EHRC response to school consultation

[Justme56]

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/equality-watchdog-advises-government-gender-questioning-children-guidance-schools

Thank you.

Not sure about this bit!

The best way to avoid discriminatory practices is for schools to develop policies and flexibly apply them...

Not sure about this bit either:

Specifically, the suggestion on page 13 that teachers should not be compelled to use preferred pronouns may wrongly imply that the Article 9 and 10 rights to freedom of religion and/or freedom of expression of a teacher or another learner would necessarily override the rights of a child with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which includes the right to respect for their private and family life, under Article 8. Case law suggests that employers can apply policies which require staff to recognise a trans person’s preferred pronoun, providing that this is done proportionately so as to respect the rights of all affected groups. For example, a school may legitimately take action to prevent ‘deliberate misgendering’ which causes distress or humiliation to a trans child, whilst giving reasonable consideration to other factors such as protected beliefs of staff or the level of comprehension of other children

How do you respect the right of someone to believe in sex realism while requiring them to comply with preferred pronouns which is to enact a belief they do not hold and may regard as actively harmful? This advice seems firmly weighted to one side to me.

Gender neutral provision may be beneficial for gender questioning children as it does not require them to use facilities which do not match their gender identity.

And this would seem to conflate sex and gender. The facilities are separated by sex, not by gender identity.

And a lot of waffle about balancing rights without any idea of how.

They've forgotten that authorities have to balance a range of countervailing factors. And that safeguarding can't be ignored. It's not a good response from them at all.

Oh, dear.

EHRC do seem so ... patchy.

Overriding message: the protected characteristic of gender reassignment prevents pretty much all suggested actions with a nod to single sex changing and toilets, but 'everything has to be balanced'.

Somehow.

Transgender Trend's response was excellent, btw, because it was so clear, and so focussed on children's wellbeing and safeguarding. Unequivocal. Fair. Straightforward.

'1. , under ‘language and terminology’, the guidance states that it does not use the term ‘transgender’ to describe children. We recognise that terminology in this area can be confusing, not least because the terms ‘trans’ and ‘transgender’ are not used in the Equality Act or Gender Recognition Act. In this context, a person can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment without having legally changed their gender or undergone any medical procedure to change their sex. This includes children and it therefore follows that children can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This should be clearly explained in the guidance.'

Right off the bat I find this bit worryingly vague (my italics).

It seems directly counter to Cass' stance on social transitioning.

Does anyone else get the feeling they've grudgingly done a 'Find and replace' of 'trans child' with 'a child with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment'?

Page 18:

'a child who is questioning their gender, or who identifies and/or is living as the opposite sex'

How the fuck can a child 'live as the opposite sex'? This is mad.

', we consider that this guidance should make clear that a child can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, even though they are not old enough to legally change their sex by acquiring a Gender Recognition Certificate under the Gender Recognition Act (2004). Children who have stated that they identify as, or wish to live as, the opposite sex are likely to have this protected characteristic. Other children who are questioning their gender may not, depending on their specific circumstances.'

Clear as mud.

This is the EHRC response to the consultation, whilst having weight it is not binding.

The gov will have their own legal advisors

This is a bloody nightmare!

It seems that the EHRC have determined that the law states that concept of a child requiring protection from adults no longer exists? That a 3 / 6 year old and so on can acquire the protected characteristic of gender reassignment? That the concept of safeguarding a child matters less than the idea that they can change sex at will?

Which - if I've understood this correctly - demonstrates that the Equality Act & GRA place children at significant risk of harm? If the law fails to recognise the need for children to be protected from harm (and persuading a 4 year old that they're the opposite sex constitutes harm to a child) then it reinforces how awful these laws are?

The EHRC advice on all of this does seem to vary from document to document according to who wrote it. There's very little evidence of consistency and an increasing feel that no one can make head nor tail of the mess of law that has been created, as well as evidence of the ongoing political capture known to have been causing havoc in the EHRC for years now.

It is clear from the EHRC submission that the law as it stands, needs amending, it is a shame that the Truss Bill is unlikely to succeed.

Agree with the PPs that the EA and GRA currently place children in harm's way.

I am so angry that it is unpaid volunteers from orgs like Transgender Trend and Safe Schools Alliance that have had to identify and explain this.

This work should have been done by, I don't know, NSPCC or some government department themselves. Department for Education is an obvious one.

Yes. And when it comes to the crunch questions, the EHRC have washed their hands of them and thrown them back to the government.

What is the EHRC actually for?

Have they been given an impossible task based on shit legislation?

@ArabellaScott yes i think so

Transgender Trend have nailed it:
What if Equalities & Human Rights causes harm to children?

https://twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1768275840482123803

To be fair to the EHRC their submission states that it "focuses on how the guidance can better represent the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, so that it can better support schools to take lawful decisions and avoid discrimination".

The rest of us are looking at how we can safeguard and protect children from bullying, age inappropriate gaslighting and remove queer theory groups from being able to influence schools.

The challenge will be how to balance these. Must the demands of queer theorists be prioritised over society's responsibility to safeguard children? We know there's been a relentless attack on safeguarding from some on the left / transactivists, positioning it as right wing bigotry , dog whistles and the rest.

But maybe this is helpful if it showcases to a horrified public how the Equality Act & related legislation works against the interests of children?

This is a good point. As with the puberty blockers situation, we have started from a position of heavy political bias towards making it work, respecting pronouns, social transition, much care and effort in schools which has led to the prioritisation of the needs of children expressing gender distress over the needs of other children and the situations of safeguarding concern.

This hasn't worked and the evidence has built beyond being able to ignore. The consultation is because of the issues that have arisen through the approach that the EHRC seem to be advocating for. If it had worked we wouldn't need the consultation in the first place.

The only way for teachers to do this is to not use pronouns for these children at all, and just use names.

The only way they can not 'misgender' whilst also not emotionally abusing all the other children and undermining safeguarding (which wrong sex pronouns does).

It's a huge mental load on already overworked and tired teachers though.

This.

I can't wait for the safeguarding court cases. Schools should be about protecting the wellbeing of ALL children and this approach is not in any child's best interest.

The Transgender trend response was so good because it recognises that the school bending itself into pretzels to accommodate the demands of gender ideology isn't of benefit to the gender questioning child:
1.- It locks in the identity and makes changing their mind very difficult - much more likely to move onto pbs and cross sex hormones (noting that NHS now won't give them pbs so social transition could cause more distress because the school's actions are implying changing sex is possible and the NHS is saying no, not evidence based, no benefit proven - plus also now may risk them seeking drugs from other sources)
2 - A child's wellbeing relying on others lying is not mentally healthy
3- It's not a normal environment, it is not beneficial to these children to only be able to cope in a completely unnatural environment with compelled speech of other people; that does not prepare them for the real world where people will not be forced to behave in this way
4 - It is emotional abuse as well as discrimination against the protected characteristics (sex, belief, disability) of the other children. It's putting one PC above all others which is not legal. It is unlikely to make the gender questioning child popular.
5 - It does not promote resilience, moving towards a healthy approach to life and relationships and accepting that (for example) you can't compel the speech of others, that such a power imbalance makes meaningful relationships impossible.