You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66243698
Am I wrong to think this points to a huge gathering shitstorm. Will this be the current governments section 28? They wouldn't be heartless enough to use this to try and solidify their base would they?
I'm naive, perhaps they've realised it's a crap idea?
Probably being saved up as a pre-election culture war wedge. "Vote Conservative to stop adult men declaring themselves to be 6 year old girls and being given access to the primary school toilets".
Nothing would surprise me with our lizard overlords anymore.
I can kind of see how there may be age-appropriate conversations to be had, and as I was unfortunately reminded just yesterday there is a secondary (much older) age-related concern to be had here. But really if a girl wants to wear pants or a boy wants to grow his hair then just 'kin let them.
They wouldn’t be heartless enough to use this to try and solidify their base would they?
Rishi seems very open to harnessing "culture war" issues in a tone deaf manner, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them try it and see it backfire on them.
Hadn't realised they were going to try and include forcing kids (and parents) to accept names other than the ones they choose. Around here parents would just stick two fingers up and take their kids out of school if they did that. Loads of kids change their names to be gender neutral at secondary school, even if they consider themselves binary CIS. Some just reject strictly gendered names because that's the "fashion"... (I don't mean that to be dismissive, rejecting gender divisions is just something that a lot of younger people consider important in a way previous generations do not). Telling schools to try and put a stop to this would likely just result in more kids showing solidarity and opting to change their names as well.
They wouldn’t be heartless enough to use this to try and solidify their base would they?
Of course they are and will
But really if a girl wants to wear pants or a boy wants to grow his hair then just ‘kin let them.
How did we manage through the 1970s without this being an issue?
How did we manage? Repression.
The girls at my school fought tooth and nail in the 80s to be able to wear trousers rather than skirts. They won in the end.
Lots of girls at my school wore trousers, often with big boots.
How did we manage through the 1970s without this being an issue?
Because bigotry was socially acceptable.
Thank goodness we've moved on since those dark days, hey.
Looks like the problem is the left wing, tofu eating, Guardian reading woke monster blob that is the government's own attorney general that is stopping them.
Which is nice.
The girls at my school fought tooth and nail in the 80s to be able to wear trousers rather than skirts. They won in the end.
...
Lots of girls at my school wore trousers, often with big boots.
As I recall, trousers were a concession afforded to the 'upper school' part of my high school, so girls who were 15-16. They could also use the front door rather than the back door (shush) and wear grey/black jumpers rather than the bronchitis green foisted on the 11-14 girls.
The delay is because the attorney general for England and Wales has advised part of the guidance may be unlawful.
As I recall, trousers were a concession afforded to the ‘upper school’ part of my high school, so girls who were 15-16.
... actually, I could probably get confirmation of that, given that my partner is one.
(Ie, we were at school together, she's not 15. Honestly, you lot.)
The delay is because the attorney general for England and Wales has advised part of the guidance may be unlawful.
Given the stuff which has been waved through to be slapped down by the courts it makes me wonder just what they were suggesting.
As I recall, trousers were a concession afforded to the ‘upper school’ part of my high school, so girls who were 15-16. They could also use the front door rather than the back door (shush) and wear grey/black jumpers rather than the bronchitis green foisted on the 11-14 girls
School uniform was optional for us. I think only the private schools had compulsion. We had hippy types (braids, bell-bottoms, sandals), we had Bay City Roller look-a-likes, we had Alladin Sane (and that's just the girls). Nobody was judged by what they wore, the length of their hair or who they chose to hold hands with.
I'll follow this thread with interest. The Arts Council was taken to court last month by someone who was hounded out of their job after being subjected to a campaign of quite vicious harrasment after expressing support for the LGB Alliance.
She was a friend of mine when I was at Art college in the early 90's. She was the most socially conscious, feminist, Gay rights person that I knew back then (and still is).
She won her case for harassment.
I think you'll find that bigotry is alive and well Cougar...
As I recall, trousers were a concession afforded to the ‘upper school’ part of my high school, so girls who were 15-16.
Oh, and I've just remembered, there was a religious exemption for Asian girls. From quite an early age I think, like infant school.
