“Outing” and “Transphobia”: Informing a parent that her child was being “socially transitioned” by a school/college

[Steve3742]

So, I’m having a problem with my employer.

I am—or was—a Learning Support Assistant at Nottingham College, and have worked for them nearly continuously since 2006.

Last September, I was informed that a vulnerable 16-year-old autistic girl was to be socially transitioned within the college, adopting a male name and “he/him” pronouns. I was also informed that her mother had not been consulted and that this information was to be deliberately kept from her. After unsuccessfully raising my concerns with Safeguarding that withholding important information about her daughter’s health and well-being was a risk for the child, I decided to inform the mother about what was happening. As a result, I was fired.

The college’s decision to hide the social transition of a vulnerable 16-year-old girl from her mother was unlawful and violates both the Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSiE) statutory guidance and the Department for Education’s Guidance on Gender-Questioning Children. Both frameworks are informed by the evidence presented in the Cass Review, which emphasises that social transition is not a neutral act and can be harmful to a child’s welfare, particularly for vulnerable individuals.

Paragraph 208 in KCSiE states that supporting a gender questioning child “should be in partnership with the child’s parents” and clinical advice should be sought.

By engaging in this deception, the college directly breached safeguarding principles. Any collaboration between adult staff and a vulnerable child to withhold information from their parents is a clear violation of fundamental safeguarding standards. My referral to safeguarding referenced all these points but wasn’t acted upon. I raised these concerns multiple times during the disciplinary process, yet they were repeatedly dismissed.

I’m taking the college to a Tribunal for false dismissal (and am gardening to help with that, check the CJ site). But one of the objections raised against me is that I “outed” the child, with all the connotations that go with that, the abuse that gay children often face from unaccepting parents.

I don’t think the two situations are comparable. For a start, the parent already knew her child was gender-questioning, so she wasn’t “outed” in that sense. She was informed, by me, about what the college was doing, not any new information about her daughter. She was told that the college was facilitating the “social transition” of her daughter and, particularly egregiously, that the college was trying to keep this information about their activities hidden from her.

All the relevant guidance, some of which is statutory, states that she had a right to know this. That she had a right to be consulted about it. Indeed, that the college had a duty to consult with her about this. One that it not only failed in but actively tried to subvert by conspiring with a vulnerable 16 year old child to keep their activities secret from her. Conspiracies between adults and children to keep secrets from parents are a huge safeguarding red flag.

Not only this, but it can be argued that a child’s sexuality is the child’s business and, even if the college were to find out about it, they have no reason to disclose it to anyone. Even Section 28 didn’t put a duty on a school or college to inform a child’s parents that they were gay, were they to find out that they were. But the guidance quoted above does include a duty to consult with a child’s parents about their “social transition”, for good reason. “Social transition” involves the school or college making significant changes to the way it operates. Names must be changed, wrong-sex pronouns must be used by staff and students, decisions need to be taken about what punishments, if any, should be meted out to dissenters, and so on. Certainly, this is not a secret – all the child’s fellow students and all the staff in the class will know about it. It cannot be claimed, therefore, that this should be kept from the child’s parents in the name of privacy or confidentiality – such things do not exist for social transition, the nature of it requires widespread dissemination. It is instead, as I’ve already said, a conspiracy – a group of people working together to do something, and to keep their activity hidden from other people.

Nothing comparable could be said about gay children, even in the days of Section 28. This is not the same thing.

What do you all think?

... or that they have a gender neutral name and care if people call them Mr/Mrs.

In the old days we put our title. As in "Anne Thrope (Ms.)"

Well yes, let's face it the pronoun phenomenon is only linked to GI.

And the opposite argument that women have made is that you can be treated very differently if someone knows your sex.

Hence some academics or drs use Dr/Prof S Smith in some communication and deliberately do not indicate their sex.

If one cared about being called Mr/Mrs/Dr/Prof then that is what they would be putting in their signature.

