“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?

So pleased to see a scold back. Missed you! Surely the tribunal will decide if this was whistleblowing, and who best followed Safeguarding and guidance? I think Steve took a principled decision, and will therefore be willing to contribute to his costs. I am absolutely appalled that a college with a duty of care to a vulnerable disabled child could believe that facilitating a false belief that people can change sex, and keeping a massive secret from parents was in this child’s Best Interests . Had a risk assessment been carried out? Would this girl be sharing toilets/ changing rooms with boys? Residentials? It seems incredible to me that this should happen. But we know that this is where wholesale acceptance of the trans narrative has got us. This man has been sacked, Sandie Peggie was suspended for being unwilling to undress in front of a special sort of man. I am glad that the courts will decide what is reasonable in these situations. Thank you for your courage, Steve.

The college failed to query the reasons behind the child's desire to transition.

They' failed to raise that safeguarding concern. With parents and professionals.

They're not qualified to make those decisions because it's now been well established that there is a high number of gender confusion amongst children who've suffered trauma, sexual abuse and have been groomed online.

I completely fail to understand why the college decided to keep it a secret. And I fail to understand how anyone who describes themselves as "GC as they come" doesn't understand this.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the college had the authority to undermine the parent's parental responsibility.

Apart from the rest of the illustrated risks here, the college was denying the child the opportunity to access professional clinical advice.

How were parents evenings going to work?
What about if there was an emergency? School phone you and leave a message on your mobile to say John has been taken to hospital when you have a Shelia?
Is every member of staff supposed to know mum doesn’t know and hide one name from her and know the other?
Madness.

How many hoops should a person who has concerns jump through and how many miles of red tape should they wrap themselves up in, when a child needs protecting.

It's bonkers and completely unworkable

What about if the child procured cross sex hormones, irreversibly damaged their body and then sued the college later for encouraging the social transition? The college clearly hadn't read any of the documents kcsie cites.

This is why records and records relating to safeguarding are kept for 100 years; for the purposes of historical accusations of abuse.

Hopefully the college made very clear details about the reasoning and risks for keeping this disclosure a secret even if they didn't decide to share these with the OP or the police and SS.

KCSIE does not say what OP has claimed it says though. That section is also non-statutory, as is the guidance on gender non-conforming children.

I’m not surprised they fired you. You were completely out of order. For starters, the guidance is non-statutory and whilst it strongly encourages informing the parents, it also does state that if a child is capable of making informed decisions then it could constitute a breach of trust to inform the parents. Secondly, it states that in very rare circumstances it could be against the child’s best interests to inform the parents- you are not privy to all the information the safeguarding team has - that is their decision to make, not yours. Finally, you have been extremely unprofessional to inform the parent directly. If you believe the college has been negligent, has not acted quickly enough or has not acted appropriately then there are official channels within the college to raise this; you can’t just run your mouth off to whomsoever you choose!

But without knowing everything a member of support staff may have no idea of what young person is being protected from or how.

KCSIE does not say what OP has claimed it says though. That section is also non-statutory, as is the guidance on gender non-conforming children.

It's should which means it's recommended as best practice.

They'd have to have very good reasons not to follow it.

Yes, if they think the child is suffering from gender dysphoria, then they would surely want the child to be able to access appropriate medical treatment. This should only be done with the consent of the parents, so not informing the parents is denying the child access to the treatment that they believe she needs. This is a very odd way to behave. Were they planning to do the referral themselves without the consent of the parents?

I wonder if this happens when they become aware of children showing symptoms of other medical conditions. Does the school also withhold information about other medical conditions from parents, or only gender dysphoria?

But without knowing everything a member of support staff may have no idea of what young person is being protected from or how.

If it's that bad, police should have been involved.
And if it was that bad, they could have shared on a need to know basis. Which would have to be recorded.

They broke the rules by not following the policies they agreed to as part of their employment contract especially in not following safeguarding policy meaning they are a safeguarding risk.

He felt he had to, because the points he raised were ignored and batted away. The school has no legal basis, under the guidelines on gender questioning children, to have transitioned her in secret.

They chose to flout the rules, numerous heads have boasted that they would ignore guidelines and rules on this.

They could have escalated their concerns in line with kcsie and they didn't.

He did and they fobbed him off and continued to breach the non statutory guidelines.

He felt that he had no other choice, but to inform her mother, who was already aware that her daughter was "gender questioning." The college has packed him for exposing their wilful flouting of the guidelines.

it also does state that if a child is capable of making informed decisions then it could constitute a breach of trust to inform the parents.

Which paragraph is that in KCSIE?

It's a typical TRA myth that parents all want to disown their gender non confirming children.

If anything, homophobic parents who suspect their child is gay will push their child through a gender change pathway in order to keep them "straight". We've seen this over and over again.

Parents who question their child's desire to take irreversible life changing medical interventions and possibly surgeries just because they feel gender non conforming are not "abusive" or "rejecting their child". They're protecting their child, as parents are supposed to.

We need to challenge this harmful narrative.

We will all support you in this challenge Steve3742.
What a(nother) nightmare.

Several parents have described on here how their children were socially transitioned at school without their knowledge. In one of these cases the parents had been advised by medical professionals that social transition was not in their child's best interests. The school knew nothing about this because they didn't discuss this with the parents.

you are not privy to all the information the safeguarding team has

And the school is not privy to all the information about the child's needs that the parents have, which is why they should not be doing this without the parents' knowledge. If they are concerned that the parents might be a danger to their children then social services should also be involved.

In this case, the OP has said that the parents knew about the child's trans identity. The only thing that was being kept secret from them was the school socially transitioning the child. Why does the school think that telling the parents that they have socially transitioned the child will put the child in danger when the parents already know about the child's trans identity?

If you believe the college has been negligent, has not acted quickly enough or has not acted appropriately then there are official channels within the college to raise this; you can’t just run your mouth off to whomsoever you choose!

Whoa!

1. He did that.

1. Is the child's mother "whomever" or the individual with parental responsibility? Only a court can take parental responsibility away.

you are not privy to all the information the safeguarding team has

Once again - need to know basis.

If it really was that much of a danger to the child they should have given him a risk assessment, which also detailed which services they were working with.

I've searched both these words in kcsie and it's not in there.

There is this, but it's around sexual assault and describes informing parents, if not a referral to children's services must be made.

If social transition is such a massive safeguarding issue, why wasn't a referral to children's services made instead of the mother? That could have been shared with the op on a need to know basis. Really quite important

If social transition is not such a serious safeguarding issue why was it so terrible to tell the mother?

Anyway, all pretty irrelevant as the college had no clinical jurisdiction to socially transition the child.

This

I think they made that bit up.

Here's the guidance if anyone wants to check.

Keeping children safe in education 2024

I look forward to that question being asked and answered in the case.

As decision not to tell the mother should not have been made lightly.

And if it was that serious, surely risk assessments were drawn up (so that accidental information didn't get to the mother) and shared widely

(ppl can't follow a risk assessment they don't know about)

And then surely SS should have been informed that this child was at great risk from the mother.

But it doesn't answer why someone decided to make a clinical decision and socially transition the child. Especially without referrals to GIDs or a GP.

This isn't a case of just not telling the mum. The staff would all have to have actively lied to her, switching name and pronouns when communicating with her. I guess op didn't want to take part in lying.

I'm sorry this happened to you, op.