A public consultation on a controversial council document advising schools on how to treat gender-questioning children is to be held later this year.
In responding to a press query, the council said it was reviewing the toolkit. Now, it has written to schools saying a consultation will be held ahead of the document being amended in time for the new school year this September.
The message from Jo Lyons, the council’s assistant director for education and skills, said the recently published Cass Review into gender identity services for children, which also investigated the effects of social transition, would be used to inform changes.
It said schools could continue to use the toolkit to inform decisions about pupils in the meantime and advised them to contact the council for advice in more complex cases.
In response, parents group PHSEBrighton, which is supporting the family who commissioned the legal opinion, emailed all schools saying that following the council’s advice could open them to legal action.
The group said: “This communication from the Council and its deliberate phraseology passes the buck entirely to School Governing Bodies and seeks to ensure that any proceedings brought by the parents of pupils or staff at your school rest entirely within your legal liability.
“As per the email below, the leading KC in equality and discrimination law in the UK has found the Brighton and Hove School Trans Inclusion Toolkit to be unlawful.”
This week, the council said the toolkit review was routine, and the consultation would be open to the wider public in due course.
A spokesperson for the council said: “When the current version of the council’s Trans Inclusion Toolkit for schools was published in 2021, it was stated it would be kept under regular review.
“Our latest review has now been launched and we will be carrying out a formal consultation as part of this process.
“This will initially involve engaging with our local schools ahead of a wider consultation involving young people, parents, carers, and the wider public.
“Further detail on the next steps will be made public in due course.”
The legal opinion was written by Karon Monaghan KC, who represented the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the Maya Forstater appeal, which established that gender critical views are “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and is the author of a leading book on discrimination law, Monaghan on Equality Law.
Her 75-page legal opinion outlines a multitude of areas in which she says the toolkit is unlawful in its potential impact on both trans and non-trans children.
I hope that the consultation will result in making clear that any objections are the voices of a loud but ultimately tiny minority, and that trans people will continue to recieve the support they need in the face of a hostile campaign by politically motivated activists. Brighton is an accepting city and the vast majority of residents support our LGBTQ+ community.
I’m assuming you’re a good and kind person which is why you say the things you did. But – the toolkit isn’t just illegal, it’s hurting, probably permanently, thousands of innocent children around the country. It’s based on well intended things that have turned out to categorically be BAD for children – we all want the best outcomes for children and we now know for sure the tool kit is NOT IT. Surely you’d support evidence based care?
WPATH is evidence based care. It’s been used since the 1970s and is just fine for virtually every other country except the UK.
The claim that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care offer an evidence-based guideline, adequate since the 1970s and broadly applicable outside the UK, crucially overlooks substantive critiques regarding its grounding in robust empirical research. Globally, concerns have surfaced about WPATH’s evidence base, with numerous health professionals and researchers pointing out that its recommendations often rest on lower-quality studies, anecdotal evidence, and expert opinions rather than on high-quality randomized controlled trials or long-term outcome studies.
One cardinal piece of analysis questioning the evidence base of WPATH comes from the independent review led by Dr. Hilary Cass in the UK. The Cass Review highlighted a striking deficiency in high-evidence support concerning the effects and outcomes of social and medical transitions as recommended by WPATH guidelines. Specifically, it found an alarming lack of rigorously conducted research, particularly missing were studies that could demonstrably justify the protocols for social transitioning, hormone therapies, and surgical interventions. When systemic reviews were conducted, they consistently echoed a dearth of high-quality evidence supporting these interventions’ efficacy and safety, particularly in the long-term manifestation in transgender individuals.
Internationally, this lack of solid evidence has not gone unnoticed. Health systems and professionals seeking to adopt evidence-based practices have found WPATH’s standards insufficiently substantiated, reflecting a broader push towards more scientifically rigorous, individually tailored approaches to transgender health care.
Furthermore, the adoption of WPATH standards without the backing of strong evidence risks not only inefficacy but potential harm. Decisions on serious medical interventions like hormonal treatment and surgical procedures should be grounded in a framework that robustly demonstrates benefits outweigh risks.
Given these points, it becomes clear that declaring WPATH as universally appropriate and evidence-based overlooks critical international discourse on its empirical inadequacies. The push towards revising and updating these standards should be informed by high-quality research to ensure safe, effective, and ethical care for transgender individuals across diverse healthcare contexts.
And how would you conduct high quality randomised double blind trials on trans people? How would it ever get ethical approval? It can’t be done, you can’t double blind psychological support or hormone therapy or surgery – so what’s your solution? This is why the evidence has been labelled lower quality – it’s systemic transphobia, perpetuated by the current media/government. The evidence is there, if you rationalise the research methods as appropriate (which they are).
Yes the vast majority of the BH community support, love and respect our LGBTQ family, friends, colleagues. That does not mean they, or the LGBTQ community they love and respect supports the BHCC trans school inclusion tool kit, or the medicalisation of gender dysphoric youth with puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgery. This community supports children learning to accept and be accepted for who they are- including gay kids being gay- not feeling the need to undergo experimental treatment to change their sex- at least until there is enough (real) evidence to show that improves their long term outcomes, rather than cause harm. Nor does the whole LGBTQ community support alienating children from families, especially on a false promise. The Cass review has exposed WPATH for its failure to promote evidence based trans healthcare and instead promoting what is now shown to be a mass medical experiment, without care for actual outcomes and outscaling previous medical scandals due to its international impact. Lots of harm from and lots of lessons to be learnt.
