Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

 

As I said, I have no idea, I would have to think about it, it is a strange question. I guess they should report to the parents everything for which they already need to obtain parents' permission. 

 

 

 

It's a strange question? It is the absolute logical extension of the above - where is the line and who makes it?

They ( not just the UK) added these provisions just recently ( which is why you are aware of them) so it was never something that was expected, much less mandated of teachers. None of this discussion has anything to do with the parents permission - we are talking about school employees actions and the consequences outside of that.

It runs in tandem with the censorship of art doesn't it - who decides what is best for everyone?

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

It's a strange question? It is the absolute logical extension of the above - where is the line and who makes it?

They ( not just the UK) added these provisions just recently ( which is why you are aware of them) so it was never something that was expected, much less mandated of teachers. None of this discussion has anything to do with the parents permission - we are talking about school employees actions and the consequences outside of that.

It runs in tandem with the censorship of art doesn't it - who decides what is best for everyone?

 

Sorry, I was not aware that is something new, I thought a child could not change gender without the parents' involvement.

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

 

Sorry, I was not aware that is something new, I thought a child could not change gender without the parents' involvement.

 

That's what you thought this was about ?? They can't.

 

What has changed is that school administrators/teachers are now forbidden to discuss certain topics with kids and in the instances outlined over the last few pages are required to report on those conversations.

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

That's what you thought this was about ?? They can't.

 

What has changed is that school administrators/teachers are now forbidden to discuss certain topics with kids and in the instances outlined over the last few pages are required to report on those conversations.

 

As far as I understand from the quoted tweets, they are required to involve parents in the discussion about specific child's desire to change gender, inasmuch the school is involved, which a child cannot do without parents' permission, so this makes sense to me. Also, that a child has requested change in uniform and feels to have a different gender identity from what the child's parents think the child's identity is. This should also be discussed with the parents. I don't know what they are forbidden to discuss with the child -  the issue of gender identity in general? I don't think they are.

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

As far as I understand from the quoted tweets, they are required to involve parents in the discussion about specific child's desire to change gender, inasmuch the school is involved, which a child cannot do without parents' permission, so this makes sense to me. Also, that a child has requested change in uniform and feels to have a different gender identity from what the child's parents think the child's identity is. This should also be discussed with the parents. I don't know what they are forbidden to discuss with the child -  the issue of gender identity in general? I don't think they are.

 

The mandate being discussed is about 40 years old and has to do originally with homosexuality.

 

Good point, they are not. The difference is they are now "mandated" to report those discussions regardless of their, or the childs wishes.

There is alot of focus on trans - in fact all of it.

 

[TheHowieLama]

I love typing mandated - reminds of wor @Red Phoenix

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

The mandate being discussed is about 40 years old and has to do originally with homosexuality.

 

Good point, they are not. The difference is they are now "mandated" to report those discussions regardless of their, or the childs wishes.

There is alot of focus on trans - in fact all of it.

 

 

I don't know why are they mandated, I don't have a problem with that, because I would expect the school / teacher / administrator to be able to make a decision on the moment / stage the parents need to be included. And this would certainly be before the child changes the pronouns and uniform. Child I don't think should be in a position to decide when the parents should be involved unless it is some extraordinary situation that requires involvement of social services and such like.

I don't see it as censorship, if it helps.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I don't know why are they mandated, I don't have a problem with that, because I would expect the school / teacher / administrator to be able to make a decision on the moment / stage the parents need to be included. And this would certainly be before the child changes the pronouns and uniform. Child I don't think should be in a position to decide when the parents should be involved unless it is some extraordinary situation that requires involvement of social services and such like.

I don't see it as censorship, if it helps.

 

We both know why they are now being mandated.

 

Agree with the rest.

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

We both know why they are now being mandated.

 

Agree with the rest.

 

I honestly don't, unless you think it is some trans suppressing conservative ploy.

[TheHowieLama]

38 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I honestly don't, unless you think it is some trans suppressing conservative ploy.

 

I believe that "trans" issues are being used as a stalking horse, and unless you are an idiot you realise it is the political atmosphere that has brought this to the surface now.

I thought the fact that the original mandate was drafted for something very different decades ago would have been a hint.

Again, my starting point in this was, what "behaviors" should the school faculty be mandated to report to parents?

So far we have gender ID and a boy who wants to convert to Islam.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

So it is much better for children to make such a momentous decision on their own, keep it secret from their parents, and being a different gender at school and then going home to, presumably, live a lie is a lifeline? Sorry, but that is totally insane. I don't understand anything any longer.   

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's insane.

