RCPCH supports primary school children changing pronouns

[ArabellaScott]

Their response to the recent consultation on schools guidance:

www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/DFE-guidance-schools-colleges-gender-questioning-consultation-response

'We raise additional concerns about the provisions for primary school aged children, in particular that the guidance may result in missed opportunities to manage distress by implementing a blanket approach to denying primary school aged children the option to change their pronouns, rather than encouraging schools to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.'

Long argument for 'autonomy' of children and suggests the gov should consult 'trans voice organisations'.

I'm surprised at how partisan this response is, tbh.

Wow.

I have no other words.

Well, I have plenty but I'm too angry to type them.

(Thank you for sharing BTW)

So they start off from: the government aren't sticking to the law, children's well being must be paramount

That being the crux of the matter. Cass et al find social transition not to be a neutral act and RCPCH deem it or be essential.

They should be challenged to do more than make statements. They need the same depth and quality of evidence as Cass commissioned.

They’re a stonewall champion so I assume completely captured

Then they apparently lack the capacity to understand in depth what the problems with this are. Which would say to me that they lack the capacity to be responsibly advising on any matter regarding children.

Paediatricians promoting telling little children that their bodies are wrong and that a sex change will fix them 😱

Unbelievable.

This was signed off by this man. Very illustrious:

https://www.salford.ac.uk/our-staff/andrew-rowland

l had to look up to see this is the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

I have now found some words.

⬆️ This is the part I just can't get my head around.
Obviously I know that there is widespread capture but seeing their response in black and white is another level. Their gaslighting around safeguarding is also scary to see.

I really hope that the Tories can find a backbone and make this their hill to die on. We're talking about an international scandal: medical experimentation on vulnerable children and young people, which starts with an enablement pathway in schools. Given they seem to be losing anyway, they may as well go for it. Yes, it may cause a split in the party but surely it's worth a shot? Obviously I'm no politician (or political advisor) and I do understand that it's not that simple but unless some real direction is taken here, we're in danger of seeing responses like this one being given undue weighting because of who they are. Same problem with the EHRC response.

@ArabellaScott is there an X thread on this from the RCPCH?

It would be good to see if Sex Matters has been looped in. They are doing a great job of documentating and playing back the bias on this e.g. their response to the EHRC submission (plus, albeit indirectly linked, their assessment of the BBC's bias in coverage following Tim Davie's "nice" comment in parliament).

It's interesting that they say that the guidance does not support children 'to be themselves'.

This, I think, is the crux of the issue for many who view the proposed guidance as transphobic.

I think they picture a situation whereby a child's is forced to conform to policies and practices based on gendered norms that will cause them distress.

I would like to see a situation where there are zero gendered expectations or requirements in school and for gender to play no part in any decision making or treatment.

In cases where pronouns cause distress, everyone can be asked to use the pupil's name instead of pronouns. Where single sex activities/sex segregation is needed, supports can be put in place to try and reduce distress and discomfort, as is the case for those with additional and different needs in other areas of development.

He certainly has a lot of experience and influence regarding child safeguarding.

So this is someone who is either:
a) completely blindsided and believing he is doing the right thing, either actively believing that everyone has a gender identity or just assuming that it's true because he's never thought about it too deeply
b) strategically well-placed by design to enact policies which perpetuate the capture of institutions

Obviously I'm not speculating, just laying out the only two viable possibilities when someone has this much influence.

(FWIW I think Tim Davie is a type a from everything I've seen and heard. These people do exist, as well as the nefarious ones)

Sorry, I can't remember where I found the link - on a trans activist's page/site, could have been X ...

I can send to SM later if that's helpful.

He's the RCPCH's child protection officer.

Yep.

Have the RCPCH just decided to ignore the effects of child development? The ‘being themselves’ is so ridiculous considering we are talking about children who are still developing. This idea of ‘the trans child’ whose body is wrong is SO problematic.

It’s weird to say the least. Dr Bell was highlighting the fact that many of those attending GIDs had been involved in some sort of family violence. I can only infer the trans identity, for at least some of these children, has been a way of protecting themselves from this. This person has been involved in protecting children from abuse for most of his career but seems blind to any link.

This is breathtakingly ignorant. It begs the question as to the nature of the "training" and the advice that the doctor has both received and hands out to colleagues.

Agreed

i think the problem is so many organisations like the RCPCH will have had stonewall training telling them that there are trans children. As stonewall were/are regarded as the experts they’ve no reason to disagree with them or think too much about it. They’ve just accepted without question which is after all what stonewall wanted

Strongly agree.

RCPCH also seem completely blind to the coercive control of the other children or THEIR safeguarding if a child's use of wrong sex pronouns is implicitly or explicitly compelled.

It just beggars belief.

It really goes to show if someone at the top has an ideological non evidence-based position they can push it through. I hope some of the members who want evidence-based medicine for children push back.

In what topsy-turvy world does a gay rights pressure group know more about child development than the professional organisation of paediatricians?

It’s grotesque that these organisations twist the concept of consent in this way. These children are too young to be exposed to this, and too young to have boundaries removed.

I hate this idiocy.

It's the Dentons report playing out. Infiltrate organisations, upend the social contract, facts and reality, target certain groups (women removed from healthcare / maternity policies and all things women related), transpose adult issues onto children with no attention to safeguarding or children's emotional health and wellbeing and then enforce it via a tribe of Useful Idiots (often very well paid and qualified UIs). They create a climate of fear and intimidation, use UI media (the BBC etc) to target the young. Then smear anyone centring safeguarding, children's welfare, women's rights or even reality as right wing bigots and job done.

A generation of children on a pathway to sterilisation, impaired sexual function and being medical patients for life.