This appeared in my newsfeed today:

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/christian-teacher-sacked-over-refusal-9998051

The lines that jumped out at me were (my bold):

After telling the head teacher she did have a choice and could not “in good conscience go along with it”, Child X was moved to a different class and A was suspended later that month while a disciplinary investigation was carried out for failing to comply with a “reasonable request”.

“Following the suspension I felt I was cut off from my colleagues. I feel as though I have been treated as a criminal for raising genuine safeguarding concerns. I miss the children and it is sad to think that they do not even know why I left. I was treated as if I was a danger to them.”

Acting on behalf of the county council, barrister Ed Beever said A had also “gone behind the back” of the school’s designated safeguarding lead (DSL) to do so. The tribunal was told A had accessed the system several times to view information about Child X, which she said was “professional curiosity” because she had heard the child’s behaviour was poor.

Neither Steve or this teacher can be forced to act (i.e.take part in the act of socially transitioning a child, where either a parent or a school tells them to do so) as if they believe that everyone has a gender identity - that's not a reasonable request, even without safeguarding concerns. With them it's far from reasonable. It doesn't seem to be a request either, more a diktat.

The Forstater appeal gave everyone the legal protection not to believe in gender identity. Further, Teaching Standards mean that teachers need to not promote their personal belief where a vulnerable child could be at risk of harm and the Nolan Principles mean that teachers need to be objective. If Steve and this teacher were told to socially transition a child a) despite not holding a belief that everyone has a gender identity and b) despite the safeguarding risks outlined in KCSIE, I can't see how that's lawful at all. Point b is what Robin is saying above I think?

DSLs seem to hold a lot of power - or perhaps some think and act as if they do? Who holds them accountable, and how long should a teacher wait while that escalation process completes if a child is at risk of harm?

This bit caught my eye too:

She said she accepted that gender dysphoria is “a real problem for some people” but that “we should have the humility to put God-given reality first and our own feelings second”. She is said to have raised her concerns with the school’s head teacher who told her she had no choice but to use Child X’s preferred pronouns because it was the parent’s request and that she had to “go along with it”.

Reality is reality. There are two sexes - fact. This teacher is perfectly OK to believe that god is responsible for there being 2 sexes and the law supports her holding that belief. However, she's not acting on her Christian belief here (except in a as-a-christian-i-need-to-follow-my-conscience way), she's acting on safeguarding concerns, as per KCSIE. It's a shame that the article doesn't mention the KCSIE guidance but presumably this happened before the latest version, which is the one that makes the risks associated with gender identity belief much clearer. However, that guidance exists now and helps explain the risks that the teacher is concerned about, so it's a shame the article doesn't reference it. Also Teaching Standards and the Nolan Principles were in place at that time. And it was post-Forstater.

DSLs seem to hold a lot of power - or perhaps some think and act as if they do? Who holds them accountable, and how long should a teacher wait while that escalation process completes if a child is at risk of harm?

Good point.

Every school / college should know exactly who they can raise a complaint with about the DSL. It's their failure if that is not clear. I know which govorners to go to if I have a concern about my slt.

In addition to this, KCSiE also says they that whistle blowing guidance is relevant if they do not feel that they can raise it with anyone else. Which is often the case in this situation as it can become clear who is ideologically motivated and won't see it as an issue. As in these cases.

Hi everyone. Just an update to say that I've done a video interview about my case on YouTube. It's available at If you could spread it around on social media, that would help. Thanks

In was peripherally aware of this case. I hope she wins it, both because she's right and also because it would help my case. Whilst my case is about whistleblowing rather than social transition per se it is connected, and if it's established that the school cannot compel social transition even with parental consent, how much more is this true when they don't even have parental consent, as was true in my case? So, I'm hoping she wins.

She may be on a sticky wicket, having accessed information about the child, if she cannot prove an urgent need to have done so.

A great interview, you spoke really well Steven and made excellent points.

This is great. Well said.

Apologies for sounding massively patronising but I think you come across as calm, reasonable and articulate here. I can only imagine the raging anger you're (rightly) feeling at both the way you've been treated and how awful it is that at the heart of this is a child (and a parent) who is being failed by the school.
It must take a lot of strength not to just shout it out.

