Please Respond to the Brighton Council Trans Inclusion Toolkit before Friday 11th October - your children are affected even if you do not live in Brighton, or even the UK

[Zahariel]

Dear friends - please take some time to respond to the Brighton Council toolkit - this toolkit is used as a "cookie cutter" policy across large portions of the UK, and is resolutely dangerous to gender questioning children, as well as the safeguarding of your children, right now.

https://yourvoice.brighton-hove.gov.uk/projects/trans-toolkit-consultation

There is an excellent set of resources to help you respond (citing legal positions, safeguarding policies etc) on this website PSHE Brighton - https://pshebrighton.org

This really is very, very important, only 196 responses have been received so far and I am sure most of them are from TWAW ideologues who do not have your child's best interests at heart

We must make the new document reflect the law, protect innocent children and help gender questioning children in the best possible way

Do it today?

It's like they think any male who would assault a female (including coercion, I don't mean leap out of a bush and attack a stranger) has a warning clearly marked upon their person, so we will know in advance.

Why do they think we have separate spaces by sex.

Wtaf?

And nore generally, it's the tone of the whole thing. Makes the whole thing way more complicated than it needs to be by implying that teachers need to know about Gillick competence and the like. Schools don't need to know anything about that as it refers to medical consent.

One sentence: schools should not get involved with a pupils medical transistion.

Any bullying or teasing could be dealt with under the existing policies for bullying - it doesn't need a super special category of its own.

(As an aside, I'm reminded of our workplace draft menopause policy. They had tried to shoe horn medical MTF transistion into it. I commented that that should be dealt with under the existing sickness procedure, and it was inappropriate and confusing to conflate two very different medical scenarios suffered by two very distinct and different groups. I was working for the NHS at the time. FFS).

I noticed right at the end something about the rights of those with protected characteristics vs those without protected characteristics. I believe sex is a protected characteristic under the equality act and we all have a sex - so doesn't that mean there is no person on the planet who does not have a protected characteristic? Or have I got that muddled? The Act is about protecting people from discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic, it doesn't suggest that only some people have one. If you were to discriminate against men for being men, male sex would be a protected characteristic and therefore fall under the act. I also noticed that the feelings of girls were not taken into account anywhere, also that schools were pretty much left to decide themselves how to approach everything. It was a very permissive document. I also noticed they didn't directly ask about sport so I put a comment about that in later on.

Mostly I said no to everything and pointed out, more than once, that it's the job of schools to educate the children in reading, writing and arithmetic, to engender a love of learning and cultivate enquiring minds, not subject their pupils to a social engineering experiment. The had a duty to protect the children in their care and not make them lie and certainly not punish them if they refuse to lie.

@Owly11 you're right, we do all have the protected characteristic of sex (although that's not always relevant to the situation at hand).

I didn't see the section you mention (lost the will to live by then) but it sounds as muddled as the rest of the document.

It's supposed to be guidance on trans inclusion, not trans prioritisation.

Some people are female and also identify as trans, therefore the school (and other orgs) need to ensure they aren't being discriminatory on the basis of sex, even if they are at the same time being inclusive re gender reassignment. E.g. ensuring a trans identifying girl has the same sex based protections as all the other girls.

This seems to have completely passed them by.

My favourite bit was the line where they said terms such as Mum or Grandma might not be transphobic.

@AstonScrapingsNameChange thanks, that's what I thought! I couldn't believe they were asking about balancing the needs of those with and those without protected characteristics - because trans rights directly affect girls the most, and girls definitely have a protected characteristic (unlike the rather dubious argument that a child who has blue hair and goes by the pronouns 'they' has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment). They haven't thought at all about how to protect the rights of girls. I laughed out loud at the sheer muddle headedness of it all, and I said as much in my response. This is what happens when you endorse the madness of "You have to see me as I see myself" - it gives a right to one person at the expense of the other person. The guidance is totally about trans prioritisation - it doesn't even consider the rights of anyone else. The sports section was a total farce basically allowing boys to play with girls and leaving it to the individual PE teacher to organise the lesson according to relative size and strength. How on God's earth is that going to work in team sports and contact sports when there's only one boy in a class full of girls?

7 hours left to do this everyone

Hour left!!

send anything you can!!

Exactly. It's pure propaganda. It's of no use to teachers who will be looking to use it for guidance.

The 'advice' theirin is just asking for legal challenge.

I’m glad I got my response in before the deadline, such a poorly worded policy in all respects, even if you were all for trans prioritisation some of the guidance would be detrimental to those ‘trans’ children.

I was a bit surprised by some of the wording as well, the exclusion of the word sexism from all suggested organisational responses, but it’s inclusion within the phrasing of the other responses ales it seem like multiple people were writing the same sections and refusing to read each other’s work.