Countdown to all the B&H news Commenters who only comment on a story if it’s about trans people logging into their many accounts in 5 …. 4…. 3…. 2…. 1….
Lol. That is all!
And Blast Off.
This is about safeguarding children, not trans people. We have proof that children are not being safeguarded, that they are being taught incorrect and dangerous things that are also illegal under the equality act.
We should be clear that the QC who has deemed the Trans Toolkit illegal – is Keir Starmer’s very own “go to” QC for all things Equality. AND that not a single legal professional has been willing to say that the Monaghan position is incorrect. Not one.
Focus on the children, and keeping them safe from harm, not some political football. Children are being harmed. Today. Stop it.
Yawn. Find better things to write about Jo.
No one is forcing you to read it. Trying to bully someone into not writing about topics you would rather weren’t discussed is lame.
I wonder if the consultation will be rigged like many that have gone before them?
We know how they love Loaded Questions. Used to confuse people and push them in tge direction they want.
A review isn’t good enough – the toolkit is illegal, today, and should be removed immediately before it hurts any more children – and it is children we are talking about. Setting kids on course for chemical castration, life long physical and mental health problems. Why is it still in use today?
GnRHa (puberty blockers) aren’t chemical castration. Actually pretty reversible, if you choose to stop taking them. You’re using very emotive language.
Read the Cass report this is simply not the case.
Luckily the ‘puberty blockers don’t cause any harm and are reversable’ , and this persistent and deliberate ‘you can’t do ethical research…. ‘ pseudo argument has been exposed for what they are (at best) ignorant, and harmful. So what’s your excuse to continue repeating it now? Ideology over children and young people’s actual health and wellbeing?
The narrative positing puberty blockers as a reversible and harmless intervention for gender dysphoric youth lacks any substantiating evidence and disregards significant accumulating data of their irreversible physical and psychological impacts. Findings from reputable sources, including the Cass Review and numerous legal cases, underscore not only the irreversible adverse effects such as impaired sexual function and potential sterility but also the impact on mental health and bone density, which may not be fully recoverable. The assertion that these interventions are reversible is increasingly being questioned and challenged in medical and legal circles.
Your continuance of promoting puberty blockers as a reversible solution, without conclusive evidence supporting such claims, places vulnerable children at undue risk, drawing parallels with historical medical missteps like thalidomide or lobotomies, where the full scope of harm was realised post-factum, highlighting a grave ethical breach in medical practice involving young patients.
Your passionate ignorance is badly hurting children. Why are you doing it?
Why is it appropriate to teach this at all? Let kids grow up to decide who they are for themselves.
Adults need to butt out of this process.
In a weird way you’re right Barry. For the longest time kids who said they were transgender have been put on puberty blockers until 18 and then moved onto hormone therapy into adulthood and nobody cared, this was the normal accepted form of care which follows the advice from WPATH just as almost every other country does to this day. puberty blockers were and continue to be used primarily by kids with precocious puberty, a medical condition that has nothing to do with gender or being trans or anything – who by the way, don’t go on to being infertile or anything like that either.
it’s only recently with trans issues becoming a political football that people have taken issue with this and kicked up a fuss about it. ironically if you want things to go back to how they used to be then just leave it alone, let trans kids go through the usual process they had for years.
Ginseng, you mentioned that the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapies align with WPATH guidelines and are considered standard in many countries. However, significant concerns have emerged from various reviews and scientific critiques, challenging the reliability and safety of these interventions, especially for children. The Cass Review, for example, underscores a notable absence of high-quality evidence supporting the long-term effectiveness and safety of puberty blockers and hormonal treatments for gender dysphoric youth. This lack of solid evidence is crucial because it pertains to interventions that carry potentially irreversible impacts on children’s bodies and psychological well-being.
Additionally, comparing the use of puberty blockers in gender dysphoric children to their use in treating precocious puberty is misleading. In cases of precocious puberty, the treatment duration is typically limited and aims to delay puberty to a more typical starting age, with the endocrine system resuming normal function afterward. In contrast, for gender dysphoric children, puberty blockers are often used for prolonged periods and followed by cross-sex hormones, which can lead to irreversible changes, including sterility and other significant health risks.
The ongoing treatment of gender dysphoria with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones based on current WPATH standards without robust evidence has been likened to an experimental approach with unknown long-term outcomes. Recent research suggests such treatments might be prematurely applied, given the vast gaps in high-quality evidence and understanding of long-term consequences. Moreover, the application of such life-altering medical interventions in the absence of solid evidence is ethically contentious, raising serious concerns about the welfare and future health of children undergoing such treatments.
The critiques and calls for a reevaluation of these practices stress the necessity for a more holistic approach to care, focusing on psychological and social support rather than immediate medical intervention. The comparison of WPATH-guided care to evidence-based care reveals significant discrepancies that warrant a cautious, evidence-driven, and ethically sound approach to treating children with gender dysphoria.
actually this isn’t true, WPATH has worked for trans kids and adults for decades without “adverse effects” if you actually look at the science you’d know this. The cass report is not supported by any doctor that works with trans children nor did it consult any. Acting as though a thoroughly debunked report holds more weight than multiple doctors and international associations of endocrinologists is just nonsense.
