My response from Caroline Lucas re the Liz Truss proposal

[HelenDamnation1]

Thank you for getting in touch about the Private Members’ Bill that Liz Truss MP had on the list for potential debate in Parliament last Friday.

In the end, there was not time for her Bill to be debated and the Hansard record of the morning’s proceedings is here.

To provide you with some background, because Liz Truss is a backbench MP and not a Government Minister, her Bill is not likely to get anywhere. Backbenchers often use the Private Members’ Bill process to raise an issue/make a point, but such Bills don’t progress without Government support and I haven’t seen any indication that the Government are backing her Bill.

I am concerned that Liz Truss’s Bill represents an attempt to deepen the ‘culture war’ that is at the centre of the hard right playbook that politicians like her follow. Moreover, there’s a real risk around proposed changes to teaching guidance concerning transgender and gender questioning students. I'm very worried about any changes that would force schools to inform parents if a pupil seeks to socially transition in school. It is very important for pupils to know that school is a place of safety and respect for them and it would be totally unacceptable for Ministers to instruct schools to out trans children to their parents.

Outing a child to a parent/guardian is potentially a serious safeguarding matter, and it is not at all clear how this would sit alongside the safeguarding responsibilities of schools. As I understand it, schools are generally following a case-by-case approach that successfully balances respect for each child’s needs and wishes, with the school’s existing statutory responsibilities.

On the Equality Act, my view is that changing the law so that ‘sex’ is defined as 'biological sex' for the purposes of the Equality Act would gravely undermine trans-people's rights, including to go about their lives in privacy and dignity. Trans-people are often subject to serious employment or other discrimination, and to ridicule, harassment and hate crime. It is vital that there are proper mechanisms in law to protect a trans-person's privacy should they want or need it.

I am a proud feminist and women's rights campaigner and it is my view that we still have far to go in the campaign for true equality and an end to the patriarchy. I believe that standing up for trans rights is a fundamental part of that campaign, and we have more to gain by working together to challenge the prejudice, discrimination and exclusion so many women and trans-people continue to face.

It remains a great sadness to me that women's and trans rights are now characterised by some people, like Liz Truss MP, as being on different 'sides' in 'a culture war'. My view is this is detrimental to all women, both trans and cis. I remain of the view that it is both necessary and possible to promote and protect improved trans people’s rights, whilst at the same time defending and advancing hard won women’s rights.

Whilst we take a different position on this issue, I am grateful for your continued engagement. Hearing from constituents is hugely important to me

Best wishes,

Caroline

Caroline Lucas MP
Brighton Pavilion

Parliamentary Office
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

There's a difference though, isn't there? I can say that I'm not a Christian, and so I wouldn't practice "Christian forgiveness" or "Christian tolerance".

But what happens if I say that I don't believe in gendered souls, I don't believe that anyone is born in the wrong body, or that I don't believe that children can be transsexual?

The reaction to non-believers in genderism is completely different to the reaction to non-believers in any other religion.

Also, forgiveness and tolerance are inherently beneficial, good, harmless things. They aren't specifically Christian actions/traits, even if they are labelled as such - they're demonstrated by plenty of non Christians.

Gender ideology is not inherently beneficial, in fact it's doing a lot of harm. You might disagree, but even so, it doesn't make sense to put a positive action (forgiveness) into the same category as a disputed ideology.

Warning: grumpiness ahead!

When did it become commonplace for school children to confide in their teachers? I don't remember that when I was in school in the 1960's. ( I get that in some cases there may be abuse in the home and teachers can provide a point of contact for a vulnerable child). But teachers are not parents, confidants or friends. Teachers are there to teach. No pupil should be discussing sexual preferences, transness or nonbinaryness with their teachers.

Aha!

I guess it's one of those things, @toomanytrees , that 'everyone' would have said, yes, of course, ten years ago. But nowadays that seems to be in doubt. But I do get that schoolkids today might have more reason to reach out to teachers than was the case for their counterparts in the 60s and 70s. Of course teachers need to act sensibly, and within the law.

She really doesn't understand safeguarding.