 

It's not "a momentous decision", because who you are isn't a decision. The only choice they get is when to tell people; sometimes it's easier to tell people in school (or in work, or wherever) than it is to tell your family.

[Paulie Dangerously]

 

 

7 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

I believe that "trans" issues are being used as a stalking horse, and unless you are an idiot you realise it is the political atmosphere that has brought this to the surface now.

I thought the fact that the original mandate was drafted for something very different decades ago would have been a hint.

Again, my starting point in this was, what "behaviors" should the school faculty be mandated to report to parents?

So far we have gender ID and a boy who wants to convert to Islam.

 

From a safeguarding point of view, any issues which are related to a child's mental or physical health or concerns about grooming or radicalisation should be reported to parents. 

 

Examples might be that a child talks about hurting themselves or shows signs of mental illness.

 

If a child suddenly changes their views on a subject, eg views on women may indicate they are being radicalised by the Andrew Tate mob, views on immigrants may indicate they are being radicalised by the far right, views on Christianity may indicate they are being radicalised by radical Islam etc 

 

There are a lot of examples when schools would contact a parent with concerns. 

 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

10 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Should kids be made to be circumcised at a young age because they’re Jewish or Islamic? 

And some catholics too. Loads of lads in our school had been through the process. 
 

Unless there is a medical reason, is there a need for anyone to get it done? Especially a baby. 

[Bjornebye]

12 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

And some catholics too. Loads of lads in our school had been through the process. 
 

Unless there is a medical reason, is there a need for anyone to get it done? Especially a baby. 

I don’t see how it’s any different to genital mutilation until they’re old enough to consent. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

26 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

And some catholics too. Loads of lads in our school had been through the process. 
 

Unless there is a medical reason, is there a need for anyone to get it done? Especially a baby. 

I had about 2/3 of the length of my penis surgically removed when I was a baby. (At least, I assume that's what must have happened.)

[SasaS]

8 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's insane.

 

It's not "a momentous decision", because who you are isn't a decision. The only choice they get is when to tell people; sometimes it's easier to tell people in school (or in work, or wherever) than it is to tell your family.

 

But you don't know who you are, you are a child, and even if you were not, it often takes decades for people to discover their true identity, if ever. And if you don't include parents, once you have transitioned it will start all over again, with them.

 

And if you are a young teenager, changes you go through smash you against various identity and other walls, the society does not think you are mature enough to decide which Sunderland player you will have sex with or would you join Isis and go to Syria or not, but that your sex and gender don't match in your head, and if you think you should involve your parents in the process (who you believe hate you because they demand you are home by midnight or something and go to school every day), now, that you are fully capable of deciding.  

[Pidge]

2 hours ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

From a safeguarding point of view, any issues which are related to a child's mental or physical health or concerns about grooming or radicalisation should be reported to parents. 

 

Examples might be that a child talks about hurting themselves or shows signs of mental illness.

 

If a child suddenly changes their views on a subject, eg views on women may indicate they are being radicalised by the Andrew Tate mob, views on immigrants may indicate they are being radicalised by the far right, views on Christianity may indicate they are being radicalised by radical Islam etc 

 

There are a lot of examples when schools would contact a parent with concerns. 

 

 

What if there are signs that someone has hurt the child? Would you always report to the parents or are there scenarios where you might use discretion as to where to go? Would you agree with a law that demanded you to always speak to the parents, even if the child specifically told you that it might put them in danger?  Galop claim (sample of 790) 44% of the trans and NB cohort reported some form of familial abuse (13% physical violence, still 1/8th if you just want to focus on that group). https://galop.org.uk/resource/lgbt-experiences-of-abuse-from-family-members/

 

It's difficult to say what the levels are here as we're talking about leaked info, not the guidance itself, but that's how it's been represented so far. There has to be discretion, and that requires recognition that you are dealing with a real thing. Since that doesn't feel politically beneficial to a Tory party on the ropes, I don't have much faith that they actually give a shit about the kids' welfare and would prefer to look decisive to idiots that read the s*n (where this guidance was originally leaked).

[TheHowieLama]

That's the point. No one is saying parents should not be told of any major issues or concerns and most will recognise that teachers do it all the time.

The idea that they are required to in this instance seems targeted and at this point in time overtly political.

Again, as with alot of these examples, how many instances have been affected. The number has to be very few - maybe none.

In fact the Section 28 legislation that was quoted above, the brainchild of Thatcher, was originally not applied in schools and there has never been a prosecution.

 

The larger question, for me, is how other equally divisive situations are then handled in a school setting.