WPATH was initially respected, as was stonewall, unfortunately they have both been dominated by trans activists and ideology at any cost. Causing harm to the people they were meant to represent, including a whole heap of children and young people in the process. The Cass report systematically address these concerns- like it or not. BHCC had also better wake up to the harm it is inflicting on the youth it should be safeguarding.
EBCP – you certainly have the jargon, which worries me that you might be practising in the medical field in Brighton. I really hope not, as you do not represent the inclusive medical community which I know here. Trans people are worthy, they are welcome, they are supported. If you want to practise transphobia, perhaps try working in Russia or Saudi? Brighton’s lovely diverse population doesn’t want you here. Stop pinning it on “oh where are the randomised trials”. You know very well certain research methods aren’t applicable in all medical areas.
The Dr. Hilary Cass review into transgender health care has been a focal point in discussions about the treatment practices for transgender youth, particularly regarding puberty blockers and social transitioning. It’s important to clarify that the review did not dismiss studies simply because they lacked a double-blind methodology, which, as you correctly note, is often impossible in such contexts. Instead, the review implemented other suitable criteria to assess the quality of the studies included.
According to BBC’s “More or Less” program, the review considered both high and medium quality trials in its evaluation. The program detailed how the studies were assessed, debunking claims that the review ignored pertinent research. Despite including a range of studies, Dr. Cass’s review highlighted significant “gaps in evidence” regarding the efficacy and safety of puberty blockers for transgender youth. The review’s findings have led to a cautious approach, including the NHS’s decision last month to restrict the prescription of puberty blockers outside of clinical trials to better understand their long-term effects.
The ongoing debate reflects the complexity of transgender health care and the need for robust, high-quality research to underpin critical health decisions affecting vulnerable populations. The critical takeaway is the recognition of existing evidence gaps and the push towards more rigorous studies to ensure that medical interventions are truly beneficial and safe for transgender young people.
I cannot understand why someone who is so passionate, yet so clearly misinformed, would want to experiment on children, despite now having it proven to them that their previous approach was directly harming children.
I also cannot understand why disagreeing with you is painted as transphobia. I want everyone to have the care that they need that works – why do you want to guess (and get it wrong?)
Thank goodness for people like evidence based care please, and everyone working in health and care in Brighton and beyond, doing their best to provide safe and effective health care, in spite of this relentless attack on quality research, effective health and care, safeguarding of children and young people, and accusations of being transphobe, bigoted etc. just because some trans activists and idealists don’t like it.
Youngsters naturally go through many phases in the process of growing up and experimenting to find out who they are. This has always been accepted as a natural part of childhood and normal developmental milestones.
Adolescence has always been a tough process, no matter what sex you are.
Allowing children to make irreversible decisions which will have a life-long effect on their fertility and overall health and mean lifelong drug regimes with serious side effects whilst under the legal age of consent is not legal or acceptable and may have legal consequences for participating adults, so let’s hope these irresponsible adults have good public indemnity insurance which covers them against future legal actions when either the parents or the children eventually demand their day in court.
Being coerced by adults into making such decisions when youngsters may have other issues or conditions in their lives also influencing their depression or how they see or feel about themselves is horrific.
Someone has to be the adult in the room in possession of an enhanced DBS check and a thorough knowledge of child safeguarding and the law.
Surely expert medical and legal advice should prevail over the opinions of the public and councillors.
Exactly right Atticus. It is absurd that a public consultation would have any say on deciding what is legal or not. It feels like this council leadership is entirely made up of activist-ideologues advised by failed law students. We would laugh in despair if were not the case that they are putting children at serious risk. They are sailing the council ship directly at an iceberg. Expect numerous resisignations and by-elections when it hits. I just hope school governors will wake up (if only to realise that THEY will be held legally responsible).
A “legal opinion” is not the same thing as “something being illegal”.
It is in this case. Karon Monaghan is the UKs leading KC in equality and discrimination law. When this KC finds the Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit to be unlawful its because it is. I challenge you, Anarkish, to point me to any credible legal opinion that says otherwise. (And why not use your real name).
stop asking people to use their “real name”, it’s so weird and sinister and makes absolutely no difference to their point. you keep doing this whenever you’re losing the argument, it’s like you’re trying to bait people into giving you their personal information. the internet doesn’t work like that, you don’t need someone’s name to debate them. for someone who supposedly cares so much about safeguarding you sure are insistent on making people post sensitive information online.
I don’t use my real name on this topic because I am a parent in Brighton and Hove. I have to stay anonymous to protect my relationship with my children.
This toolkit drives school policies to exclude parents that do not unconditionally support their child saying “I am Trans” or “I am non Binary” within earshot of some teachers. Just once is all it takes. There are many examples where this has been enforced by BHCC social services, overriding parents who don’t comply.
It has been dangerous for many years in Brighton for parents to parent. Being anonymous does not make me go away.
Every school in Brighton follows the Trans Inclusion Toolkit provided by BHCC. Whatever anyone wishes to call it this is evidence that schools are mandated to follow this policy. And now all head teachers and governors at each school are doing so at personal legal risk. Just one parent or one member of staff can start legal proceedings now. Because this Toolkit protected by BHCC is known to be unlawful.
It’s now time for these politicians to read the room, the outcome is already well known. Not one single institution has successfully defended themselves on similar policies. Despite each institution having the best legal defence available and having unlimited public funds to pay their lawyers.