I always thought schools operated on a in loco parentis basis. You know, standing in for the parent. Not keeping information from the parent. Presumably that's seen as old fashioned now.

What is the logical conclusion of this? What other things do parents not get to hear about in the name of "safeguarding"?

From a purely logistical view, how does one (a child in this instance) transition in secret, particularly in front of family members in the same household?

Is a boy taking oestrogen able to hide the growth of breasts from his parents? Does a girl taking testosterone hide the facial growth and deepening voice from her parents?

Or are those politicians so naive to think that it simply means a child cross-dresses at school and is not medicalised?

Another perfect example of just how damaging it is to lump sexuality and gender identity together. They are completely and utterly different.

One involves the possibility of making substantial and irreversible changes to one's body and legal identity. It is a process that involves unregulated and still exploratory surgical and medical interventions that carry significant risks and potential for long term complications, which can lead to a host of physical and psychological consequences.

The other is based on which sex a person finds attractive.

It is perfectly acceptable to keep one of the above scenarios a secret from a young person's family. It is utterly irresponsible and downright dangerous to keep the other a secret.

Yes, all of that, and also, the comparison is even more inept because sexuality is fluid (especially in teenagers). The fact that a teenage girl slept with a boy doesn't mean or preclude that she might not end up happier as a lesbian in later life, and vice versa.

Outing a child to a parent/guardian is potentially a serious safeguarding matter, and it is not at all clear how this would sit alongside the safeguarding responsibilities of schools.

This is an incredibly badly-thought through point. It is absolutely clear.

If you as a teacher or member of school staff think that a pupil is in danger from his or her family, should the family find out that the child is going by another name/requesting particular pronouns at school, you need to make a safeguarding referral to social services now. It is not enough to assume the family just won't find out. Clearly Lucas doesn't think referrals should be made, because it is standard procedure for social services to inform parents and guardians that a referral has been made and that the matter is being investigated. The children would be 'outed' because that is an integral part of the process!

It's standard for social services to tell parents about incredibly serious disclosures, including allegations of sexual abuse against the parents, but now we're supposed to accept that it's too risky for children if a social worker tells parents that the child is scared of being hurt at home for being trans-identifying?

Anyway, let's follow how it could go if social services aren't informed. Let's think for a moment about how precarious this situation (of using a different name and requesting non-sex-based pronouns) might be. An entire school class is supposed to be using the child's new name and new pronouns, but the information is supposed to be kept in school only? Those fellow pupils have parents of their own, and some of them will talk to their parents. Even at secondary school, some of the parents talk to each other! What happens when a another school parent in the waiting room for Parents' Evening tries to make conversation with Mary-now-Max's mum by saying, "mine is really struggling with the history teacher. How is Max finding it?"

What if the information leak happens last thing, at the end of term, leaving that child in a potentially abusive environment over a school holiday, with no way to contact an adult at school for help?

These things have to be considered, and people with experience of child abuse and actual commitment to safeguarding would know that.

The peanut gallery may suggest swearing every classmate to secrecy about the trans-identifying child's new name and pronouns. Firstly, don't be ridiculous. That's a hell of a responsibility to put on children. Also, it's absurdly trusting. It's been known to happen that girls from strictly religious families have got in trouble for not following their parents' religious precepts at school, after more religious classmates deliberately told their parents. You don't stake children's safety from abusive family members on other children. Unless you're an irresponsible idiot with limited life experience, anyway. Which seems to cover most of our current MPs, come to think of it.

Secondly, telling a class that they had to keep a secret on behalf of a child in the class is tantamount to deliberately setting up that child for blackmail by any bully in the school. Think about it. "Give me this or I will tell your parents you're trans" or "do this for me or I will tell your parents you're trans".

The only responsible course of action is a social services referral, reporting that the child is identifying as trans and that the child says that he or she is scared of anyone at home finding out.

Perhaps Ms Lucas doesn't know this and should be informed?

Don't mention the war! I did once but I think I got away with it

I do actually agree with this in some respects. Not all parents are reasonable and understanding, some parents' reactions will be punishment or abuse rather than concern.

This is especially the case in some cultures.

There is no blanket solution to closeted kids at school, or kids secretly transitioning. The situation is different for every individual.

