“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?

If there is a good reason why staff need to hide a child's secret double life from their parents (I can't believe I've just typed that sentence 🤦‍♀️) then every member of staff who is expected to be a part of this approach will need some basic information about why they are expected to do it, if it's being justified under safeguarding. Let alone how they are expected to do it.

Please can you point to the part of the KCSIE guidance that covers this bit?

If he didn't trust his employers safeguarding lead to accurately assess this he should have escalated to other safeguarding teams.

Or are you referring to the college's whistleblowing policy?

Edited to add: just remembered you'd already mentioned a clear route to follow being in the KCSIE guidance, so please disregard the whistleblowing question. Can you point to this clear route in the KCSIE guidance please?

Re my last comment... This post ⬆️

No they won't, they may like to know the details but I think you're being a bit silly if you think a group of adults can't follow protocols unless someone tells them all individually why in a way they'd be pleased with. Let's be real - OP was never going to be satisfied.

Yes it's in the bit about raising concerns about staff which is whatOP is relying on for his case - that staff were putting the child as risk by not following safeguarding.im not going to pinpoint It for you as clearly you haven't read It so why not go read the whole policy? It very clearly says to escalate to the local authority safeguarding. Can OP point to a single bit of KCSIE that justifies his actions in any circumstance? Or indeed any safeguarding policy that would advise random staff members get involved with children's parent s because they don't fancy the faff of following policy?

Don't fancy the faff of following policy, and let's face it nothing will satisfy the OP?

What do you think his concern is, exactly?

Have you got another reason why OP didn't follow the policy he is quoting to criticise the college other than he couldn't be bothered or had already decided the mum had to know and he had to be the one to tell her?

What's all this you and my ilk? Who have I transitioned? Genuinely, are you okay? I'm sorry that I think this guy's a grifter for wanting people to donate money to him because he was fired for not following the policies he is quoting in his defense, I don't get how or why that makes me a social transitioner or handmaiden of low intelligence - you sound unhinged 😂

Edited to add seeing the time you've posted I'm just gonna assume you use MN too much when you're drunk.

Why do you think that though? Why do you think he wanted to tell her?

Because surely if he's quoting the guidance he's read it and deliberately ignored what it told him to do and told her himself so I can only assume he wanted to, why else?

yes, why did he want to tell her?

He did not "out" the child.

He outed the college to the mother.

Thats why they fired him.

The child was already known to be gender questioning by his mum. He told the mother that the college had decided to take it a step further and initiate medical pathways, social transition being the first step.

To get a "grc" and medical interventions you must live as the opposite sex for two years. At 18 the child could start cross sex hormones. They'd started that path.

Kcsie, the statutory bit, para 206 states that caution is necessary as there remain many unknowns with social transition

Considering he claims to care for the KCSIE guidance I don't know because it doesn't tell him to do so, so I can only assume he wanted to act in a way that broke the guidance (which is why he sounds a bit daft quoting it in his defense). Perhaps ask OP if you want to know his why / motivation, I couldn't tell you.

They weren't being cautious.

He had to tell her what they were doing.

The whole structure of the college would agreed to do this. Top to bottom. Safeguarding- who should and must know the risks were useless.

So he outed the college to the mother.

No he had to escalate his concerns as per policy, that's why he's been fired.

Considering he claims to care for the KCSIE guidance I don't know because it doesn't tell him to do so

KCSiE guidance doesn't tell the college to socially transition gender questioning children.

It says the total opposite. With reasons.

Yet they did.

I wonder why he decided to tell the mother? 🤔

No he had to escalate his concerns as per policy, that's why he's been fired.

Do you have the policy?

Mate you and OP really need to read a policy in full, not just skim the bits you decide are relevant. Yes KCSIE says that social transition should be in collaboration with the parents but you'll find the policy also explains the difference between should and just guidance and has a whole lot of information about how to raise concerns of you think your workplace or someone in it is putting a child at risk. OP would have been completely justified (and I would have commended him) for continuing to raise concerns about the college through the proper channels. It's never appropriate to act how he did and if you want to defend it just don't try and use the policy you're ignoring to justify it.

To paraphrase Vicks Sinex, course you can't, Malcolm.

Of all the reasons to come up with, do you honestly think the most plausible is in order to break guidance?

It's freely available online - go and read it. Surely you already have before you're arguing in Ops defense?

Why don't you ask him if you want to know why so badly? It doesn't really matter to me or a tribunal why he decided to completely ignore policy and then use said policy in his defense. Maybe he's just a bit daft and doesn't make very good decisions.

It's freely available online - go and read it. Surely you already have before you're arguing in Ops defense?

You sound very sure of the existence of a policy by Nottingham college which is why I'm asking

Lol.

He's daft, breaks guidance just for the sake of it, is lazy and a bad decision maker.

Doesn't take long, does it.

im not going to pinpoint It for you as clearly you haven't read It so why not go read the whole policy?

Erm.

So you're referring to para 51 and the flow diagram on page 24.
None of this says what to do if the DSL is giving duff advice.

Para 70 holds the governors responsible for the policies being fit for purpose.

So we're back on whistleblowing as the only other route if neither the DSL or governors have done their jobs. Nobody is under any obligation to whistleblow. By contrast, every member of staff is under an obligation to put the child's safeguarding needs at the centre of all their actions under Working Together to Safeguard Children, where para 11 says that "children's welfare is paramount".

Feel free to rudely correct me if I've missed something in the KCSIE.

Edited to correct reference in WTTSC. Para 11, not section 11.

I'm not referring to the schools own policy I'm referring to KCSIE seen as that's what OP is quoting. However since he wants money to fight his employer it would be helpful if he also told us what his employers safeguarding policy says so we can know if he disregarded that too.

Ah right as paragraph 74 covers that. If a staff member feels unable to raise an issue with their employer, or concerns are not bing addresses, other channels are open to them (whistleblowing).

*being