As Adrian pints out, no review is required. In 2020 Oxford City Council withdrew their version based on Brighton and Hove’s Trans Inclusion Toolkit, because they knew they would not survive the legal challenge presented by a 13 year old girl. They did not spend public funds defending the un-defendable. Brighton City Council’s Trans Inclusion Toolkit has been shown to unlawful, and not one credible legal authority has challenged it since. Why then are our city resources being spent on a review defending the already known to be un-defendable. Cass and DfE have both provided the basis for school policy.
The only choice Brighton and Hove City Council have left is to choose how many more children and families in our city they wish to wreck before they are stopped.
yep, it’s called WPATH and it works just fine for virtually every other country on the planet except the UK.
This is untrue.
WPATH has faced significant criticism for its lack of robust evidence in support of its recommendations on transgender care, as demonstrated by the systematic evidence reviews that found inconclusive results for pediatric transitions. Several countries, acknowledging this lack of systematic review and conclusive evidence, have begun reevaluating and moving away from using WPATH’s standards in formulating their healthcare policies for transgender individuals.
Completely correct. They are also finding out more and more sinister side effects of these drugs including the brain damage effect which is probably why so many trans people cannot rationally understand the science and ethics debate on this issue. https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jac5.1691
I would have thought that the opinions of those that have lived through these pressures and have personal first-hand experience know best. Not so called experts.
The Cass review noted that young people had been “let down” by the “toxicity” of the debate surrounding their care, and this formed some of the justification for its recommendations.
In other words, aggressive anti-trans extremists have dominated the debate to the extent that the debate can no longer be held.
After reading comments to this item – many of which fit this category – and before forming an opinion, please do seek out alternative voices from healthcare institutions outside of the UK and from trans support and advocacy groups. (Transactualdotorgdotuk is a good place to start)
This paper certainly has an anti trans position – almost obsessive coverage of this issue not found elsewhere, and anything read here should be viewed in that light.
Anarkish – your comment illustrates what parents caught up in this hell are up against. When child safeguarding alerts are instantly presumed to be ‘anti-trans’ (by you, by BHCC, by MP LRM) we know we’re in trouble. This is precisely the ‘toxicity’ that lets ALL gender questioning children down.
Mr Hart, given that the public have once again had the opportunity to have their say on whether you should be elected to represent them, and have once again roundly rejected you in favour of the position held by the Labour candidate, do you really think you have the force of public opinion behind your positions? As a parent I am happy that my child will be supported by their school and council rather than left to the mercy of a moral panic stirred up by people like yourself who, whilst seemingly well-intentioned, do not appear to understand the concept of safeguarding under the law.
Yes public opinion is behind the Cass Report and, locally, behind having the council and its schools safeguard children. The Monghan Advice is clear (the toolkit is unlawful) but the council’s position is untenable: if its reviewing the toolkit and accepts that it might be unlawful then the toolkit must be suspended panding urgent review. Unless it does this, schools are legally exposed.
The fact that I couldn’t beat the Labour machine does not mean the issues I ran on have no salience – affordable housing, VG3 etc) You will rue the day you ever felt so arrogantly certain that there is no unfolding child safeguarding scandal in our schools and denounced those raising the alert as stirring a moral panic. Explain to me how YOU understand safeguarding under the law? For instance, does it allow vulnerable teenage girls (some autistic, some same-sex attracted) to be placed on a conveyor belt to medical and surgical intervention withour clinical diagnosis?
Ok Adrian, as an expert in safeguarding I presume you should have no problem answering a basic safeguarding question – should a teacher be expected to out a gay pupil to their homophobic parents? Look forward to hearing your response.
Hi Jane – I’m a parent, it is fundamentally concerning to see decisions about a child’s wellbeing made without proper consultation and transparency—especially by institutions whose primary expertise does not include medical or mental health care, such as schools. Your comment reflects a common anxiety among parents about the role of schools in the personal and medical aspects of children’s lives.
Dr. Hilary Cass’s comprehensive review has indeed brought to light significant issues regarding the medicalization of gender-dysphoric children. The Cass Review suggests caution against precipitative medical intervention and highlights the lack of solid evidence backing the long-term safety and efficacy of such treatments for young people. Dr. Cass articulates that while support and understanding from educational and social institutions are essential, the path to medicalisation should be approached with rigorous clinical oversight, not merely through educational policy or council directives.
Moreover, there are troubling reports indicating that some schools might not fully inform or involve parents in critical decisions affecting their children’s futures. This is particularly concerning given the lasting implications of beginning medical pathways that might not always be reversible. These procedures and changes can set a child on a lifelong path of medical care which might not always align with their best long-term interests, an outcome contrary to most parents’ desires for their children’s health and wellbeing.
The necessity of safeguarding under the law should indeed encompass protection against premature or uninformed decision-making by non-medical professionals regarding a child’s health. As the Cass Review and subsequent discussions have pointed out, this is not merely a concern of moral panic but a legitimate debate on the best practices for handling sensitive health-related issues in the context of children’s varying developmental stages and unique needs.
Therefore, it is crucial for policies and practices to align closely with expert medical guidance and for there to be transparent, inclusive communication involving professionals and families alike. This ensures that decisions made genuinely serve the child’s best interests and are guarded against potential unintended harms of well-meaning but possibly misguided interventions.
TL;DR – Schools and Councils are not Doctors. Dr Cass is and she said it’s bad for our kids and gave evidence.
the cass review is not a review with any scientific merit whatsoever, please stop stating it as fact.
