Identifying as a different gender

I would have thought the new guidelines will take those things into consideration galaxy

So it's a case of wait and see

Read the cass report it says that social transition for children is not a neutral act, also current NHS guidelines.
As I said greetings are easy as you can say hello everyone but there is a much wider issue, all teachers will have to at some point acknowledge a childs sex whether via pronouns or the numerous other ways it may come up - girls into Stem initiatives in mixed sex schools for example. It's going to cause quite considerable problems if education takes a completely opposite approach to health.

As I said, there is a child at school we all call "Llama". We have been told not to call them by the name on their birth certificate because they get upset. If we upset them, they won't trust us. Of they don't trust us, we can't safeguardthem effectively.

That would be causing direct harm.

Creating gender neutral environments in schools has been regarded as desirable by many for a long time. Surely using gender neutral pronouns is just part of that.

Galaxy

It's not about your compromise, it's about it may be harmful. It's an approach that I am afraid looks as if it has been carried out with little evidence as to the outcomes.

Could you describe the harm that might be caused? And give evidence.

If it helps, I do know that we are supposed to be getting more comprehensive guidance from the government this year.

Schools are getting too caught up in the raging trans debate and our primary concern is our pupils welfare, not public debate.

So hopefully this summer is the correct deadline and all adults working with children will have very clear guidelines and something like this won't happen again

They wouldnt be expected to make adjustments that go against the current thinking. It's not irrelevant because its linked to social transition and affirmation.

Curtaintwitcher

Surely if the girl truly identifies as male, she/he will not feel comfortable in an all-girls school? Transferring him/her to an all-boys school might bring the whole thing to a head as regards her gender.

The child doesn't identify as male. They choose to use the pronoun "they" rather than "she". They are non-binary.

It's not about your compromise, it's about it may be harmful. It's an approach that I am afraid looks as if it has been carried out with little evidence as to the outcomes.

Funny isn't it when the discussion clearly reveals that the gender critical views (such as the teacher demonstrated) are shown to be unacceptable in the circumstances the discussion immediately shifts to the Tavistock (which is closing) or some other irrelevancy.
The school obviously took its responsibility to make all pupils feel safe and included. The teacher obviously didn't. Any other individual pupil who was different for some reason would be supported, and the teacher would be expected to make adjustments for them.

Surely if the girl truly identifies as male, she/he will not feel comfortable in an all-girls school? Transferring him/her to an all-boys school might bring the whole thing to a head as regards her gender.

Sorry its just coming across a bit ranty

But that's because my perspective is, protect children's wellbeing and my perspective also is, that I would compromise and say people can use gender neutral pronouns

I would compromise

Any employer can have written into policy that staff cannot

I should mention that other schools may not have the same ethos in inclusion, I do not know specifically what must be in a policy country wide and what is not.

What I do know is my job would be at risk were I too not follow them

Galaxy.

Nobody's "ranting" at anyone VS, this is a discussion and it would be good if it could stay on point.

To refer to her as something else is to accept that she is no longer a girl but different. That is not a neutral act That's a really good point Doodledog and as you've just posted, this particular student hadn't been singled out as far as we know, but was included in a collective address.

Of course they are subject to change

But that's how things stand at the moment.

2 things I would never put at risk, my job or a child's trust in me. My beliefs or opinions do not come above the children, ever

I imagine the families of those who are currently taking legal action against the tavistock will not trust any of the adults who were involved with their children. If I was dealing with the trauma of a child detransitioning I certainly wouldnt trust any professionals who had been participating in social transition now we know it can not be seen as a neutral act.

Who is ranting at you, VS?

Just because someone has been trained in something doesn't make it right, however. FWIW I have been 'trained' in Equal Opps and have trained others in the subject. Before you say that my training is out of date (no doubt true) the very fact that these things can go in and out of date speaks for itself, doesn't it? If they were written on tablets of stone then that, as they say, would be that.

But widely in order to safeguard children, those children must be able to trust the adults working with them

So surely you can see why that is of paramount importance here

In any case!

This girl was not referred to as 'she', (again, AFAWK), but included in a collective address as a girl. She wasn't singled out (AFAWK) for this, which would be different, I think. There is being sensitive to an individual child's demands, and there is letting the tail wag the dog, and the discussion around this case is really about which attitude should hold sway. The case itself has too many unknowns.

It means if I dont do as I am told I can be reported to the police Smileless.

I don't make these rules so there is probably no point ranting at me about it, I'm just relaying what I have been taught

I'd show you the actual training but although a few people know who I am on gransnet, I'd like to keep that circle small by not revealing my school

Of course pronouns are not neutral, even when they refer to so-called 'gender-neutral' people. If they were (neutral) why would there be so much fuss about them?

To refer to someone as a 'girl' is using the accepted term for a young human female, which, AFAIK, is what the child in question was. To refer to her as something else is to accept that she is no longer a girl but is different. That is not a neutral act, whether you view it as positive or negative.

Everything about the ethos of the school and the attitude of the teacher is so much speculation, really. If the school prided itself on its trans-inclusive ideology and marketed itself as such, I would speculate that the odds are there would be more than one non-binary child in any given class; but were I to suggest that on this thread I would no doubt be jumped on, so I won't.

what do DBS checks have to do with the discussion?

No of course they don't affirm either gender by definition that's the point. Gender neutral pronouns affirm that the person being addressed does not want to be identified by gender and/or the person addressing them doesn't want to identify them by gender.

In this particular case, had the teacher not said 'good morning girls' but good morning class, she would have demonstrated that she wasn't identifying anyone in that room by their gender, therefore not offending anyone who didn't want to be addressed with a gender pronoun.

Just as the use of gender pronouns are social affirmation, so is the use of gender neutral pronouns.

Well I can only tell you how things stand at the moment Galaxy and that's how things stand as of my most recent training which I am required to follow. So I'm not "incorrect".

I should also add that any employer can perform a DBS check and turn down your employment as a result.

Here is the law currently on what cpuld lead to a criminal conviction.