I think you’ll find that bigotry is alive and well Cougar…
Sarcasm in text can be easy to miss.
How did we manage through the 1970s without this being an issue?
By christ it was an issue – I had long hair as a boy (rock/metal fan, not gender-identity related) and the shit I had to endure from teachers on a near-daily basis was a nightmare.
As for this decision, I can't believe they are delaying it. The boy who is currently living with us goes to a very progressive school and they have found budget to have an LGBT officer but they are (by her own admission the last time we were at a meeting with them) making it up as they go along - R is the first child with his particular set of challenges and they have no guidance, no precedent, nothing – they have simply had to make changes that suit his needs, but there remains safeguarding questions for others around him and they don't know if it could leave them open to serious questions (or worse) from others if his true identity is ever revealed.
By christ it was an issue – I had long hair as a boy (rock/metal fan, not gender-identity related) and the shit I had to endure from teachers on a near-daily basis was a nightmare.
See also student in early 00s.
"sorry I though ye were a lassie"
Did ye, aye?
The sooner that sort of shit ends the better everyone's lives will be.
I had that in a nightclub once, some bloke grabbed a handful of my arse.
I was wearing a skirt and suspenders at the time, mind. He got one hell of a shock when I turned around. I'd like to think he learned something that night, but it's probably unlikely.
I had that in a nightclub once, some bloke grabbed a handful of my arse.
I was wearing a skirt and suspenders at the time, mind. He got one hell of a shock when I turned around
When was this, approximately?
Asking for a friend....
Looking at the BBC article about the “guidance” and the potential legal issues, I think I’m in favour of a delay. What I’ve read suggests that the Tories want to ban social transitioning in schools.
A friend’s child had real problems with some of their teachers when they transitioned; the religious studies teacher in particular deliberately misgendered them and used their old name, on the grounds that said teacher didn’t believe in “stuff like that”. That teacher would love the Tory guidance…
What I’ve read suggests that the Tories want to ban social transitioning in schools.
No that's not correct – the article says...
Ministers were considering advising against allowing social transitioning in schools altogether.
But, as first reported in the Times, the attorney general, Victoria Prentis, has said an outright ban would be unlawful.
This bit is curious...
The attorney general is also understood to be concerned about the guidance advising teachers that they do not have to use a child's pronouns or chosen name if they do not want to, and suggesting that doctors are consulted before a child socially transitions at school.
What if they have already transitioned? And in my experience, if the child in our care was called by his birth name there would be an epic meltdown. It has taken months to get him mentally-prepared for our trip abroad and having a passport in his birth name/gender, never mind having teachers suddenly deciding to call him by another name.
Nobody was judged by what they wore, the length of their hair or who they chose to hold hands with.
You were in a very different 1970's than I was.
This is the first I've heard of this legislation today and I'm glad its been delayed
My sisters eldest child is, aged 16, is transitioning and identifies as male, as they have done for 4 years now. Its been incredibly difficult for everyone involved, but what has been a saving grace is how sensitively and supportively the school have handled the situation.
The fact that this shower of ****s want to legislate to effectively make that sensitively and support illegal tells you everything you need to know about them. They really are worse than vermin!
It really pisses me off, having witnessed this in my own family, how these heartless bastards have created a false narrative that this is young adults flippantly changing genders like they change outfit. Like its a fashion statement. Its not remotely like that. Its incredibly hard to watch someone you love genuinely have a huge day-by-day psychological crisis as they struggle with their own identity. At times they've literally been suicidal and have had constant contact with a threadbare youth mental health service. Yet this lot just want to trivialise it and demonise this group of people, like they're exhibits in some Victorian freak show.
And for what? For their pathetic culture war, because they're on for a complete electoral wipeout and this callous horseshit is literally all they've got left. Hey bigots! We're on your side! Vote for us!
Probably around 11pm.
Bravo
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "It is frustrating that [the government] has now got to the point of producing something but appears to be locked in an internal political squabble which is causing a further delay.
"At present, schools have to navigate this complex and sensitive subject entirely on their own."
Geoff, mate, I am 100% sure that your members can handle the issue much better on their own than if they need to follow "guidance" from this useless shower of ****ers.