[SasaS]

So all this gaslighting over several pages that parents and families should be kept out of transitioning process as if their child is joining some kind of cult was because there was a similar legislation introduced by Thatcher in the '80s, which had nothing to do with current trans issues?

 

My bad, I really should know better by now.

[redheart]

4 hours ago, Pidge said:

 

What if there are signs that someone has hurt the child? Would you always report to the parents or are there scenarios where you might use discretion as to where to go? Would you agree with a law that demanded you to always speak to the parents, even if the child specifically told you that it might put them in danger?  Galop claim (sample of 790) 44% of the trans and NB cohort reported some form of familial abuse (13% physical violence, still 1/8th if you just want to focus on that group). https://galop.org.uk/resource/lgbt-experiences-of-abuse-from-family-members/

 

It's difficult to say what the levels are here as we're talking about leaked info, not the guidance itself, but that's how it's been represented so far. There has to be discretion, and that requires recognition that you are dealing with a real thing. Since that doesn't feel politically beneficial to a Tory party on the ropes, I don't have much faith that they actually give a shit about the kids' welfare and would prefer to look decisive to idiots that read the s*n (where this guidance was originally leaked).

 

That survey is clearly very flawed. No self-respecting academic would rely upon it

[TheHowieLama]

20 minutes ago, SasaS said:

So all this gaslighting over several pages that parents and families should be kept out of transitioning process as if their child is joining some kind of cult was because there was a similar legislation introduced by Thatcher in the '80s, which had nothing to do with current trans issues?

 

My bad, I really should know better by now.

 

You have proven to have fundamentally missed the point in the last few pages which were specifically about things other than gender transition. 

 

 

[SasaS]

Apparently.

[TheHowieLama]

Transparently.

[Paulie Dangerously]

9 hours ago, Pidge said:

 

1. What if there are signs that someone has hurt the child? Would you always report to the parents or are there scenarios where you might use discretion as to where to go?

 

2. Would you agree with a law that demanded you to always speak to the parents, even if the child specifically told you that it might put them in danger?  Galop claim (sample of 790) 44% of the trans and NB cohort reported some form of familial abuse (13% physical violence, still 1/8th if you just want to focus on that group). https://galop.org.uk/resource/lgbt-experiences-of-abuse-from-family-members/

 

It's difficult to say what the levels are here as we're talking about leaked info, not the guidance itself, but that's how it's been represented so far. There has to be discretion, and that requires recognition that you are dealing with a real thing. Since that doesn't feel politically beneficial to a Tory party on the ropes, I don't have much faith that they actually give a shit about the kids' welfare and would prefer to look decisive to idiots that read the s*n (where this guidance was originally leaked).

 

Thought I'd deal with these separately.

 

1. If a child has been harmed it's always our business to find out more about it.  This usually means speaking to the child and then the parents in the first instance. "Oh Johnny had a nasty bruise on his shoulder, he said he fell off his bike, how did he manage that?" and take it from there. If there's reason to believe a young person is suffering abuse/harm by a member of their own family or household, there are strict guidelines on who we have to report this to.  A designated safeguarding leader in school before it goes to a safeguarding team at the local council who would then take the issue on.  As a side-note, these teams are usually as much use as Miranda Hart's make up bag and you would be amazed at the lengths needed to remove children from dangerous households. 

 

2. Pretty loaded question there.  Essentially boiled down to "would you agree to knowingly put a child in danger, well, would ya punk?" Sadly, whether I agreed with it or not would be irrelevant.  In every school up and down the country, teachers follow an agreed process to best protect children which at times means making difficult decisions, questioning colleagues, hearing horrendous details of how children live and then having to log it before they go back into that environment.   It really comes down to if schools perceive transitioning as potentially harmful to the child and if the child is saying and doing things in school which are a cause for concern.  If they see it harmful, then they'd follow the procedure which in the first instance would be to speak to parents. 

 

An example a friend of mine from another school gave me was a boy in Year 6 (10/11) started telling people he was Muslim, greeting people with 'peace be upon you' etc and talking about how Muslims were oppressed the world over.  This was a cause for concern and a potential sign of radicalization. They mentioned this to the parents in a non-confrontational way, turns out he'd seen a few tiktoks and was just being a wally, the phase lasted about a fortnight.  

 

Sorry for war and peace. 

[Pidge]

5 hours ago, redheart said:

 

That survey is clearly very flawed. No self-respecting academic would rely upon it

I'll revise my thesis. Thanks for the illuminating analysis, as ever...

 

*I'm sure there are some flaws, any self-respecting academic would know there usually is.