Dr Cass is one paediatrician. What about every gender clinician (doctors and clinical psychologists) in the UK who disagrees with the report? Do they not have any merit, in your view?
adrian you’re obsessed with trans people, i told you before that your liked tweets are filled with literally hundreds of anti trans posts in april alone (and not just about trans kids either). then you have the cheek to say you’re not anti trans. you’re beyond having an axe to grind, you’re fully obsessed. no wonder you weren’t elected if you’re just ranting on twitter day in and day out. being opinionated doesn’t qualify you to be a politician.
here’s an idea, if you don’t like trans people maybe don’t move to the most trans friendly city in the UK.
No – everything you write there is incorrect. And as for asking for someone to use their real name (twice ever now) it is a request that seems appropriate when its people otherwise known – some well known – in the political life of this city. I use my real name for example.
everything i write is incorrect? LMAO literally anyone can go to your liked tweets and prove that wrong.
“known in the political life of this city” ? you mean voters??? or are you suggesting that people here are your political opponents? firstly, if they’re not using their name then how would you know if it’s them? and if they were trying to hide their identity wouldn’t they just give you a fake name anyway?
this is a news website for a city, not everyone who disagrees with you in the comments is going to be someone you know. stop roping people into your paranoia and get therapy.
between this and spending hours of your day on twitter i’m not surprised you lost the election. i can tell you this as a simple voter and someone who was born in this city and has only lived in this city – when i take a quick glance at your twitter, your website and what you’ve said here and in other places: I can tell you don’t actually care about what’s best for brighton, what you’re trying to do is drag “culture war” issues (trans issues, critical race theory etc) into local politics and use them to drive a wedge between voters. nobody who actually has the best interests of our city in mind would choose to do that over promoting unity and respect. if someone like me can take one look at your twitter and see nothing but a man with an axe to grind then that speaks volumes and the numbers don’t lie. you’re in the LGBTQ capital of the UK, if you don’t like that then leave.
are you trans? are your kids trans? do you know any trans kids? have you done anything to support trans kids? no? then have you considered that maybe you’re not actually qualified to have an opinion on what is best for trans kids. all you are is angry, that doesn’t automatically make you an expert.
if you wanna “safeguard” your kids then go ahead, safeguard away but don’t take medical care away from trans kids who actually need it. every trans adult i know (and it’s not a small number) has wished they had access to gender affirming care as kids, because guess what? trans adults were trans kids once and trans kids know what they want. every trans kid you make an enemy of will grow up to be an adult who resents you.
Please could you share some of these anti trans tweets with here?
As was demonstrated by Lloyd Russel Moyle (LRM) outside a polling station, to be ‘anti-trans’ is to simply be someone who opposes the Labour administrations ‘work’ supporting trans healthcare. In this mindset, evidence of harm to vulnerable children is portrayed as a fiction promoted by bigots. Given the evidence has already started to be presented (with one school readily admitting its role in the harm done) I’m wondering what it will take for this cult-like (and very creepy) determination to argue that raising safeguarding concerns = ‘anti-trans’ to face reality. Never for some I fear.
The local Lib Dems have helped compile 4 pages of Adrian Hart’s heinous re-tweets and I was happy to post them up here: https://www.adrianhart.com/why-are-the-brighton-lib-dems-attacking-me/
@Jane – to respond to your point:
“Ok Adrian, as an expert in safeguarding I presume you should have no problem answering a basic safeguarding question – should a teacher be expected to out a gay pupil to their homophobic parents? Look forward to hearing your response.”
I would say – As a parent myself, I understand the importance of ensuring that educational institutions act in the best interests of all students, especially when it comes to personal and potentially sensitive information. Your comparison between outing a student as gay versus the school facilitating a social transition for a transgender or gender-questioning child helps illustrate a critical difference in how these situations should be approached concerning safeguarding practices.
The disclosure of a student being gay inherently involves no necessary action from the school regarding the child’s daily educational or social routines. More importantly, outing a gay student to their parents, particularly when the family environment may not be supportive, does not necessarily serve the child’s best interests and may even expose them to harm.
In contrast, when a child at school expresses a transgender or gender-questioning identity, this situation often prompts significant school-based actions. These actions might include changes to the student’s name, pronouns, access to facilities, and potentially, involvement in programs that might lead them on a pathway towards medical interventions. Given the potentially irreversible nature of these medical interventions, this is not a neutral act. Affirming a child in a new gender identity can indeed set them on a path to medicalization that involves hormone therapies or surgeries, which carry risks and implications for the child’s future health and wellbeing.
It is worrisome that such profound decisions might proceed without thorough involvement and informed consent from parents, especially when considering the findings from Dr. Hilary Cass’s review. This review underscores the lack of robust evidence supporting early medical interventions for transgender children and highlights the risks associated with them. As parents, our primary concern must always be the safety and holistic welfare of our children. Facilitating a medical path for gender-questioning children without a comprehensive understanding of the long-term outcomes, or without parental consent, seems highly inappropriate, especially when coming from institutions primarily equipped to deal with educational matters, not complex medical and psychological ones.
As such, any interventions by schools into the gender identity of students should proceed with caution, rigorous safeguarding standards, and always involve parents unless there is a clear, justified reason grounded in the child’s safety not to do so.
Don’t know where to start with this. Re-read what I said and did not say and start again? As to your question – No.
