F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

[AuroraSaab]

It's the one that specifically advises UK service providers and as such applies to schools.

Schools can also follow the nebulous pronouncements of all those other bodies (who have very little to say directly about the practicalities of accommodating children with gender dysphoria in schools) and decide that their directions about childrens welfare being paramount applies just as much to all the other kids as it does to the one who wants to 'live in their acquired gender'. I'm not sure why you think the welfare of one child should trump the welfare of the other kids in that school.

I haven't overlooked it. The EA says exclusion of any of the protected characteristics must be a proportionate means to a legitimate end. Exclusion on the basis of sex in certain limited circumstances easily falls within that requirement as you well know. Same stuff, again and again. I hope Brompton will have a word about you hijacking his thread.

 

[monkers]

It's the one that specifically advises UK service providers and as such applies to schools.

Schools can also follow the nebulous pronouncements of all those other bodies (who have very little to say directly about the practicalities of accommodating children with gender dysphoria in schools) and decide that their directions about childrens welfare being paramount applies just as much to all the other kids as it does to the one who wants to 'live in their acquired gender'. I'm not sure why you think the welfare of one child should trump the welfare of the other kids in that school.

I haven't overlooked it. The EA says exclusion of any of the protected characteristics must be a proportionate means to a legitimate end. Exclusion on the basis of sex in certain limited circumstances easily falls within that requirement as you well know. Same stuff, again and again. I hope Brompton will have a word about you hijacking his thread.

All relevant law applies to schools, but especially the Children's Act, and the Public Sector Duty Act. Before you attempt stuff like this, do kindly remember my background.

 

[monkers]

I'm not sure why you think the welfare of one child should trump the welfare of the other kids in that school.

Because schools have the ambition of building inclusive communities. Your primary driver is to look for the means to build exclusive ones.

This is the nub of where you and I differ, and where based on my experiences I can confidently say that a school leader and a majority of teachers will disagree with you.

School managers do in the main look for the means to include. This is usually done off the back of risk assessment on a case-by-case basis.

Never should schools act spitefully out of prejudice against any child due to a personal characteristic.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This is the nub of where you and I differ, and where based on my experiences I can confidently say that a school leader and a majority of teachers will disagree with you.

Based on my experience I can equally say they don't. How often you castigate me saying I claim to speak for all women, and here you are speaking for 'most teachers'.

Never should schools act spitefully out of prejudice against any child due to a personal characteristic.

They also have a responsibility to not prioritise one child's wishes if that affects other children. Here you are again though with your emotive special pleading. If you don't get what you want it's because of spite and prejudice not because schools are balancing all pupils desires and rights.

 

[monkers]

Based on my experience I can equally say they don't. How often you castigate me saying I claim to speak for all women, and here you are speaking for 'most teachers'.

Yes I have to remind you that you do not speak for all women when you use the royal 'we'. You even presume to speak for lesbians. Sometimes it feels as if you don't recognise the views of other women and especially lesbians. I'm familiar with the hierarchy of women that some of you operate under, having been subject to it myself. I witnessed it in a Tory party leadership election when Andrea Loathsome tried to elevate her own suitability over Theresa May because she is a mother.

Lesbians are not the collective of anti-trans people that have been portrayed. In fact surveys show the opposite to be true; we are the most trans friendly cohort. It's not just me.

 

[monkers]

They also have a responsibility to not prioritise one child's wishes if that affects other children. Here you are again though with your emotive special pleading. If you don't get what you want it's because of spite and prejudice not because schools are balancing all pupils desires and rights.

A former teacher saying that protecting the rights of the child is 'special pleading'.

Let's just let this sit here for all to see.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I have no idea why you are bringing up a survey of lesbians. It's just more obfuscation and irrelevance from you. The only people who can speak for lesbians are lesbians, ie female born same sex attracted women. Though of course they aren't a hive mind on transgender issues.

A former teacher saying that protecting the rights of the child is 'special pleading'.

