Parents who questioned affirmative approaches felt threatened by Children’s Services

[WarriorN]

Seen in journalism have published an updated article that was originally published by safe schools alliance, describing how a school reported parents who objected to affirmative language used for their gender questioning autistic children.

this didn’t happen just once, but several times, within the same school

the anonymous mother is still dealing with the school after being referred twice to children’s services, and met other parents of children impacted by the way the school refused to listen and instead continued to affirm their children.

The other family’s daughter attended the school a few years ago and was diagnosed with autism whilst still a pupil there. During this time, their daughter also became gender questioning - described by the parents as being ‘fanatical’ about the issue.

The parents had objected to the school, Children’s Services and CAMHS all using gender affirming language, but were advised by these bodies that they (the parents) had no say in this. The father threatened legal action against the school, but the school informed him that it had taken legal advice and had been told that it must take a gender affirming approach. The father requested to see the advice or to have a meeting with the school’s lawyers - because he knew the law was being applied incorrectly - but neither was forthcoming.

Eventually, worn down by the fight and in an attempt to avoid family breakdown, the parents gave in and ‘let it ride’. They now say they wished they had fought some of this pressure harder, but at the time they also felt that they were being threatened by Children’s Services.

There were other examples of difficult experiences like this, and it was notable that during the parents’ conversations with the school, we all experienced the feeling that the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) hadn’t ever encountered the idea that someone’s same-sex attraction or autism could be an underlying factor behind them becoming gender questioning - despite each of us having had conversations with him about this, independently over the last few years.

clear evidence of the school to clinic pipeline, with all services designed to keep children safe, completely complicit.

the anonymous mother’s cases were closed by children’s services both times.

however the referral itself is significant - both that they don’t understand the issue AT ALL and potentially using it as a tool to discourage the parents.

I firmly believe that the reason the school referred me twice to Children’s Services is because it is managing me as a likely domestic abuser under its safeguarding policy, despite all the support that the school knows I gave to my child while she was gender questioning and continue to give her now as she continues to navigate puberty and autism.

https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/are-we-waking-up-to-the-risks-posed

This reminds me of Orkney and other Childrens Services behaviour based on belief in demon worship.

The thing is it’s rife everywhere- one only has to watch the Wes Streeting questions in Parliament yesterday to see how many MPs truly believe

Ths horrifies me in general, but also in particular as a trans person who is also the mother of an autistic child. I know only too well how easily autistic kids can be influenced.

I was recently divorced when I started my transition. Before I did, obviously, I talked to my ex and my son, who was nine at the time, and living with his father. His only question was, "Do Dad and I have to become girls?" I said no, of course not! But what if I had said, "Well, if you ever want to, it'll be fine with me" ? What if he'd been in a school like the one in the OP, and instead of asking me, he'd mentioned something to a teacher at school? I'm so relieved he felt free to ask his question to me right away, because in retrospective, I can see only too easily how he could have developed the idea that he had to transition too.

TRAs keep saying, "Leave trans kids alone!" Well, back at them: "Leave autistic kids alone!"

Hi there. My daughter was transitioned behind my back by the secondary school. I objected very loudly about it. Cut a long story short, they sided with the affirming parent (my ex) and social services got involved. They decided that my not affirming her was a "red flag" and the result is she went to live with her dad and between the school, social services and CAHMS, I haven't seen my daughter since 3 years Christmas day. The LGBTQ people always encourage children to go no contact with non affirming parents.

It's not something I've been able to get any help or support for and essentially I have had to suffer in silence.

Places like mumsnet for example ALWAYS gang up on the parent who has lost contact with a child and they always blame the parent that there must have been abuse or something else going on.

There's literally a thread about that right now. I considered posting on it, but saw how women were preaching the same rhetoric that there "must be more to it".

The LGBTQ lot absolutely use these lines of thinking to silence parents like this. It's so easy. The only place that believes me is Bayswater.

I've tried getting legal help, but they don't want to know. They always frame the non affirming parent badly. When I was just trying to protect her. Yes she is a lesbian, yes she was also autistic.

Oh my good god @PeriMumEndofHerTetherthat is absolutely horrific, I’m so sorry.

the vast amounts money being spent on this insane PB trial should be used for a national inquiry into how situations like this have occurred.

