educated on tik tok and I think the author has over stated how much the materials differ from DoE guidance. She seems to think it shouldn't be taught at all.

There is no statistical analysis of the findings. I'd expect an objective study like this to include some analysis to establish whether she's "proven" her findings or whether they are just assertions.

There is a very long section on stonewall which seems at odds with the topic of the paper and made me question if there was a particular hobby horse there.

Overall its not very rigorous, so hard to assess how valid the findings/recommendations are or aren't. I think it would get torn to shreds in a peer reviewed journal.

I said upthread what I think.
In most cases it should not be happening but in some cases there may be wider safeguarding concerns where teachers decide the risks from telling the parents are greater than the risks from not telling them.

Teachers deal with safeguarding and difficult situations every day and I'd rather they were able to exercise professional judgement than have blanket rules imposed.

Well, here are the questions, outlined in a box with orange/red highlights on page 38.

1. Whether they inform parents or guardians as soon as a child expresses that he or she might be a different gender to their sex, or expresses a wish to change gender.
2. Whether they operate a policy of self-ID for gender identity; in other words, whether they consider the gender of a child to be the gender that that child declares it to be.
3. Who, if anyone, they would consult before allowing a child to socially transition (i.e. identify as a different gender to their sex). We asked for all relevant roles to be named.
4. Whether they allow a child who identifies as a different gender to their sex to: a. Use toilets defined according to their new gender, rather than their biological sex.

b. Use changing rooms according to their new gender, rather than their biological sex. c. Take part in sporting activities according to their new gender, rather than their biological sex.

5.Whether they require other children to refer to children who have socially transitioned by their new name and preferred pronouns.

6.Which of the following ideas they teach:

a. That people have a gender identity that may be different from their biological sex.
b. That some people or children may be ‘born in the wrong body’.
c. 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.
7.Whether, in the last 24 months, they had worked with an external provider (charity or commercial organisation) to provide lessons or resources on gender identity.

We made clear to schools that in the questions above, ‘sex’ refers to a child’s biological sex, whereas gender refers to a perceived gender identity that a person may consider they have, that may or may not match their biological sex. We also asked schools to share any relevant curriculum resources or policies relating to the matters in question.

It is not peer reviewed. That doesn't mean that it doesn't do what think tanks are there for, spurring discussion and debate.

Do you have any issue with the recommendation, outside of funding?

The "teaching materials" bit I also have a concern with, going back to my point about teen pregnancies. The author appears to be objecting to any mention of gender identity at all. Which is at odds with how teens experience the world today, I think the schools should be giving information to children about "gender identities" to avoid them being educated on tik tok and I think the author has over stated how much the materials differ from DoE guidance. She seems to think it shouldn't be taught at all.

Why do you think anyone should be teaching about 'gender identity'? It's a phrase without definition. I don't think teaching about something which is undefined and, as far as I can tell, utterly pointless, has any place in schools.

What do you understand by the term 'gender identity', and why do you think it is important for children to learn about it?

Do you think you can explain to me what a gender identity is? If the adults posting here can't understand what it is, why should children be taught about this undefined and meaningless concept?

I think at secondary schools most children have phones and are seeing all sorts regarding gender and sexuality (I have teens so have been through this)

I think the only way to deal with teens is to allow open conversations around different ideas. As soon as something is "forbidden" they want to do it. So banning teaching on gender identity would be counter productive in my opinion. I'd teach about gender identity as part of a theory around human identities, in Ethics or something. Let the children debate it and come to their own views. My experiences of teens are they will already have plenty of opinions of their own, across a range of positions.

It would be better to truthfully talk about biology and two sexes that you cannot change

A range of gender expression for each sex is fine

Plenty of scope for discussion and no need for overriding facts

It's impossible to understand from the questions, what "not reliably informed" means. And that strongly affects the findings because "not reliably informed" is a big category.

Does it mean "some parents were never informed"? Does it mean "we don't know if all parents were informed"? Or does it mean "there was a delay in informing some parents"? Different answers affect the interpretation.

I admire the patience on this thread!

We just don't know.

I disagree with this one:

1. 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.

I don't think its helpful to undermine public institutions and I think this opens the door to bodies with a particular agenda to do the review. So not for me

I don't like this one:

1. The DfE should update Keeping Children Safe in Education to explicitly address issues relating to children with gender distress and gender dysphoria, emphasising 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.

LGB is not a safeguarding issue and that should be reiterated in any wording to prevent a slide back to homosexuality being percieved/taught as wrong

This requires a huge restructure back to an LEA model:
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

The use of charities has arisen because of Cameron's "big society" push and the removal of centralised resourcing.

How do the teachers make this decision about the 'risks' of telling the parents? Are social services involved? The police? The NSPCC?

You seem to think that teachers can just 'decide' not to tell the parents. It's not something they can just decide to do: there are protocols for dealing with safeguarding issues. The parents are almost always involved, and there has to be a good reason for excluding them, not just that the teachers think they're a bit terfy.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64f0a68ea78c5f000dc6f3b2/Keeping_children_safe_in_education_2023.pdf

Only the parents know their own situation, I think its not really anyone's business how parents choose to handle their child's identity issues.

But if the teachers think that the parents aren't handling their child's identity issues in the way that the teachers think they should, then this doesn't apply, the teachers suddenly know better than the parents, and they can socially transition the child without telling the parents by claiming that the parents are a risk to the child. Is that what you're saying?

As pp said ‘social transition’ relies on others

Dc shouldn’t have to use certain pronouns for example

You didn't answer my questions.

What do you understand by the term 'gender identity'? What is it about this concept that makes you think it is important for children to learn about it?

I don't think anyone's talked about 'banning teaching on gender identity', and it's certainly not what I asked about.

Thank you for answering.

So two. Two recommendations you have an issue with.

Do you disagree that a review would be useful considering that there has been issues in the past few years? For example the Dice game. Or do you just think that it should not be an independent organisation? Following your point, do you think that Dr Hilary Cass should not have been engaged to review GIDS?

And secondly, do you think that the vulnerability of LGB children to the ideological concepts of gender identity as identified by Dr Cass, but also by numerous practitioners, doesn't leave them especially open to safeguarding failures? I don't read that as LGB children being 'a safeguarding issue'. I read that as them being more vulnerable to safeguarding failures as described by Cass and others. I don't believe that point indicates any intention to homosexuality/bisexual orientation being perceived as wrong. That final sentence in the paragraph that you highlighted is important and ties the rest of that paragraph together.