Ahead of U.K. Government guidance recommending that teachers inform parents if a child expresses a desire to change gender, some teachers have declared their intention to defy the directive – even if it means risking dismissal. The Mail has the story.
Their defiance came in response to a query on an internet teaching forum asking what they thought about “the Government proposing guidance for schools to potentially outing trans kids/kids questioning their identity/gender norms, to their parents”.
One wrote: “I’m a gay teacher and I’d refuse to do this if a child came to me in confidence.” …
It has also emerged that several branches of Britain’s biggest teaching union, the National Education Union, had published an open letter urging the Government not to make teachers keep parents informed if a child said they wanted to change gender. …
The letter said it was “not always appropriate – or even necessarily safe – to alert parents and carers to a child’s gender identity (or their sexuality)” and that schools should have to “make robust risk assessments before any such disclosure”. It also cites advice from the LGBT charity Stonewall that schools should not disclose information that could reveal a child’s “trans status” to others, including parents and carers, unless there is a safeguarding risk or the young person gives permission.
However, last year, Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman said it was a “safeguarding risk” for schools to not tell parents their child was questioning their gender identity.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Anyone who pays £199 pa for a subscription to Nature deserves all they misinformation they get for their money.
Fraud? Sounds more like evil to me
The simply the scientific process statement is very telling. The scientific process is obviously that – regardless of any private opinions of people who do The Science[tm] for a living – work on The Science[tm] needs funding and hence, the sciencers must deliver whatever those who are willing to fund their sciencing want. Only naive people believe sciencing would be an open-ended quest to determine true information about natural phenomena. It’s really about fabricating justifications for political goals those who fund sciencing want to achieve. Preferably with lots of math and tables in them so that laymen both end up suitably impressed and rendered incapable of asking unwelcome question like Is the emperor really clothed?
Yes, giving good slide is essential for masking the truth
The NIH doles out $billions each year in grants to private pharma companies. These same companies give back $millions to NIH scientists as royalties (kickbacks) for inventions these scientists created while at work in NIH labs. Legalised bribery.
The standout message for me is the inefficiency of peer review, whether accidental or deliberate. I have a plan. ALL papers should first appear in preprint and be available for anyone to examine. Then any and all informed analysts can dissect work before it gains the imprimatur of full publication. At present the system only allows post hoc comment, from where the taking down of a paper is far more difficult.
This is such a brilliant idea (I would say that of course) that it will never be adopted.
ISTR a retired editor of “The Lancet” saying that in his (long) experience over 90% of fully peer-reviewed papers eventually proved to be wrong – and a depressing percentage proved to be fraudulent.
In reality, “Peer Review” is no better than allowing students to mark their friends’ exam papers.
The Corruption of science for political purposes. ———We no longer have “Science”. It has morphed into “Official Science”. ——–Scientists working for governments have now become an army of data adjusters providing the excuses for government policy on everything from climate to covid. ———-“Ah yes, science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” –Mark Twain. —And boy do governments know that and why they seek to convince us all that since all scientists agree then so should you.
$cientists are now down there with Politicians, Lawyers and Estate Agents in the “honest and trustworthy” stakes.