This is rife in Scotland unfortunately. Mainly due to the 2 illegal trans policies put out by the Scottish government. The 1st one was found to be illegal in a judicial review hence the 2nd which wasn't as obviously illegal, however the 1st illegal policy wasn't replaced for almost 2 years.
As the mother of an asd son I made my feelings clear from enrolment at his school that they were not allowed to teach or discuss gender, gender ideology or use any names or pronouns for my child that were not his legal name or he/him. I put them on notice that if they didn't follow my wishes on this matter I would sue them for parental interference and parental alienation. I reminded them that they are both individually and collectively liable, and that the courts look very unfavourably on those who indoctrinate vulnerable children with a dangerous quasi religious cult against the parents wishes and religious beliefs. Then I pointed out that the policy they were relying on had been found to be illegal. The school reluctantly agreed to follow my wishes until the new policy was issued then we had a similar set of emails where I reiterate my points and highlighted the tiny small print at the bottom of the government's policy that specifically says schools are liable for any and all consequences from following this guidance. The school immediately spoke to independent lawyers and ditched all trans nonsense from the school and demanded explicit written consent from both parents for any name or pronouns changes.
Its strange how schools and teachers are happy to trans a child against parental wishes when they think that theirs no consequences for them but the moment its spelled out clearly that they are personally liable to be sued and wont have a legal leg to stand on how quickly they ditch gender ideology

Yes funny that @Hoardasurass. 🤔

with this whole backdrop, and not just in schools, amongst all the services school refer out to and also rely on, including private companies (or even LA - it makes no difference) to deliver safeguarding training etc, you have an incredibly biased foundation upon which the Cass review was based on, and from which the PB trial has evolved.

the Cass review, whilst has helped to move the Overton Window for schools slightly in some areas, eg kcsie (though they clearly still just ignore or misinterpret it) isn’t as well balanced as many think.

@PeriMumEndofHerTether I'm so sorry. I absolutely believe that would happen. In fact I'd like to hear of an incident where it didn't, where the affirming parent was told by SS, CAHMS, and the like to back off.

@PeriMumEndofHerTether this is absolutely awful. I'm so sorry

Thank you. This is even in spite of me disclosing domestic abuse by him.

Thank you for sharing, OP.

What if he'd been in a school like the one in the OP, and instead of asking me, he'd mentioned something to a teacher at school? I'm so relieved he felt free to ask his question to me right away, because in retrospective, I can see only too easily how he could have developed the idea that he had to transition too.

Yes, absolutely. @Seethlaw your perspective on this is from a very different place than most (all?) of the other parents I've seen on this board. These schools are so dangerous for children. It's clear that some teachers think they are being kind but things don't add up here at all if they are impervious to parents' reasonable concerns. It's like they've forgotten, or are choosing to forget, that autism + puberty is not going to be an easy ride. The role of a Designated Safeguarding Lead isn't supposed to be to hound down parents for supposed wrongthink.

TRAs keep saying, "Leave trans kids alone!" Well, back at them: "Leave autistic kids alone!"

Hear hear. As the parent of an autistic girl who remains at risk of believing her distress about puberty means she might not actually be a girl, I'm so angry at how schools and other institutions are funnelling children like my daughter into the gender clinics. Isolating them from parents (who are trying to support them by understanding the root cause of their distress) seems to be part of the playbook.

@PeriMumEndofHerTether what an awful experience 😥 It's utterly heartbreaking to hear what happened to you and your daughter. Hopefully you've found others on MN (i.e. not just those of commenting on this thread) who believe you. My daughter's school used to socially transition children behind their parents' backs. They've moved on from that but they are still shaming children at the school into supporting any identity that a child declares they have. So any parent who doesn't embrace gender identity belief will be seen as a risk to their child.

This is the official guidance to schools 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 consult.education.gov.uk/equalities-political-impartiality-anti-bullying-team/gender-questioning-children-proposed-guidance/supporting_documents/Gender%20Questioning%20Children%20%20nonstatutory%20guidance.pdf]]]]

That's not official guidance.

It's draft non-statutory guidance that unfortunately hasn't been finalised. Bridget Phillipson is showing no signs that she'll do that.

The article in the OP's link provides more context here.

Could you give more information on how the Cass review is.lacking?.I had hoped that the review was a good development in the situation.

But even without that being finalised, there is enough existing legislation/guidance that schools can use e.g. KCSIE, Nolan Principles and Teaching Standards. That's also covered in the article.

Regarding the delay from BP, there's a great quote from the ex-MP who met with the families. Screenshot below. BP really needs to pull her finger out here to put an end to what schools like this are doing.

This is a follow-up to my 9.05 comment. "Even without that being finalised" is in reference to the draft Gender Questioning Children guidance from Blondebonbon's link.

Philipson appears to have quietly adopted a quest to subvert FWS, though. Perhaps we are now seeing the 'shy gender ideologist'.

They know its hugely unpopular, they know the risks. While 'no debate' ruled, so did they, loudly. Now we have all the sunlight, they are retreating into shadowy avoidant tactics like Philipson's and the Pathways trial.

Whatever it takes to continue to get children on those Pathways, eh?

Why does nobody ask where those Pathways lead, and why so many politicians are so determined to ensure children are able to get on them despite parental rights & responsibilities?

Such an important thread. As Arabella points out, the determination of Phillipson to subvert FWS and refusal to provide schools with the final version of the "gender questioning children" guidance is deliberate.

