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

Yup.

Enabled by a bunch of politicians who apparently could not find their own bums with both hands.

Yep.

The only question is whether any particular senior individual who is involved is a pawn or a big player.

Exactly. I don’t think RCPCH can hide behind being ‘stonewalled’ in any way. This organisation should be absolutely aware that children do not have fixed identities or ‘authentic selves’ because they are developing fairly rapidly. They should be engaging critically with any activism or advice and should be asking for high quality evidence for claims.

Has the concept of "Gillick competence " been superceded? There was recognition that children had to have a level of understanding, before they could consent to medical treatment.

Gillick competence remains but it seems to have a very low bar.
Some of the stories in Hannah Barnes' book Time to Think suggest that the children involved had no real understanding of what they were saying yes to. Also the co-morbiditities were effectively seen as irrelevant.

I'm very glad that my daughter told the CAMHS therapist that she wanted to remove her lower right leg. However, in a year's time, in theory, my daughter could say she realised how ridiculous that was and this in itself could be considered proof that she had reached an age of Gillick competence, even when she remains incredibly vulnerable owing to her low cognitive processing skills (which are masked by her wide, intelligent-sounding vocabulary). There will be many autistic children who have a vulnerability similar to this.

@ArabellaScott I hope you don't mind but I put this on the end of a Sex Matters thread.

https://twitter.com/BonfireLady/status/1771885511654679021?t=7B1mnXL6lDNS2VFn0khA7A&s=19

The more we can get this out there, the better.

Of course not, thank you for sharing.

The response references Gillick competence.

Their understanding of gillick competence appears to differ from that previously used! They also appear to think that it's optional and only applicable if the child is consideredto be competent, legal rulings must have become optional in childhood medicine. The main reason the Mental Capacity Act didn't cover children was because they were covered by the children act. They are advocating for children to have no advocate but the medical professional.

Interesting....

I'm not familiar with the Children's Act but an obvious question springs to mind for anyone who may know it well: is there anything in there anything in there that would suggest children shouldn't be considered capable of consenting to a treatment pathway such as this (either social transition, medical transition or both)?

I don't know if it's the same in the rest of the UK, but in Scotland it's clearly recognised that a child's family is their first and most important influence, which seems to be decisively undermined by Rowland's suggestion that family involvement is only recognised as a benefit in 'some matters'.

Dr Rowland only got made Officer for Child Protection at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Childs Health three weeks ago.

https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/professor-andrew-rowland-appointed-rcpch-officer-child-protection

... and then signed this off pretty much immediately?!

Presumably so.

'In March 2024, we responded to the Department for Education's draft guidance for schools and colleges in England on responding when a gender questioning or transgender child wishes to socially transition in school. The guidance makes suggestions for parental involvement and use of gendered spaces such as toilets and changing rooms, as well as use of language such as pronouns.'

To be fair, it may have been someone else who wrote it and Rowland signed it off.

I genuinely despair...