It's good that you're not relying on the "philosophical belief" protection of being "gender critical". That's helpful in rights conflict situations but not here because it effectively puts the immutability of sex and the belief that everyone has a gender identity on a level playing field - so neither is "true", both are just a belief and are protected as such.

In addition to the safeguarding issues, the protection in lack of belief that we all have a gender identity is far more use IMO, as per my previous comment.

if it's established that the school cannot compel social transition even with parental consent, how much more is this true when they don't even have parental consent, as was true in my case? So, I'm hoping she wins.

Exactly.

From my understanding it's two things, possibly a third:

1. forcing staff (and students) to act as if they hold a belief that everyone has a gender identity.

This goes against the Nolan Principles and Teaching Standards. Also against the legal protection not to believe in it. Why should anyone be forced to act as if a child is a different sex, just because that child (currently) believes that they have a gender identity that differs from their sex?

The other teacher also has her own belief - that god created two sexes - which makes it additionally unfair on her in that respect. I don't hold her belief but I support her being able to believe it, rather than being forced to replace it by adopting the tenets of a different belief.

2. safeguarding. Who is looking after the well-being of the child if schools are disregarding some or all of paras 205-209 and how it describes social transition as being potentially harmful? In the Christian teacher's situation, who is looking at what is influencing both the child and the parent to believe that the child is in the wrong body?

And the potential third point is that it's unclear in safeguarding guidance overall (Working Together to Safeguard Children) where the line lies between a reasonable belief and a radicalised belief on this subject. Given Cass tells us unequivocally that social transition is not a neutral act, that it changes the lens through which all support is given, why aren't the authorities looking at this through a Prevent lens? If parents hold the belief too, are they being "pulled in" by something? Many affirming parents are fearful that their child will commit suicide if they don't transition because they've been told this, sometimes by professionals in the medical industry. And if a parent doesn't affirm, schools and colleges which don't understand the risks laid out in KCSIE could be accidentally (or not, depending on the individuals involved) separating children from their parents by accommodating an idea that a non-affirming parent is harmful to a child.

And the potential third point is that it's unclear in safeguarding guidance overall (Working Together to Safeguard Children) where the line lies between a reasonable belief and a radicalised belief on this subject.

Linked to this - and apologies for the derail - because it's only the school's guidance that recognises a) that being LGB and "T" (gender questioning) have totally different risk profiles, as per KCSIE and b) that not everyone believes we all have a gender identity, as per the draft Gender Questioning Children guidance, there's a gaping hole in safeguarding from a top down level. I appreciate each authority has its own thresholds for safeguarding but it would be much more clear cut if the 4 KCSIE paragraphs were reflected in the Working Together guidance. For example, it would help with explaining why it's not "conversion therapy" or "pathologising" to a) recognise the differences between being LGB and gender questioning and b) provide talking therapy to support a differential diagnosis if someone is gender questioning.

Edited to add: It would also help to explain why it's important that parents are included in the discussions and not kept out for "confidentiality". Conflating being gender questioning with being LGB is doing a huge disservice to children, and their parents, with consequences that can directly impact children's physical and mental health if they enter an affirming pathway towards medicalisation.

There is an update on the crowdfunding page - 14 days to go and nearly £1400 needed to reach the initial target. A reminder that Exposing Nottm College's secret transition of a child to her mother is how you find a garden. About time to plant some tomatoes?

Thanks any, definitely the season to

An update: I have my grounds of claim now from my lawyer. He's sent me a version with names redacted and says it'd be OK to post that. I will do so, if I can work out how to upload a pdf to either the CJ site or here. But it was sent in yesterday. So, I'm committed to taking my employer to court.

That’s great news Stephen. Will nudge people to share

Great news indeed and thank you for standing up on this. I can't imagine it's been easy to this point, let alone how difficult it might get.