She and Labour are quite happy with the school to clinic pipeline. They have zero interest in safeguarding children if it means telling the powerful trans lobby to step away from children and schools.

Thank heavens for Transgender Trend, Sex Matters, FWS Scotland and hundreds of other groups and individuals who are fighting this. As so many have pointed out, the public know this is wrong. They know that children shouldn't be being groomed and gaslit by schools, the NHS or any other organisation and they know that those seeking to deliberately undermine the family unit are dangerous.

Rushing around here so can’t reply properly, but the fact that Cass has not condemned the puberty blocker trial might be one place to start to understand the limitations of report:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5445222-why-the-nhs-puberty-blocker-trial-is-appalling

@ArabellaSaurus @MrsOvertonsWindow

Yes, I now view Phillipson as dangerous. Streeting too.

I had hoped that their slow and considered approach was because they wanted to stop this medical scandal but nope, between them they seem determined to preserve the school to gender clinic pipeline and then allow a cohort of these indoctrinated children to undergo a medical experiment on their brains and bodies. All presumably to play politics and further their own careers. Either that or they really are nefarious TRAs i.e. they have personal reasons for doing this. I'm leaning towards it simply being about their careers.

I remember Streeting saying ages ago that there wouldn't be a limit on the number of children that would be allowed onto the trial, so presumably 226 is just the start. Irrespective of their motives, "the shy gender ideologist" is a great description for the pair of them.

One thing I can't quite work out is why Laura Trott, the Shadow Education Secretary, isn't screaming this out from the rooftops. She's in exactly the right position to call Phillipson out on all of this. Yes, we need politicians to protest the puberty blocker trial but we also need them focusing on the funnel that leads to children demanding medical interventions: schools.

the fact that Cass has not condemned the puberty blocker trial might be one place to start to understand the limitations of report

An excellent point, @TwoLoonsAndASprout

this tweet covers some of it:

https://x.com/prof_curiosity1/status/2002332872493928764?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Tweet in full:

“Some brief thoughts on Cass Review and child development theory.

While the Cass Review rightly exposes the "remarkably weak" evidence for paediatric gender affirming care and calls for a holistic reset, it falls short of exposing the fallacies that underpin transgenderism, by ignoring foundational child development theories that dismantle the very notion of an innate "gender identity" in children.

Cass writes about comorbidities and evidence gaps but scarcely engages with Piaget, Kohlberg, Erikson, or others - while incorrectly mentioning Kohlberg. Thus the report missed a golden opportunity to show why medicalisation of "trans children" is not just unproven but developmentally absurd.

(Piaget's cognitive stages make clear: pre-12 thinking is concrete; kids can't grasp abstract "identity" mismatches or lifelong harms like infertility. Kohlberg's gender constancy (age 6–7) affirms sex as fixed, directly contradicting "fluidity" claims. Erikson places identity work in adolescence, with no childhood "wrong body" crisis observed cross-culturally.)

By sidelining these, amongst others, Cass fails to engage fully with the unproven claims on childhood of transgenderism, allowing for the existence of the fixed "gender identity" instead of declaring that there is no developmental basis for "trans kids" at all.

One could argue that this was as far as Cass felt she could (politically) go in her report.

However it still annoys me that if she had taken more than a cursory glance at the easily available child development theory, she would have immeasurably strengthened her case. Also there would be no new puberty blocker trial as it would be clear that no child could properly consent to the drugs.”

We have a child in school who wants to be known by a new name and new pronouns, parents non affirming, and we are interested to note that CAMHS also refused to use the new pronouns and name. I felt this was a change to what I have seen previously.

CAMHS also refused to use the new pronouns and name. I felt this was a change to what I have seen previously.

Ooooh. Most definitely. Well done that CAMHS team. Using a preferred name (or more specifically pushing back on it) is a tricky one but on paperwork, a child could simply be referred to by the initials of his or her legal name.

There is no obligation on anyone to use a nickname. Obviously that's trickier in a one to one conversation, where building trust is important. But, just as there is never any need to use pronouns of any kind in a one to one conversation (or indeed on any paperwork, you could just repeat the name/initials) you can definitely have a conversation with someone without ever using their name. I've done that so many times when I've realised I've forgotten someone's name and we're way past the stage in accumulated numbers of conversations where I could ask 😬

So if the pronouns and name aren't even part of the conversation that's a great way to talk about other things that might be going on in that child's world. Obviously the child may well want to talk about gender identity - it's possible to listen to this without judgement and to recognise that those feelings are likely to be very real and urgent. It's also possible to ask about other things and explore those, to start unpicking what might feel distressing and what could possibly be done to address it. E.g. for girls experiencing distress about breast development, perhaps sports bras are a good answer.

oh that is interesting and reassuring