Rishi Sunak said…

If individual teachers start refusing, the individual teacher will be vilified in the current climate. It's also a very public act to deliberately repeatedly use non chosen pronouns. GC teachers can fudge it at the moment by using names and pushing back on training (if incorrect).

National guidance stops this adhoc approach and puts the onus on everyone. Teachers can then be the homogenous mass following the same rules.

I agree with Herc that what is needed in schools is clear government guidance.

This guidance needs to be informed by people who know what they are talking about, not just ideological posturing, and that includes people who know the legal implications, people who are clear on the medical/mental health side, and people who work in schools and can make it practical, applicable and compassionate. If there are any recommendations like 'schools should have a block of unisex toilets' then funding must be provided, and what those toilets should look like must be clear. If there is any talk of mental health provision, or medical diagnosis pathways, then those provisions must actually be made available and accessible.
Any guidance should seek to have parents and schools working together, not setting them against each other.

What I'm actually expecting is something as useless as Suella Braverman's announcement that single sex schools didn't legally have to accept pupils of the opposite sex. That basically still left any decision-making up to the Headteacher.

I do think there's enough law and guidance about the protection and need for single sex spaces and adequate safeguarding to be quite clear that using preferred pronouns and creating mixed sex spaces is wrong and a breach of existing guidance and law. As is, on safeguarding grounds, excluding parents from information about their children.

I get why teachers want extra 'gender' guidance but actually, if you piece it all together, it's quite clear.

Activist groups have been quite effective in gaslighting and brainwashing teachers, which I'm reluctantly impressed by given that teachers should be able to think critically. However, there's really enough information out there now and guidance for teachers to behave according to their role and position not least in terms of safeguarding.

The two teachers in the threads I linked to are doing it.

Surely it is not a protected characteristic for people under 18 though. You cannot obtain a GRA certificate as a child. There is no such thing as a 'trans child'.
So schools should not have believed Stonewall's interpretation of the Law and gaslighted everyone. Epic safeguarding fail.

Did you? Sorry, I seem to have missed that, will go back and have a look.

Whatever happens hopefully it will be sorted pre GE as Labour will make it worse if they get in

It’ll be Wales, SNP territory

Gender reassignment isn't anything to do with a gender recognition certificate (which you are correct in saying that children cannot get).

I don't think it says anything in the equality act about certain characteristics not being protected for children. Unless anyone knows better?

Yes, this is right I think.

Also, even if 'gender reassignment' could apply to kids it's still discriminatory and illegal to promote that protected characteristic above sex, disability and religion. Which is what schools are doing with mixed sex toilets and compelled pronouns.

When third spaces and neutral language could accommodate all. You do have to question why this was not the starting position and why 'being kind' involved taking rights away from the majority. (I have my own theories as I know do others on here but not going to derail).

Dimorphism, I'm not entirely clear, are you suggesting that sexed pronouns should not be used for any child?

Again with the insults.

I said the advice should be practical and compassionate. Which is what you should hope for when we are potentially talking about some very vulnerable young people.

I'm obviously not being clear. No, normal English usage for most, but if a child is extremely distressed by normal English usage and sex-based pronouns (perhaps because they've been groomed into thinking it's reasonable to compel the behaviour and language of others) then they need urgent pastoral help / CAMHS referral.

In an extreme situation of distress I think it's probably ok for teachers to just use their name and not use sex-based pronouns to their face (which would be rare anyway). But no children should be compelled because I can't think of anything more harmful to both the other children and the child in question - setting them up for a lifetime where they'll only be happy if others are validating their existence (which is unlikely to happen) is not at all kind.

Most children will be fine with normal English usage and sex-based pronouns and there's no need to totally upend all the rules of English in schools - think of the English teachers!

I would also add the 'avoiding using third person pronouns' should be only until adequate expert medical advice is received and very much a temporary measure until expert advice received.

But obviously they need to fix CAMHS waiting lists as well as get ideology out of CAMHS - poster upthread said how the CAMHS therapist asked a very leading gender ideology based question.

But this is just my idea - and it's really because I know teachers are at the front line on this without adequate support. It's not ideal in any way, really.

But it's also to show there IS a third way that does more to safeguard ALL children.

No idea what exactly you think is going on in my classroom, but I'm not gaslighting anyone, haven't compelled anyone to do anything, generally avoid the pronoun issue and mainly just teach maths.

But obviously they need to fix CAMHS waiting lists

Yes, which is why I said any guidance needs to be accompanied by making any mental health or medical services for those needs actually available.

Round my way, if the child hasn't attempted suicide there's basically no chance of CAMHS support.

Giraffe you were pretty quick to be rude and insulting to me - after I took the time to go back carefully through your posts and try to represent you fairly. I said you believed there was such a thing as a trans child. That meant I was making a habit of misrepresenting your views - yet your previous and subsequent posts make it clear that you do. Why so defensive about it I wonder 🙄
i would also call out that, while schools were pretty quick to spread GI in schools, but despite the Cass review (and frankly, if teachers are involved in this and haven’t read it, they really should), you think schools should continue to behave as they are unless there are specific government requirements that they don’t.
The evidence of the harm that social transition does is clear, no professional can say they could reasonably be unaware of it. I agree with pp, teachers who continue to socially transition children without a clear medical diagnosis & treatment pathway should fave legal action

I said you believed there was such a thing as a trans child.

I believe that there are children who identify themselves a trans, which would seem to be indisputable? Beyond that I have no idea what you mean.

I agree with pp, teachers who continue to socially transition children without a clear medical diagnosis & treatment pathway should fave legal action

Right so Billy who is now Bertha is in my class. I use female pronouns for them (under the instruction of family and school leaders) and deserve to face legal action. That's very unfair.

Wouldn't it be better if we all knew exactly what we should do via DfE guidance. No room for any misunderstandings either way then.

Thanks, I've now read it.

It's quite light on detail that I'd like to see, tbh. I'm not sure my school falls foul of any of it though.

I don't have a problem with kids doing this among themselves, but why, generally speaking, should school officials go along with it, or even parents and other adults?

Maybe they should just go old school and call the kids by their last names.

Herc, if you have raised concerns and been instructed by you SLT, then imo it is their responsibility not yours. However, if you’re complicit and don’t raise the issues, and later Bertha, having taken drugs goes back to being Billy, but having to live with a permanently damaged body….. sorry, but yes I do feel, as a professional, that you would carry some responsibility for that.

Cass makes it clear that social transitioning is not a neutral act. Professionals who socially transition children need to take that seriously. If you believe you don’t have the (probably medical) qualifications to make that decision, then you really shouldn’t.

And re DfE guidelines, yes of course that would be best, but nobody seemed to require that to go down this road, why is it a requirement to go back? Not all schools did this, it was a choice