[Evidence Based Care please, that reply was to Jane not you]
The commentary linked to the Cass review often misrepresents the core issues at stake in the ongoing debate about gender-affirming care, particularly for young people. It is crucial to clarify that many concerns are not “anti-trans” but are rooted in legitimate worries about the long-term impacts of early medical interventions on children and teenagers, as well as the preservation of rights and safe spaces for women and girls.
Dr. Hilary Cass’s comprehensive review does not dwell on defining transgender identities but focuses significantly on the evidential void concerning the outcomes of puberty blockers and hormone treatments. Her findings underscore a landscape filled with emotional and politicized discourse, which unfortunately overshadows the critical need for grounded scientific research. Contrary to being a debate dominated by “anti-trans extremists,” it is a highly polarized environment where genuine concerns about hastily advocating potent medical treatments without robust evidence are often labeled as hostility against trans individuals.
Moreover, implying that prominent figures (Dr Cass) and their critiques are less trustworthy than alternative voices (transactualdoctor) because they call for a more cautious approach is a disservice to the medical community’s responsibility to “first, do no harm.” Dr. Cass, a respected professional in her field, aims not to discredit trans identities but to ensure that medical practices affecting gender-dysphoric youth are founded on solid, unbiased, and long-term research.
The toxicity mentioned in various discussions and reviews primarily arises from the TRA extreme of the debate, unfortunately often overshadowing moderate, evidence-seeking voices. It’s important to note that aggressive confrontations and vilifications largely come from misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Labeling concerned medical professionals and researchers who highlight gaps in evidence as extremists only contributes to this toxicity.
In terms of educating oneself on this topic, relying exclusively on internet searches or singular resources like advocacy websites can lead to a skewed understanding. It is always best approached through diverse, informed and evidence based viewpoints, particularly those grounded in peer-reviewed research and clinical experiences from varied healthcare systems. To wit – if I had cancer, I’d speak to a doctor, not someone who had cancer.
The ongoing debate about gender-affirming care, especially amongst young people, demands nuanced discussions and an open dialogue immune from dismissals and unwarranted labels. It requires contributions from all stakeholders—including medical professionals, parents —to navigate this complex issue responsibly.
That’s a very long way of saying that trans voices should be sidelined and ignored. Cool.
For clarification, the source I suggested was transactual dot org dot uk – obviously amend to create a web address.
People that believe their body is defined by the clothes they need to wear, and biology is conversion therapy and results in genocide must be ignored when it comes to safeguarding.
Labour in BHCC are overriding UK law and clinical professionals to illegally defending this belief, and deem people who believe in biology as safeguarding risks.
Each day this continues means more children and families in this city are being broken.
Your childish attempts to provoke something is transparent. Trans voices are not being ignored, but just like someone with cancer is not a cancer expert, trans voices are not always the best ones to listen to regarding care. For example the passionate anti evidence nature of trans people makes their voices near impossible to understand, let alone listen to.
A doctor, with 30 years of specialisation in looking after children and who spent 4 years investigating transgender health care in the UK – is a much better judge than your friend with a blue rinse and a benefit stick.
Do tell me why you are so happy that trans people were given such terrible care before? It’s as bad as thalidomide or lobotomies – desperate sick people were given unproven treatments that made them worse – and you want more of it? What is wrong with you? Do you hate kids?
It’s fundamental….there are only 2 genders male and female
How you dress that up is up to the individual
Dna doesn’t lie or are you arguing that as well
School children aren’t allowed to drink or drive for good reason
Although you may want there to be “only two genders” and you may feel more comfortable believing this, it is not correct biologically or scientifically and never has been.
If you feel the need to rage at me for pointing this out – don’t. Spend the time instead reading around the subject. You can start by typing “how many genders” into your chosen search engine and read through the results.
This is a really sensitive topic with real-life impacts for people, and contributions should be properly informed and chosen with care.
The biological understanding of sex is fundamentally based on the types of gametes produced: males produce small gametes (sperm), while females produce large gametes (ova). This dichotomy is clear and has been consistently recognized in biological sciences as defining male and female in the realm of sexually reproducing species. This understanding is crucial for a biological delineation between the sexes, as highlighted by sources stating that “male” means making small gametes, and “female” means making large gametes, without ambiguity.
However, gender as a concept diverges significantly from the biological categorization of sex. It’s important to differentiate that while sex is biologically determined by gamete production, gender refers to the roles, behaviors, and identities that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. These are indeed social constructs, shaped by cultural, social, and historical contexts.
You seem to imply that gender is a “pink” or “blue” brain—that is, fundamentally ingrained and distinctly separable into male and female categories— and is contested. Critics, like Deborah Soh in her book reviewed by The Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, argue that such views can be reductive, potentially regressive, and fail to acknowledge the complexity and variability of human psychological and social expression. Asserting that clothing choices or personal interests are inherently aligned with biological sex reflects a simplistic understanding of gender, ignoring how cultural norms evolve and vary significantly across different societies.
Relying on a search engine query like “how many genders are there” to inform oneself about gender can lead to a superficial or misleading understanding. Search results can vary widely in quality and objectivity, often reflecting popular discourse rather than scholarly consensus or well-substantiated data. It’s essential, especially on complex and nuanced topics like gender, to reference academic research, scientific studies, and comprehensive educational resources rather than rely on potentially simplistic or sensational search engine results.
And intersex people do not exist? Righto.
