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

I totally understand this, but I do think this is where people like Caroline Lucas are coming from. It wouldn't be acceptable and could be harmful for a teacher or person in authority to out a young person's sexuality to their parents. This is a more familiar scenario to many people than gender dysphoria, so it's an easy example to use and it could be just as harmful to out a young person's feelings of gender dysphoria.

Obviously sexuality isn't the same as gender dysphoria, there is no harm in same sex attraction. But I still think a young person is entitled to confidentiality. I certainly wouldn't be reporting this to a parent.
But I absolutely believe no young person or child should be enabled or encouraged to identify as the opposite sex, that is beyond a school's remit. Instead the reasons for their discomfort could be addressed - are they being bullied, do they not feel they fit in, maybe undiagnosed ASD. These are things that could be within a school's remit.

As for kids confiding in a teachers, I'm sure this was always a thing. I'm in my 50s and went through some difficult stuff at home in my teens, there was one teacher I will always remember who had time to listen.

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

Being seen as misguided-but-redeemable can be uncomfortable, but it's better than being seen as irredeemably evil and a literal genocide enabler.

It's the Brexit debate all over again. Whatever one's personal convictions, the nastier accusations mostly flowed in one direction.

Excellent post, and bears repeating. If only TRSOH actually read and comprehended stuff, instead of sniffing their own Righteous farts.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past few years, those making recommendations to schools on safeguarding process on behalf of this political lobby often do not have any training or qualifications in safeguarding. Not even the basic course that would be required of a part time lunchtime supervisor in a school.

As an inquiry found in the case of one such advisor, repeated attempts to talk to them about safeguarding led to them making the statement in their report that this person was not capable of understanding safeguarding. They thought it was vaguely something to do with data protection. They had been advising schools.

This same person had an extremely chequered history, employed their father who was waiting a court case for torturing and sexually abusing a ten year old girl while he himself dressed as a little girl, and shared on social media their relationship where their partner had, shall we say, interesting views on adult and child sexual relationships.

This is why you do not ever exempt any group as special and exempt from normal safeguarding. Ever. If you have even half a bloody brain.

I think Caroline Lucas, and any other public figure who has control or influence over policy making, needs to read Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE). It's a document all school staff have to read (and sign somewhere to say they've read it) every September. They update it very slightly each year, I think partly to force you to reread it, which is no bad thing.

If she'd read that (just once, let alone every year as we have to do), she'd understand why her ideas on safeguarding are clearly incorrect.

As an aside, that's why I sometimes wonder how some school staff (ahem, looking at you, assistant head) get this stuff wrong. They either can't read or just sign the thingy without reading it.

She's vile and as much a femininity as a tw it's a real woman. Disgusting corrupt morals.

I'd put money on 'sign without reading' being a significant problem. There should be a test. All our compliance stuff is online and you don't get the certificate if you've not been through every screen, opened every popupbox, done each section quiz, and scored at least 80% in the test at the end.

It exceedingly annoying because the vast majority of what I'm made to get certificates for is entirely irrelevant to what I actually do. I don't need to know the fire evacuation plan for a building I never visit, for example, but that's a different issue. As is the fact that some of the training (yes, EDI) is factually wrong. But the method is sound.

How can she call herself a feminist and write that letter?

My child's school says that it is not a safeguarding issue at all and therefore no reason to tell parents. I have no idea how to challenge this.

We do have a test too but it's piss easy and doesn't get updated.

And yes we have to do those silly training clicky boxes things that have a photo of a man posing next to two fire extinguishers looking confused...

But nothing beats reading KCSIE in its original, in full. It is clear and covers everything in a way a cartoony training thingy simply doesn't.

As an aside - I do think those click-through training things aren't useful at all. We had one on GDPR but then just a few months later, my colleague emailed dozens of parents about a school trip without BCCing and several complained - there were some high profile parents' email addresses on that list (independent school). Literally an example of what not to do on the click-through training he'd done recently.

I think they're so patronising and irritating with their silly cartoons that people click through while watching a film or something.

I don't know what the answer is - maybe, getting everyone to read a plain document (like KCSIE) and then a 5 min discussion with their HoD about what it's about.

What strikes me is that if you're promoting hiding children's trans status from their own parents, then you can't see it as a mental illness but if it's not a mental illness then not one penny of NHS money should be spent on trans healthcare.

The draft guidelines on gender questioning will help here @Mothersdaychocolate

They're quite explicit that schools must not transition children in secret from parents and although they've not been ratified I'm certain that principle will remain as it's the law. Only the courts can remove parental rights - schools don't have that right.
Parents have the prime responsibility to safeguard their children and they can't do so if professionals keep secrets from them. Especially as the majority of these children are mentally vulnerable with autism, eating disorders, self harm, bereavement and being in the care of the state being significnt factors in the data about these children:

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

There is no justified reason to withhold information about a child from parents unless it is safeguarding related. None. It's only the safeguarding aspect that makes it possibly wanglable.

My God it is depressing how absolutely bloody stupid and gullible so many people in positions of responsibility apparently are, and how little effort it takes to fill their heads with political nonsense so they trot around doing harm and parroting bullshit.

Out of curiosity, I did some rough calculations for a child in state secondary school in the UK. I reckon that, for a non-home-educated child, approximately 15.2% of each year is spent in school and this figure will be lower for a child at primary.

At yesterday’s ‘Do No Harm’ conference Prof. Rittakerttu Kaltiala, Chief Psychiatrist, Dept of Adolescent Psychiatry, Tampere Hospital, Finland, mentioned external influences in a child’s life and she said ‘the home is the primary developmental environment for the child.’

What is supposed to happen to a re-labelled child’s identity, alternate name and pronouns for the 85% of the time that the child is at home and away from the influence of the school if the parents have not been informed? Even when you factor in time for sleep the percentage of home time compared to school time is still massive.

Of course, input from the internet is huge in maintaining trans ideology so there is a very big safeguarding risk for a child relying on unmoderated, potentially very biased and dangerous, online influence for the 85% of the time they are keeping things hidden at home.

[There are 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a non-leap year ie. 24 x 365 = 8760 hours in a year.
And there are 190 school attendance days in a year and 7 hours attendance per day (approximation based on 9am – 4pm) ie. 190 x 7 = 1330 hours attendance in a year.
And to find the percentage… 1330/8760 x 100 = 15.2%.]

What??? Unwanted cycle lanes causing pollution?
No, that's cars and other traffic.
I often read the feminist boards (and I have lived in Brighton and Hove for a long time), but you trying to blame pollution on "unwanted" cycle lanes calls your credibility on the other issues you have raised into question.

Dear 'Proud Feminist and Women's Rights Campaigner',

On the Equality Act, my view is that not changing the law so that ‘sex’ is defined as biological sex' for the purposes of the Equality Act would gravely undermine trans-people's women's rights, including to go about their lives in privacy and dignity. Trans-people Women 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 woman's privacy should they want or need it.

PS. In term's of women's rights, this is only a fraction of the picture.

Nurses need buses to get to work in that great big fuck off hospital in kemptown. It is now taking them hours to get there.
I am an avid cyclist but I know my shit about NHS workforce struggling to actually get to work.
the old Shoreham road is having to reverse their cycle lanes policy as buses were just sat there chugging out pollution.