Yes, you'll get people trying to position it that you were the safeguarding risk here (as we've seen on this thread) but it's becoming increasingly obvious to the public that schools, hospitals and laws shouldn't be putting children onto the conveyor belt of the affirmation model - which starts with social transition - therefore it will become increasingly obvious where the real safeguarding risk sits in situations where schools are forcing staff and students to keep secrets from a child's parents.

Lovely vipers - there are 4359 plants in the garden so just a few more needed for the initial target.

Gosh. Another horrible situation. I am sorry to hear you are going through this Steve. I have skimmed the other 13 pages and tried to follow the policy discussions but I am not familiar with the policies and I probably won't study them TBH. But I thought I would chuck in my tuppence worth because I can't see anyone else has mentioned this angle upthread.

1. This case relates to an autistic young person who is 16. We don't know if they have an EHCP. But it might be worth Steve considering how assiduously the college followed their learning/support plan. In my experience schools and colleges don't follow the legally binding plans and procedures. It could be difficult for the college to explain why they are sticklers for protocol in one area (Steve's breach) if they don't bother to follow it themselves elsewhere - esp if it is a legally binding EHCP for which they have taken the funds from the LA.

2. I am really concerned by this default notion that the college is "safer" than the parents. DS (16) is autistic and it has been a slog since he was 2 to get any school or college to take his needs seriously or to put any help in place. If I had left things to the school system he would have no diagnoses or plan and would have been excluded/chucked on the scrap heap. There have been times he has said he would rather die than go to school. The system is appalling for those who don't have parents who can advocate for their kids. The idea that schools or colleges are trying to claim that they are safer place than home for autistic young people is a bad joke. Again, was the provision in the college meeting the YP's needs and as specified. If not and the college appear to be favouring support of a social transition this would be a failure on the college's part - and make it difficult to nitpick on the procedures relevant to Steve's dismissal.

3. Autistic young people are extra vulnerable because although this person was 16, they will probably be (at least) 2-3 years younger socially/emotionally than their age. We don't know anything about their level of functioning or their understanding of what they were discussing with the college regarding a social transition. It's one thing for the college to claim that they were discussing this with a 16 year old but would they think it appropriate with a young person functioning at 13-14 equivalent or even younger? The college might argue their case on the basis of age in years - but Steve might be able to query whether this was appropriate at all?

4. We have repeatedly been presented with TAs who have taken a temporary job to fill in while they do something else. Sometimes this is a year out and they are quite positive about where they will be going next. Other times tey need the job because something isn't going well for them and they tend to be miserable b*stards who kick down on the young people. No training or experience, they are let loose on the kids and it has caused us a lot of problems over the years. Unecessary stress and meltdowns because these folks don't know anything about young people or autism. Steve - with 20 years of experience you would be like manna from heaven for us. I am gutted that someone like you has been pushed out because your experience told you that what was happening was wrong. Do you have any facts and figures about the length of service, training record, experience of the other TAs in the college? Yes they may have all gone along with this plan, but if you are one of the most senior TAs then you have a unique voice and experience which many others will lack. I'm sure there have been all sorts of fashions and fads that you have seen in 20 years of service and you will know a red flag when you see it (even if if is dressed up as green).

I wish you well for the Tribunal. Thank you for sticking up for this family. Most people we encounter are happy to go through the motions so it is heartening that there are people who will follow their conscience

PS On a practical note if the YP has an EHCP how were they planning on dealing with the Plan and the Annual Review? Were they intending to lie to the LA and the parents in this legally important meeting? What does your LA say about how this should be dealt with?

PPS As this YP is 16 and should be on the Transitioning to Adulthood pathway - did the college initiate a Social Care assessment? If they weren’t planning on telling the parent I assume they initiated alternative support? I bet they didnt

This is making my blood boil. Nothing for the autism after years of begging and pleading, but whoosh the magic trans wand is waved and during a 5 minute convo a social transition is magically arranged. As I say - bad joke

4,439 plants now - going well.

Creeping up, only 500 carrots needed

Regarding my point 2 above - Steve if you have to call witnesses you could maybe look to the people who run SEN Jungle. I doubt anyone there will be singing the praises and safety of schools and colleges there!