Please use the non offensive name that recognises the genetic disorder this group have to live with, Difference in Sex Development. The overwhelming message from this group has always respect their privacy on this topic. Sex is known in all cases, with very few exceptions, and this is never anyone else’s business.
The concept of “intersex” conditions, more accurately and respectfully referred to as Differences in Sex Development (DSDs), relates to a range of medical conditions involving chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical discrepancies that do not fit typical definitions of male or female at birth. However, it is important to clarify that individuals with DSDs still fall within the biological binary framework related to reproductive function—specifically defined by the potential to produce large gametes (ova) or small gametes (sperm).
In many scientific and medical discussions, the term “intersex” is being replaced with “DSD” to provide a more precise and less stigmatizing language that focuses on the specific medical aspects of the condition rather than a broadly applied and potentially misleading categorization. Employing the term “DSD” emphasizes a more respectful and clinically accurate approach, acknowledging the biological nuances without oversimplifying or misrepresenting the factual gamete-based binary nature of human sexual differentiation.
It is additionally important to consider the perspectives of individuals with Differences in Sex Development (DSDs) themselves, many of whom find it problematic that their medical condition is used by some activist groups to blur established definitions of biological sex. For persons with DSDs, their condition is a specific medical reality, not merely an ideological tool to challenge binary concepts of sex. This co-opting of DSDs can be seen as not only a misrepresentation of their experiences but also as a move that potentially marginalizes their legitimate medical and social concerns by shifting focus to broader political agendas. This can be particularly distasteful to those who wish for their conditions to be understood and addressed based purely on medical science rather than political advocacy.
Whatever policy emerges from the consultation it must be “lawful”, which means….
Single-sex schools must remain just for children of that SEX, and them alone.
Mixed Schools must offer (and enforce) single sex toilets changing rooms sports and other provision
And of course no school should “socially transition” any pupil, with or without the parents consent. Why? Because the Cass review showed that there’s no such thing as a “trans child”, but rather there are children who are questioning their identity and are “gender distressed”. These children (and their families) should be offered holistic counselling and therapy, but not affirmation or medication.
In the long run, Cass proved, if left alone most children will grow out of any gender distress, and become healthy adults.
These things are the soundest basis for Brighton’s school policies regarding transgender – I really hope they put them into action.
that’s not at all what the cass review said. You’re just making things up now.
We’d be very interested to know what you think it said?
The report definitely said the vast majority of kids grow out of it, that it’s a natural part of puberty and that holistic care is the absolute best option for them rather than affirmation and a pathway to medicalisation.
I think, Evidence Based Care please, this thread beautifully shows:
On one side – you, Adrian H, me, K Whitnell, Barry, Agent Provocateur and more: science, material reality, biological fact, the impeccable Cass Review, reason, constructive compassionate solutions
On the other side: Ginseng, Anarkish, and others: slogans unevidenced statements, centering individual feelings above evidence proof and fact.
It is depressing and we just have to hope Brighton Council come 100% down on the side of the Cass Review. If they don’t then yes, I see a future of irreversible harm to children in this city, and successful lawsuits against schools
Its essential that schools and indeed governors realise that the Council is not going to save them, in fact Governors are legally, personally responsible once they have been notified that something is illegal – the only safe thing to do is to remove the trans toolkit immediately and to use the DFE guidance in full. Everything else is a proven safeguarding risk.
The cult of trans will not go away easily. These are the first steps to removing this ideology from being pushed on children.
Oh just like countries who ban “gay propaganda”? You totally don’t sound like a bigot. Get with the programme.
Transgender ideology is treated, rightly, as a cult because unlike same sex attracted people – there is no evidence at all that transgenderism exists as a thing. You cannot change your sex, under any circumstances, and sex, defined as one who produces either large gametes (female) or small gametes (male), is absolutely binary.
Gender – is an entirely cultural (to-wit, made up) thing. Anyone can wear a dress (because we rightly put gendered stereotypes in the bin many years ago) but it does not make them something that they are not. It also does not magically erase the need for private, female only spaces, and female only divisions in sport.
So, at the end of all the extreme verbiage, we come to the core transphobic position. This is the foundation of prejudice and falsehood that gives all the rest of your posturing metaphorical subsidence. Think for a moment what an absolute nonsense you’ve spouted here. You are trying to tell trans people reading your comment _that they do not exist._ That their experiences, presumably, did not happen and are not “a thing.” That line of argument is never ever going to work. I realise you’re probably using ChatGPT to bulk out your word count but even so: what was the purpose of typing all this out if your essential point cannot stand? Was it virtue signalling?
I want to clarify that I am not using ChatGPT or any AI to formulate my responses. My intention is to engage critically and respectfully with the topic at hand.
Firstly, it’s essential to recognize that none of my statements were intended to deny the existence or experiences of individuals who identify as transgender or who experience gender dysphoria. These are real experiences that affect real people. However, it is also crucial to discuss the implications of how society and medicine respond to these experiences. My point is strictly about the biological immutability of sex and the socio-cultural constructs surrounding gender roles.
The conflating of sex with gender identity, as discussed in various sources, rests on precarious grounds within transgender ideology. The distinction between gender identity and biological sex is significant because, while gender identity may vary according to individual and cultural understanding, biological sex is a categorically binary and unchangeable trait determined by reproductive biology.
Moreover, some critiques, as mentioned in the sources, argue that the current frameworks around transgender identity can inadvertently reinforce outdated gender stereotypes. This is seen by some as regressive because it implies that personality traits or preferences need conform to ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ roles as defined by society, which can be restrictive and damaging.