The fact that this shower of ****s want to legislate
Actually, I heard that part of the reason it is delayed is because DfE SoS doesn't want her name anywhere near it.
Probably around 11pm.
"This is not the Cougar you are searching for..."
Actually, I heard that part of the reason it is delayed is because DfE SoS doesn’t want her name anywhere near it.
Well she's on Peston tonight, so I imagine thats the first question she'll be asked.
It'll be interesting to see if she actually answers the question, or does what Rishi did at PMQs again today and just ignore it and come out with a load of vague twaddle instead
Hmmmmmm.. I wonder which it will be?
Edit: Actually... after a quick google, it looks like you're right. She's not on board with the government line at all, is she? The Torygraph are frothing about her. Is she the tofu-eating wokerati, then?
It'll be interesting if she's either changed her opinion after re-education from number 10 by tonight,or if she's still Secretary of State for Education by Tomorrow. Rishi will probably have sacked her and appointed a culture warrior instead
You were in a very different 1970’s than I was.
Was it a non-fictional one like mine? The 1970s I grew up in earned you a kicking from your peers for pulling your hood up or wearing the wrong colour of socks. Holding hands with a girl, you were a puff for sure.
a false narrative that this is young adults flippantly changing genders like they change outfit. Like its a fashion statement. Its not remotely like that.
And even if that was the case then, well, so ****ing what? If Hermione wants to be known as Harry or Ron wants to grow their hair out and wear a frock, what the hell difference does it make to anyone else? If it is just a fashion statement then they'll grow out of it in a few months anyway. And if it's not, then...
“This is not the Cougar you are searching for…”
Yeah, that was probably being hopeful at closer to 2am.
If Hermione wants to be known as Harry or Ron wants to grow their hair out and wear a frock, what the hell difference does it make to anyone else? If it is just a fashion statement then they’ll grow out of it in a few months anyway.
Exactly! But this lot are all authoritarians at heart, and think they should get to dictate every aspect of everyones lives and that should chime with their own ridiculously repressed and emotionally starved upbringings. They're all emotionally and sexually stunted, which is why so many of them are deviant's behind the straight-laced facade
And for what? For their pathetic culture war, because they’re on for a complete electoral wipeout and this callous horseshit is literally all they’ve got left. Hey bigots! We’re on your side! Vote for us!
The tragedy is, this isn't new. It's been overt since at least 2016 and covert for considerably longer.
My last, best hope for humanity is the dinosaur clause. That all these prejudiced shitbags are quietly dying out.
Presumably teachers should also refuse to use the "fake" names of people that people adopt to flaunt their sexuality - like Home Secretary Sue-Ella Fernandes.
My last, best hope for humanity is the dinosaur clause. That all these prejudiced shitbags are quietly dying out.
Seems very unlikely. Rishi Sunak is young. He's the same age as Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch and Craig David. The bigotry won't just evaporate.
I was referring more to 'normal' people.
I'd like to think, perhaps naively, that many people like grandads and aunties aren't aggressively racist (etc) but rather it's an attitude which is of its time. They're a different breed from privileged Tuesdays like, well, most of the cabinet.
I'm inclined to say it doesn't matter so much that they've missed the arbitrary deadline seeing as this school year is pretty much done. the real question is when will the guidance be made available?
If it's provided in September, that means schools don't really have sufficient time to review and implement it before the school year starts.
Am I wrong to think this points to a huge gathering shitstorm. Will this be the current governments section 28? They wouldn’t be heartless enough to use this to try and solidify their base would they?
Oh they definitely would, but it could equally end up in the "too hard" pile and be kicked down the road until after Rishi loses the election. The fact that no new deadline has been set suggests they won't be prioritising something that the next government will no doubt change.
Culture war issues (which is how they'll see it) do animate the base, but don't actually win many new votes. Voters are more worried about paying their bills and eating right now than about punching down on marginalised teenagers.
I'm not quite clear why any government needs to wade into this specific pastoral issue.
The obvious and easiest policy for the government would be to simply allow individual schools to set their own policies.