Perhaps it could be explained to kids that while they won't out them, they do need parent's permission before enacting a name change and social gender change. Therefore leaving it up to the child whether to push it or not.

.

On the Equality Act, my view is that changing the law so that ‘sex’ is defined as 'biological sex' for the purposes of the Equality Act would gravely undermine trans-people's rights, including to go about their lives in privacy and dignity. Trans-people are often subject to serious employment or other discrimination, and to ridicule, harassment and hate crime. It is vital that there are proper mechanisms in law to protect a trans-person's privacy should they want or need it.

Lucas clearly believes that trans people should always be allowed to conceal their sex and that sex should not be a protected characteristic under the Act. This makes her more extreme than Stonewall who, according to their website, have given up on switching sex for gender in the Act (they're perfectly capable of torturing an anti-woman interpretation out of the Act as it is).

By holding these views, Lucas is siding with the respondents in Adams v ERCC and Summers v BRCC.

Why would a soi-disant feminist be happy for sex discrimination to be legalised?

She's had it explained to her before (see thread below) but still comes back with the same cut-and-paste nonsense.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4822661-anti-women-response-from-caroline-lucas-re-equality-act?postsby=greenpartyshame

Safeguarding practice already covers this. There is no need for a special, different approach for trans children that leaves them and their parents significantly differently treated. The standard threshold for not informing parents of a safeguarding situation is, necessarily, very, very high, and the risk to the child would have to be something more than 'my mum would say no/not validate me'.

When you create special groups of kids with special exemptions to safeguarding you are taking down the protections around them and opening them up to harm. However well meaningly you're doing it, that is what you are doing.

It must be another one of those words that's 'evolved' to mean the exact opposite of what it used to mean.

Yes, this is what the "Conversion Therapy" proposals are trying to do. Make anyone who says no or denies the so-called new gender identity a criminal that is enforcing conversion therapy. Therefore a school wouldn't inform the parents due to the threat of a criminal offence taking place (this being to say "no" to a child, but classified as conversion therapy under the law).

Time and time again, activists are trying to remove children away from their parents and lead them down this irreversible path.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · Today 00:22

If you as a teacher or member of school staff think that a pupil is in danger from his or her family, should the family find out that the child is going by another name/requesting particular pronouns at school, you need to make a safeguarding referral to social services now.

That's pretty much my understanding of the situation, I'm glad to see that you and numerous other posters have explained it.

Don't be so bigoted.

She's a complete 'birthing hole'.

Adam, I absolutely would. I think we should all respect other people’s religious beliefs, without feeling obliged to take part (I understand if my colleague is fasting for Ramadan, but that doesn’t mean I have to).

Of course there can be quite a lot of crossover between some religious tenets and what’s considered decent behaviour - forgiveness, tolerance and compassion are generally good in society without reference to any specific religion.

So, if a politician is suggesting we should have more Christian tolerance in society, I’d think that was a reasonable aim, but poorly phrased. If a politician is implying we all have a gender, then I think they haven’t really engaged properly with the subject and need to apply some critical thinking

Yeah I feel the same about God and have had many many conversations with creationists which may be why I'm more relaxed about other people feeling their belief in gender is important to them.

It's illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of religion. Its perfectly common for workplaces and society to accommodate or even promote that belief.

I see "gender identity" in the same way. I don't believe it but that doesn't stop it being important to others

I completely agree - about both god and gender. However, I finder gender adherents have even less internal consistency, and more need to try to make everyone else join in!

But the point is that the rhetoric is that gender identity must be important to you. That's the issue. You cannot just excuse yourself from it, you cannot say you don't believe in it, a lot of organisations are forcing their employees to adhere to the tenets of gender identity (toilet provision, lanyards, pronouns in email signatures are some examples). And let's not get started on schools.

I feel more comfortable saying I am an atheist than saying I don't believe in gender identity.

Me being a Christian only affects my workplace if I want to take time off for something church related. I don't evangelise at work, I don't visibly pray at work, and I don't expect everyone to affirm my faith. It doesn't impinge on the way other people see, describe or need to accommodate me.