Schools Guidance Consultation closes 12 of March - can we collate ideas for responding?

[ValancyRedfern]

Hi All,

I'm concerned people (including myself!) may lost track of time and forget to respond to the schools guidance. I thought it would be useful to create a thread collating and discussing ideas for responding. I know there are still some response guides to come from SSA and Sex Matters. I'm posting in a rush right now but I will be back with any links I can find. This is so important as all the Usual Suspects will be responding, and many Unions, charities, MATs and individual schools are currently saying this is only draft guidance so can and should be ignored. We need to ensure our voices are heard.

Link to consultation:

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

Link to draft guidance:

https://consult.education.gov.uk/equalities-political-impartiality-anti-bullying-team/gender-questioning-children-proposed-guidance/supporting_documents/Gender%20Questioning%20Children%20%20nonstatutory%20guidance.pdf

Your points might have carried more weight if you had used the current 2023 guidance rather than the 2014 original version. Your examples have now gone without trace.

Thanks for clarifying this. The pp seems to out of date info

@JanesLittleGirl as I said on the other thread, when statutory and non-statutory guidance are in conflict, chose the statutory guidance.

Guidance is of course useful,but at a basic minimum, it has to be in compliance with the law. No one has disputed the (non-draft) technical guidance for schools nor suggested it is unlawful.

The Schools Week reference are literally evidenced, and are from a publication which is not a trans rights vehicle, but a mainstream publication for schools. They aren't "produced with a sole purpose of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt." You'd have to be a conspiracy theorist to think that. Are they lying about what DfE lawyers said?

I realise you want the law to be something other than it is, but you would be better off acknowledging the law as it stands and campaigning to change it rather than putting blinkers on.

@WarriorN the EqA of course applies to children, and children can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Even the latest guidance acknowledges it, as does Sex Matters - an anti-trans organisation quoted above.

What you are quoting isn’t there though?

It’s out of date

DadJoke · 08/03/2024 11:04

"This is not the EHRC statutory guidance, is legally dubious and has no standing in law. The current statutory guidance does, and has survived legal challenge in AEA vs EHRC."

I guess that that was a different DadJoke then.

There is no contradiction. Following guidance is good, unless it's unlawful. If it's not telling you to act unlawfully, the guidance helps you stick within the law.

Statutory guidance has weight in law. Non-statutory guidance doesn't. Where they contradict, follow the statutory guidance. I hope that's clear.

Great to see this thread being bumped given how important this guidance is for the safety of children.
Always an education to see a poster desperately claiming that the EA takes precedence over the legal requirement to safeguard children. Pretending that children too young to give informed consent (4 year olds, 8? 12?) are completely covered by the pc of gender reassignment. This has never been tested in the courts.
I'd be surprised to see the courts obey the transactivist demands that all children, no matter what their age, comorbidities, mental vulnerabilities, history of abuse etc. must be considered under the pc of gender reassignment. My guess is that the need to safeguard children, in line with their age, mental vulnerability ability to give informed consent will always be prioritised by the courts (and society).

Agreed. Thanks everyone for keeping this thread bumped. Deadline tomorrow.

There is no contradiction if you have the sort of brain that believes that trans women are women. The fact is that non statutory guidance does have standing in law. Failing to follow guidance will weigh against you in law unless you can demonstrate that the guidance is unlawful or that it doesn't apply to you.

You are clearly of the opinion that there are two types of non statutory guidance: guidance that you like and describe as helping you stick within the law and guidance that you don't like and describe as legally dubious.

You like the 2014 version of the guidance for schools. Are you ok with the current 2023 version or has it become legally dubious?

Always dangerous for schools to ignore guidance unless they can demonstrate that what they're doing is better.
A school that's allowed a boy to undress alongside girls in showers, dormitories / bedrooms where a girl is assaulted or makes a claim of indecent exposure against the boy would be hard pressed to argue that ignoring DfE guidance was "better". So any legal consequences or financial compensation claims are likely to be magnified..
That's how it's worked so far when schools ignore both statutory and non statutory guidance and end up in the courts

Aaaaghhh!

Question 9.

"Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?"

Options are yes/no/prefer not to say.

FFS.

Unfortunately Victoria Prentis confirmed last year that the PC of gender reassignment has no age restrictions. This seems to be quite an oversight when the EA was created. To any rational human being, it logically refers to the GRA. However, I learned from Maya Forstater earlier this week (via Twitter) that the original PC came from legislation that pre-dates the GRA. Hopefully someone will put a minimum age on this PC (I wonder if the Liz Truss Bill does? I haven't read it yet).
https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1766864859122016517?t=gpjNPq3KfwqeEQGlfLd2eA&s=19

However, all that said, having the PC of gender reassignment doesn't have any bearing on anyone's sex.
It adds a layer of complication when it comes to allowing "social transition" but from what I could see, this was all covered anyway because the risks of social transition and locked in identities in children are mentioned. These risks need to be made clearer though, as per the Transgender Trend feedback and comments on this thread and the previous one.

Filling it out now; the other massive issue which give just been reminded of is that it doesn't safeguard the child effectively.

It supports parents and protects staff but not the child.

There isn't recognition in KCSIE that trans identity can be an indication of a wide range of other issues the child is dealing with as well as sexual abuse. There's some vague mention of external factors such as online influences but not the more serious issues.

A quick night time bump for anyone with the time to do this.

Done.

Deadline today

I'm doing it today!! Last minute Lucy here ....

Submitted mine last night. Really wish I could complete tasks without the pressure of a deadline 🤷‍♀️

Obviously I would say this but the responses from our side are so much stronger. The only approach that will work for schools is the one based in safeguarding, material reality and logic.

Given that it’s likely to be challenged whatever they write they may as well go for the one that’s easiest to defend. The easiest thing to defend is the truth. Girls can’t be boys and boys can’t be girls.

Same 😂

I did notice a line saying they would be addressing KCSIE and RSE but I still went to town detailing what needed to go where

Bumping

Last Chance today. Please mention WPATH files as proof of malpractice as unsafe and unethical diagnostics to minors

https://www.transgendertrend.com/consultation-gender-questioning-children-response/

Guidance from Transgender Trend

I really liked the Transgender Trend response - very child focused. I particularly liked the bit about adultification which I think is important.

I forgot to mention WPATH in my response, which I am now very annoyed at myself about. But I did mention the lack of evidence base and that teachers aren't doctors and shouldn't be making clinical decisions about interventions in any case.

Given the 80% (is that right?) desistence rate it's appalling any schools thought social transition was something they should do. They don't feel they should give in to child demands about anything else. A large proportion of my daughter's year hate the school offering of lunches and had a petition demanding they could get McDonalds instead. They didn't say 'oh yes, we must affirm your deeply held desire to eat McDonalds every day'.

It's such an abdication of adult responsibility.

You weren't the only one.

I've still got nearly twelve hours ...