It could be devised by the head teachers and staff who know the kids and will have to implement said policies, and should be ratified by the school's governors. any school's policy will, by default, need to be cognisant of the related laws around safeguarding and human rights, the LEA can provide legal advice, this doesn't need to be driven by a single national level policy, devised by a partisan political party.
Politicians will only take this topic on if they're looking for a (pointless) fight...
Was it a non-fictional one like mine?
Are you accusing me of lying?
I'm positing that you're incorrect. I'm not making any accusations of intentional deception.
I may be incorrect of course. You may have spent your 1970s in Xanadu rather than an educational system in Lancashire for all I know.
He's posting that your experiences were not the same.
Slightly heavily handed but that's the nature of the written word on the forum.
I think it's fair that schools and teachers are asking for the guidance, it's a subject that needs to be handled with care and sensitivity.
Where it really seems to be falling down (particularly in the view of the trans folks I know) is the emphasis on involving parents. Many trans people can tell stories of their fear around transitioning and/or coming out to family members.
Seems a bit odd to be pursuing a culture war that goes against "Won't someone think of the children!!!", but here we are.
He’s posting that your experiences were not the same.
Slightly heavily handed but that’s the nature of the written word on the forum.
Him or me? Fair points both, in either case.
I do have a tendency for directness sometimes. I can only apologise for that if it offends, but it's unlikely to change I'm afraid. My brain lacks a filter that 'normal' people seem to have.
I’m inclined to say it doesn’t matter so much that they’ve missed the arbitrary deadline seeing as this school year is pretty much done. the real question is when will the guidance be made available?
No, the real issue is what the guidance will say and will the school police (offsted) fail a school for not following guidance but doing the best thing for kids
+1 Binners, well said. After the attacks (now deleted) on the UCI thread I hesitate to join in again, but my son's school experience has generally been pretty good, despite the school going through this for the first time. In fact, I got some help from work where we were substantially more advanced / inclusive and (with permission) borrowed some policies and procedures from work that school could use or adapt. This was 4 years ago.
There were mistakes both in process and misgendering, and some kids are just ****s and will bully anyway. Some issues with toilets, the school wasn't comfortable with him using the boys so he had to use the disabled one, which is 'stand out' type behaviour in his eyes, but generally honst mistakes. He's now in a bigger 6FC with more kids, and part of a larger academy of 6FC's - I have nothing but praise for. Helps that almost all his work now is in the Performing arts faculty, which as an industry as I noted on the sports thread is about 40 years further ahead in their acceptance AFAICT.
That the Gov even need advice / the AG has concerns that social transitioning can't be 'banned' says to me it was at least being considered. Why would the AG need to advise them not to do something they had no intention of doing?
I know there are bigots out there, my son faces it either in reality or potentially every day (which affects his mental health, what snide comment or act might I face today) As he's said, we know every time we go out on our bike there's a chance of falling off or being knocked off, but how enjoyable would our rides be if the chance of that happening was say 30% - you're not wondering if.... just when. But for the Gov of the day that is supposed to look after all its citizens to be part of that, is like signalling to the bigots that it is OK.
Horrible people, a horrible party, that we need rid of asap. I know there's always some exceptions.
There's some good people on here.
We got through the 70's by living in utter terror of being outed and getting the living crap kicked out of us.
I read the comments on here and it makes me so happy that we have moved on and despite right wing politicians and press many young trans people are able to be themselves.
Thank you.
despite right wing politicians and press many young trans people are able to be themselves.
despite right wing politicians and press many young trans people are able to be themselves.
It’s not just trans, it’s anyone.
I see Gillian Keegan has rowed back and is now parroting the government line
So in the end she’s just another spineless Tory shithouse. It was ridiculous to expect anything else really, I suppose 🙄
for pulling your hood up
Wow that takes me back to being a kid in the early eighties.... Never ever wore our hoods up. Rucksacks always worn with only one strap over the shoulder. Imagine if we'd walked around with out trousers round our thighs showing our pants back then! Sorry somewhat OT.
I know there’s always some exceptions.
Becomes
I see Gillian Keegan has rowed back and is now parroting the government line
Much to my surprise 🙄