After many struggles and changes of policy over trans issues, the Government has now published its draft for consultation of the ‘Non-statutory guidance for schools and colleges in England over Gender Questioning Children‘. “Draft”, “consultation”, “non-statutory” and “guidance” are all politicians’ words, indicating that the Government doesn’t really want to tackle trans issues. It is not only the Labour party that dare not say what a woman is: the same question resulted in Rishi Sunak sounding like an inarticulate fool. One must remember that only a few years ago, steered by Maria Miller, our Conservative Government was charging ahead with gender self-identification.
The muddle in Government over what it prefers to call ‘gender questioning’ is of particular relevance to schools, where the lives of headteachers are currently being made impossible by repeated conflict between two ideological groups with completely different views about what defines a man or a woman. On the one hand there is the quiet majority of staff, pupils and parents who take the traditional line that basic biology defines whether a child is a boy or a girl. This group would, for instance, require biological girls to be referred to as girls, expect girls’ schools to contain biological girls only and allow biological girls alone to make use of girls’ toilets, changing rooms and girls’ sports.
On the other hand there is a vociferous and aggressive minority with, in the words of the guidance, views of “gender identity ideology, the belief that a person can have a ‘gender’ that is different to their biological sex”. Such views are linked to “a significant increase in the number of children questioning the way they feel about being a boy or a girl”. In practice this ideology would allow children to make their own choice as to what sex, what mixture of sex, or what absence of sex they might wish to have and go to whichever sex of school, facility or activity they wished. Such children often request that they be treated as if they are of a different sex from their biology, a process “often referred to as social transitioning”. Such social transitioning has led along the pathway to puberty blockers, often followed by surgical intervention to make a girl’s body look like a boy’s, or vice versa.
The conflict of these two ideologies has led to chaos within schools. Teachers have been sacked for ‘misgendering’ pupils, i.e., calling a biological girl a girl. A teaching assistant was sacked for sharing two Facebook posts that raised concern about transgenderism. A Church of England primary school allowed a four-year-old boy to join a Church of England school as a girl, causing consternation among his friends when they found out and he waved his willy about. Such is the potential for conflict and censure that no headteacher dare make clear decisions over such issues: they do their best to duck responsibility knowing that, whatever side they take, they will be attacked by the other. The guidance is kind enough to say that it appreciates “how daunting this is for school and college staff”.
On the surface, the solution to this conflict is a simple and obvious function of management: if diametrically opposite views exist over an issue, those in charge need to make a clear ruling. Over the same transgender issue in the NHS, where there was equal conflict over treatment options, NHS England has recently decided that “puberty suppressing hormones… are not recommended to be available… for gender incongruence”. It would seem straightforward for the Department for Education to send out an edict endorsing the traditional view of sex or that of gender identity ideology.
Instead, like Rishi Sunak’s spluttering over the question, the DfE has ducked its responsibility. Its advice consists of five principles. Three are truisms about having legal duties and being kind to kids. The one positive statement is that “Parents should not be excluded from decisions” about their children. Who could demur? But on the key issue of whether a boy can ‘become’ a girl, or vice versa, all the DfE can state is: “There is no general duty to allow a child to ‘social transition’.”
This guidance is at the consultation stage. As usual with consultation, the questions are inane: “Does this guidance provide practical advice to support schools and colleges to meet their duties effectively?”
The admirable and sensible Transgender Trend, in its own consultation response, answers this question perfectly in a single word: “No.” It is absolutely right. Schools are left to set their own policy and, whatever line they take, are left alone to carry the can.
Why, we may ask, is the Government, or its arm in education, the DfE, so reluctant to rule against gender identity ideology? Again the answer is simple. The Equality Act 2010, so foolishly nodded through by Conservatives before the 2010 election, specifies that “gender reassignment” is a “protected characteristic” and that treating adversely in almost any way someone with gender reassignment, for instance a girl who wants to be treated as a boy, is defined by the Equality Act as an offence.
This Conservative Government has been hoist with its own petard. The foolishly ill-considered Equality Act, so apparently beneficial because it embodies sentiments of kindness to all mankind, is so vague that it could mean anything and an attempt to rule that children must not be treated as though they were able to change sex would be subject by special interest groups to legal challenges lasting for years. It means that only a politician braver than our Prime Minister would dare to define what a woman is, but no minister would dare to back a headteacher who attempted to implement such a decision.
And so we come to the attempts to define extremism. Here we will find that, in the same way that the Equality Act stands in the way of taking any sort of decision over the trans issue, it will make it just as difficult to decide what is an extremist. Many of those who strongly differ over U.K. policy on Palestine will be of non-European ethnicity, Muslim and believe in a different world order. Having the protected characteristics of race, religion and belief, they will be defended by the Equality Act. Small wonder that Michael Gove has called for the Equality Act to be “revisited”.
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.
Sorry I found the last paragraph confusing. Is the writer suggesting that “action” (whatever that is) against Muslims who believe something or other about Palestine ought to be legal/allowed/encouraged?
Yes I also was a bit iffy about that bit, but I thought it was just me being a bit slow and needing more caffeine. Anyway, you introduced one of the ‘M’ words so thanks for that segue opportunity, I’ll take it….More evidence of the Islamization of London here ( as if any more were needed ), this time Hadiths in train stations;
https://twitter.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1770035420283142251
Yep I have no problem with Race and Religion being protected characteristics. but (1) Islam is not a race and (2) It is not just a religion, it is also a political system. So once you enter into the political arena you are no longer protected. You gotta face the music like the rest of us.
