Apparently questioning Jersey schools policy for gender questioning children is "politically lead"

[deadpan]

Sir Phillip Bailhache is challenging the policies for Jersey schools around children suffering from gender dysphoria.
He says it leans too far away from safeguarding. According to his main opposer, the policies reflect "modern safeguarding" and Sir Phillip is being "politically" motivated.
He is the lead of the Jersey Tory/liberal party, who campaign for civil partnerships for gays and lesbians, so his politics don't sound very right wing. But any opposition to the affirmation approach is seen or painted as politically motivated.

Politicians clash over trans guidance in Jersey schools - BBC News https://share.google/pAhgNqWJD1dEYIIUl

"Sir Philip said: "Children who exhibit tendencies towards gender dysphoria are almost invariably very vulnerable," and "their uncertainties and vulnerabilities should not be encouraged by an activist stance".

If that's politically motivated then we need more politician who are motivated in this way. I hope he succeeds in getting the guidance changed so it protects children from this batshittery.

The current policy is online. It is very much trans affirmative. Staff have to undergo training on pronouns, celebrate trans day of remembrance etc. Although they do suggest that toilets should include a mix, it also says that decisions should be made on a case by case basis, highlighting that some trans children believe it important to use the loos that affirm their GI. A lot about confidentiality of trans pupils too, so I guess other pupils are left in the dark, in some situations about the sex of the pupils they are sharing spaces with.

Note that when women's groups say something, it is politically motivated, when trans groups say something it is not..

"Liberate Jersey said on social media it often saw decisions being made about minority groups "by others".
Do they mean decisions being made about children by adults? I thought that was usually the way parenting and education worked!

It said: "In light of the recent proposition concerning inclusion guidance for schools, we strongly encourage States Members to engage with individuals with lived experience and their advocates, in order to have a full understanding of how this proposition could shift the objective and impact from inclusion to exclusion."

"individuals with lived experience" - I'm not a Jersey resident, but I'm happy to oblige about my lived experience!
The last thing I needed as a gender-questioning little girl was 'advocates' telling me that there was a realistic possibility of avoiding growing up to be a woman, and that there was a pathway for me to transition to be a man.

I fear I'd have bitten their arms off to get puberty blockers and anything else that was available.

Thankfully, my lived experience was out of the reach of such 'advocates', and here I am, and adult human female
Gender-questioning children need loving support to help them accept reality, and make a happy life for themselves in the biological sex they were born into, and from which they cannot transition.

Too late to edit my post to remove the 'd' from 'an adult human female' - no real need to edit it as you all know what I meant to write, but it's grrrrrrrr when you spot something just after the 'edit' window has closed, isn't it?😏

"According to his main opposer, the policies reflect "modern safeguarding" and Sir Phillip is being "politically" motivated"

These people are so dangerous to children. "Modern safeguarding" is a predator's dream, especially if informed by the niche demands of certain adults with "lived experience". As the evidence of Mermaids, LGBTYS, Surrey Pride, Educate & Celebrate & numerous other dodgy organisations clearly evidences.

Ahhh modern safeguarding. I see. Would that be the kind that is paedophile led? (Thinking of you Stephen Ireland and LGBT Youth Scotland)