Teacher sacked for copying trans child's safeguarding info

[Nameychangington]

Now clearly this teacher was wrong to copy a child's safeguarding info.

But this from the judge is pretty concerning:

Judge McTigue also ruled that transitioning children should have anonymity over their true biological sex "for life" to respect their privacy and ensure their future safety.

Are we ever going to get past the idea that hiding transpeople's sex a) is possible or b) has no impact on others? How is this school going to meet the needs of other children if they do that? And again with the 'transpeople are unsafe' rhetoric. It's like 2021 all over again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gre53drqvo

In a statement after the ruling, A said she would appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Judgement is here.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/a-v-nottinghamshire-county-council-2600413-slash-2023

As far as I can tell, the bit about anonymity for life is only in relation to reporting restrictions on this specific case?

'260. We also conclude that the restricted reporting order should remain in place
indefinitely. In short, the right for X to live a life in their chosen gender identity for the rest of their life prevails over the Claimant’s Article 6 and 10 rights. If we were to place a restriction on the duration of the restricted reporting order, there is a risk that the biological sex of Child X could become known in the future. This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children. Child X has a right to privacy regarding their biological sex for the remainder of their life. Through the process of jigsaw identification, there is a substantial risk that Child X’s identity and biological sex would become known if the Claimant’s name were made public. We therefore conclude that the indefinite time duration is justified given the substantial interference with Child X’s Article 8 rights in this matter.'

It's not an EAT so isn't binding/doesn't apply to other ETs.

But perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than me could confirm.

That sounds insane.

there is a risk that the biological sex of Child X could become known in the future. This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children.

Surely their future partners have a right to know their sex. People have gone to prison for the crime of sex by deception when they have not disclosed their actual sex to sexual partners.

Surely their own children have a right to know the actual sex of their parents, and employers usually need to know the sex of their employees.

This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children.

This is gibberish. I think I know what the person who wrote it meant to say, but the grammar makes no sense.

"This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children."

I'm very uneasy with the idea that a trans person has a "right" to not talk about their trans status to their partners and children. At this point, it's not a right anymore, it's a closet.

I understand children and parents needs to know, but why does an employer need to know?

Her behaviour was disgraceful and her sacking justified. If you think otherwise you should not be anywhere near vulnerable people professionally.

I would assume so they can provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for their employees, as the law requires.

This IS utterly insanity. Wouldn’t this sort of ruling allow sex by deception/rape/ goodness know what sort of other deceptive actions? There have already been several successful cases of sex by deception cases involving trans identifying people.

She absolutely should have been sacked. Her actions with the safeguarding data were completely unacceptable.

This is the DofE guidance on gender questioning children

https://consult.education.gov.uk/equalities-political-impartiality-anti-bullying-team/gender-questioning-children-proposed-guidance/supporting_documents/Gender%20Questioning%20Children%20%20nonstatutory%20guidance.pdf

I don't think anyone disagrees.

Pensions. Facilities. Maternity rights. Etc.

This is just reporting restriction to stop the child’s identity being revealed in the press and that inadvertently leading to other people in their life finding out about their trans status.

Whatever your views on whether trans people are morally compelled to tell romantic partners about their trans status (and I think they are), it’s only fair that they should be able to impart that information themselves and not through the medium of a newspaper report.

As far as i can tell, this is only in the context of this specific tribunal. The judge will not allow the child to be named in case this means that later in life this reveals the child's biological sex.

It only means the judgement and media reporting this case cannot name the child.

Personally I'd have said the child shouldn't be named at all, for privacy and safeguarding. I don't see what 'outing' them has to do with anything.

Thank you, yes, thats what I thought. I expect the BBC reporter would also understand that. Which means they've misrepresented the judgement.

This could result in Child X’s biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children.

According to the judgement, the child had already told classmates their actual sex. So that ship had sailed.

How is a transperson's sex going to be kept secret from their own children? And surely keeping it a secret from their partner would be sex by deception (and also result in not having any children?)

And can we just stop and recognise that the child under discussion was a year 4 - that's 8-9 years old. Transing a year 4 child should be a safeguarding red flag. Let alone the fact that the child has disclosed physical abuse by a parent and emotional turmoil. The teacher was 100% wrong to copy confidential safeguarding information but what the hell was going on in this family and this school because it sounds like a young child being completely failed by the adults around it.

Ah, okay, thank you. Not being able to name the child for classic privacy and safeguarding reasons makes sense.

But a child in a court case wouldn't be named in reporting anyway, would they? Or would they? I thought under 18s automatically had anonymity?

I don't know. Sometimes judges do seem to whang on endlessly and unnecessarily just to indulge their own pointless navel gazing in excrucuatingly tedious detail.

Yes.
The reporting restriction is on the claimant's name. If the claimant's name was published, the school could be identified, and the child could be identified in that way (jigsaw identification).

"We conclude that if the claimant’s name were to be allowed to be publicised, there is a real and significant risk that the identity of Child X could be revealed through jigsaw identification. That is particularly so given the media attention this case has already attracted notwithstanding that the claimant’s identity cannot be revealed. In summary we conclude that child X’s rights under Article 8 prevails over the Claimant’s rights under Article 10."

Oh I see, as in child from Ms X's class who got moved to the other class and is oddly short for a boy would be identifiable. Thanks that makes sense. The whole 'lifelong anonymity to everyone in their life' thing confused me.