As long as the Nation’s laws are supreme: but there in lies the problem, when you are ignorant that it is a problem.
I had to study the last sentence before coming to the understanding that I don’t quite understand it.
Yeah I think it’s a bit too subtle for me probably.
I neither need nor want the state to define “extremism” for me, or for the state to do anything about it.
I am still not happy about the idea of “protected characteristics” (as opposed to behaviour/actions in the moment) – either all “characteristics” are protected, or none are, surely?
That’s my understanding of it: Muslims who seek a different world order, which would include removing the state of Israel from the former Roman province of Palestine, ought to be regarded as extremists by the government but because of the equality act, this can’t be spelled out.
People may be ‘law abiding’, but whose set of laws is that, English (or Scottish) Law, depending on location, or an import?
It’s not ‘weak’, it is the official policy of the globalist cabale that stole usurped Liz Truss.
They aren’t ‘weak’ on borders – they want open borders.
They aren’t ‘weak’ on the economy, they want all our money.
They arent ‘weak’ on law and order, they want wokism.
Can journos please call a spade a spade. These things, and many more’ are deliberate.
Methinks the author is a bit being abiological girl about the issue, as evidenced by his repeated use of the term biological girl. A girl is a human female who hasn’t yet reached sexual maturity.
Yes indeed, the word “girl” requires no qualifier, otherwise there would be such a thing as a non biological girl which is clearly nonsense. Language matters.
Just allow any child that wants to be something other than their sex at birth, to be what they want, and leave it at that! My experience of school suggests any issues will resolve themselves – one way or another!
Any guidance should be that no-one can be prosecuted for refusing to deny a biological fact!
The problem with this is that Stonewall transpreachers roam schools in order to find autistic children they can talk into ensuring that issues won’t resolve themselves by chemically castrating them at first and later, surgically mutilating their bodies to ensure they won’t ever sexually function. And this horrible ritual abuse is called affirming care.
You make it sound so simple, bu if a boy wants to be a girl, do you think he should be allowed to be what he wants to be, and allowed to use the girls’ toilets and changing rooms?
Absolutely not!
To clarify, if a boy wants to declare himself a girl (and vice versa a girl) he can, but he must wear the clothes the school specifies for boys, he must use (only) boys toilets and changing rooms, and no-one is required to acknowledge his preference unless they choose to, nor use any of his “preferred” pro-nouns.
No-one gets punished for refusal to cow tow to the madness.
Then you are (rightly) not allowing him to be what he wants to be.
Sex is observed at birth but determined at conception.
Anyone in office who can’t define what a Man or a Woman is, is not fit to be in Office.
It is clear the Equality Act is in need of some modification, amendment or clarity. However, I think it fits certain peoples agenda’s for laws to be vague and broadly defined, helps with the general chaos and disruption.
My great grandson (4yrs old) knows exactly what a woman is because he’s worked it out for himself!
Sub 50 seat Conservative Party to look forward to. Break open the bubbly
That would suggest they could all fit into a coach. The British nation would be immeasurably blessed if the number of surviving Tories could fit into a mini bus.
So if you are an Antelope or a Hyena and you wear a frock and lipstick you are a woman. Pretty soon in a ladies room somewhere near you 3 cheetahs will come rampaging through chasing a after a woman they thought was an antelope.
Surprising news from South Germany: the Bavarian government has just banned the use of so-called ‘gender language’ in schools, universities and public authorities.
In the German language, a noun is either male, female or neuter, whereby words referring to people (who are naturally either male or female) often have a suffix if the person is female, e.g. the word for a male friend in German is ‘Freund’ and for a female friend is ‘Freundin’.
Gender activists had been adding asterisks to such words to indicate there are more genders than just the standard two, so in the above case they would write ‘Freund*in’.
This has just been banned, at least in Bavaria. So governments can make sensible decisions!
Gender activists had been adding asterisks to such words to indicate there are more genders than just the standard two, so in the above case they would write ‘Freund*in’.
That’s not really true. An eternal (has been ongoing for as long as I remember anything) quarrel in Germany is how plurals are supposed to be handled in German. The grammatically correct convention is to avoid gender-specific suffixes and just change the gender of a noun to female for that. Eg, the worker is der Arbeiter (male) and the workers are die Arbeiter (female). So-called feminists believe this to be politically incorrect as it doesn’t explicitly mention female workers who certainly exist. The grammitcally somewhat correct way to do this would be die Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiter, both grammatically female. But as soon as such a convention has gained traction, it’s declared politically incorrect itself and replaced with a different one. The current regimes of the pork-rezessive illiberals is to demand that the grammatically correct plural form is dropped altogether in favour of only using the grammatically feminized one, ie, just use die Arbeiterinnen and as reluctant concession to the fact that some workers are actually not women, insert a non-alphabetical character into into it, which makes die Arbeiter*innen. This is to be pronounced by making a small pause between the two parts and extended to absolutely every known, eg die Penisträger*innen, people with a penis (actual word used by a Berlin MdL [state MP]), explicitly accounting for the fact that people with a penis are usually woman and only sometimes men. Or something like that.
And when they’re not busy worrying stuff like about that, they’re Saving the Planet™!
Every age before our own would simply have regarded these people as batshit crazy instead of elevating them to positions of power.