To address your concern about my motivations: the purpose of my discussion is not to diminish the lived experiences of trans individuals but to foster a broader understanding and dialogue about the complexities of gender identity, sex, and societal expectations. It’s a call to consider these issues with nuance and care, rather than accepting oversimplified or ideologically driven narratives.
So, while I understand and empathize with the passionate feelings surrounding this topic, my goal is to contribute to a more informed and considerate conversation that respects both scientific understanding and individual experiences.
Essentially – it’s not that they don’t exist – it’s that however much they might want to be the opposite gender – they aren’t and they never will be and they are served by people telling them that. not society lying and saying they can – and that it will fix any of their problems.
Some Guy – of course men who say they are women exist; women who say they are men exist; boys who say they are girls exist; girls who say they are boys exist; and some individuals say they are neither male or female but “non binary”! But facts are facts and truth is truth: human beings can not change their sex or opt out of their sex, no matter how much they want to. Gender ideology or transgenderism is a delusion or fantasy or fetish or body dysphoria, often a combination of all four! And you should NEVER affirm someone’s unreal delusions fantasies fetishes or dysphoria, any more than you should affirm someone’s anorexia.
@EBCp “however much they might want to be the opposite gender – they aren’t and they never will be.” I assume you mean ‘opposite sex’ judging by the rest of your post. So an unashamedly transphobic position again: transmen can never be men, and transwomen can never be women. There’s also a nasty biological essentialism implicit in it: while gender is irrelevant there are some sex differences which make one side or the other… What? Dangerous? Incapable? That rabbit hole of an idea goes to some very nasty places. Even if we take as gospel that there is an unchangeable binary sex written into us: why are we opposed to changing that as best our tools allow? What other features of genetics ought mankind leave alone? Is Huntington’s disease part of an ineffable plan? Congenital deafness? Are haemophiliacs “pretending” to be something if they carry a clotting factor injection?
If you do mean ‘opposite gender’ despite the surrounding context, then what grounds are there to restrict someone’s expressed gender identity? You say binary gender roles should not even exist in the present, after all. I find it faintly amusing that you describe the position of trans people as “ideological” when your own position is either a fundamental exclusion of those people or a logically incoherent mess.
You’ve certainly been critical, and “respectful” appears to be a moot point. If someone was unfailingly polite in their tone while espousing a nakedly racist or sexist viewpoint, they would not be described as “respectful.”
As an addendum – the website appears to be removing the paragraph breaks I’ve been putting in. I can only apologise for the “wall of text” effect that results.
@ Gerry – They said the same about gay people.
The core transphobic position is always visible when boundaries are asserted based on Biology.
If you unconditionally reject biology you’re not transphobic.
If you believe Biology is conversion therapy you’re not transphobic.
If you believe Biology leads to Trans genocide, you’re not transphobic.
Are you transphobic?
Is Adrian hart the person who ran for the independents in the kemptown by-election? Not surprising you didn’t win if you are posting multiple comments on here calling people cultists and creepy and scolding them for not using their real name. It’s OK to disagree but such an aggressive position is very offputting not what I would want from my counciller
No – Queen’s Park. I’m pretty sure the reason I didn’t win had nothing to do with a comment today or asking the public figures on here doing their neo-trolling thing if they might consider using their real name (hard to know if I’m talking to Robert or someone else). Yes, absolutely ok to disagree!
Schools should just stop teaching it all together until there is clear Government guidance on exactly what should be taught. Teachers in Brighton simply cannot be trusted to decide this.
The government guidance is don’t teach children that their bodies defined by the clothes they need to wear, and that biology is conversion therapy and results in genocide as fact.
In contrast, the government has never felt the need to to provide guidance to stop teachers teaching the world is flat.
Nor has the government had to tell teachers they are not qualified to diagnose Anorexia nor prescribe interventions to resolve any clinical issue a child may have.
BHCC and our teachers can choose to stop all this right now, this evening in fact. With one email. What on earth do they think they’re doing.
and teachers are no
By telling local schools to do what they think best rather than telling them to stop the trans toolkit with immediate effect BHCC are passing the legal action buck.
Each Head, as Head of Health and Safety for their School may find themselves held personally liable for any child safeguarding failure. They might want to check their public liability insurance and whether their unions will back them up. They in turn will be looking to sue BHCC, as will many other school Heads in the country where the BHCC trans child schoolkit has been exported from Brighton.
Better also ensure BHCC are not intending to spend our taxes on all the legal actions coming their way.
I long for a world where people can just be whoever they want to be without labels attached, but the young generation do seem to be obsessed with rules and definitions. I’d like to think that celebrating the differences one day won’t always result in evangelism. Religion / veganism / Greenism etc, etc, – all political confrontation, so I hope gender isn’t going the same way.
We can be thankful that Brighton is far more enlightened than most places in the UK.
There should be no need for a “trans-toolkit”. It is a great sadness that just loving everyone for everybody’s quirky queerness isn’t enough. Maybe one day it will be. If we just embraced the freedom to be anyone we wanted to be, the world would be a better place for it, and all the pressures might fall away – but I don’t know, I don’t have first hand experience, and therefore am not qualified to judge. Maybe if everyone just realised that they were loved for who they are, maybe even more so when they are that little bit more interesting, things might be a little better.