Let's just let this sit here for all to see.

I didn't say that. I said expecting schools to prioritise the rights of an individual child rather than balance both their rights and the rights of other children is emotive special pleading. And using language like 'spite' and 'prejudice' when schools don't acquiesce to these wishes is just your usual histrionic emotive language designed to get what you want because you have no rational arguments left.

Let it sit there. Nobody gives a feck at this point.

 

[classic33]

I have no idea why you are bringing up a survey of lesbians. It's just more obfuscation and irrelevance from you. The only people who can speak for lesbians are lesbians, ie female born same sex attracted women. Though of course they aren't a hive mind on transgender issues.



I didn't say that. I said expecting schools to prioritise the rights of an individual child rather than balance both their rights and the rights of other children is emotive special pleading. And using language like 'spite' and 'prejudice' when schools don't acquiesce to these wishes is just your usual histrionic emotive language designed to get what you want because you have no rational arguments left.

Let it sit there. Nobody gives a feck at this point.

Why not just say why you don't like trans women and to a lesser extent, trans men?

Without hiding behind anything. That way we'll know why you dislike them ai much.

 

[monkers]

I have no idea why you are bringing up a survey of lesbians. It's just more obfuscation and irrelevance from you. The only people who can speak for lesbians are lesbians, ie female born same sex attracted women. Though of course they aren't a hive mind on transgender issues.



I didn't say that. I said expecting schools to prioritise the rights of an individual child rather than balance both their rights and the rights of other children is emotive special pleading. And using language like 'spite' and 'prejudice' when schools don't acquiesce to these wishes is just your usual histrionic emotive language designed to get what you want because you have no rational arguments left.

Let it sit there. Nobody gives a feck at this point.

The record will show. Readers will decide for themselves.

''histrionic emotive language'' is an excellent example of histrionic emotive language. But I'm not the one that said it.

 

[icowden]

Yes and you are still going on. Obsessed.

I think you may be the person with an obsession. You are haranguing both myself and Aurora about posting in a thread which by your own admission you have not read or contributed to. Maybe take a valium or have a hot bath and relax?

 

[monkers]

I think you may be the person with an obsession. You are haranguing both myself and Aurora about posting in a thread which by your own admission you have not read or contributed to. Maybe take a valium or have a hot bath and relax?

My 'obsession' is that people are treated according to their human rights - and we all have them. The obsession that you and Aurora have is that they should not be. There it is in a nutshell. I'm not the bigot with an obsession about other people.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No, it's that no individuals rights automatically trump that of others. It's a balancing act and schools must quite rightly take the rights of all pupils and staff into account, not just what one child wants.

 

[monkers]

No, it's that no individuals rights automatically trump that of others.

I don't need to refute something I've not said, and I've said this much before. Why do you persist with this same incorrect challenge? I guess it's what you hope I think. It isn't. I've explained my position carefully and clearly. Read it.

It's a balancing act and schools must quite rightly take the rights of all pupils and staff into account, not just what one child wants.

I've said this too. There is a duty to include and accommodate on a case-by-case basis. There may occasions where the high bar is met and an individual can not successfully be included and accommodated.

However what you call for is a blanket ban, claiming that this meets the requirements of the EqA. It doesn't and it has been tested by application to the High Court. The High Court rejected that application as being a non-starter.


If you wish to challenge my opinion, then feel free to challenge what I do say, rather than what I don't. And please refrain from attacking me on the basis of what you think I might think rather than what I attempt to carefully write.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There's no blanket ban in the Equality Act but there is no case by case required in every sense either. A gay men's choir doesn't have to assess each individual woman who wants to join. They can exclude them for simply being women. Likewise a school doesn't have to decide on an individual basis which male pupils who identify as girls can use female facilities. It would be unworkable for service providers to operate on an individual case by case basis and the law doesn't require them to.

 

[monkers]

There's no blanket ban in the Equality Act but there is no case by case required in every sense either.

There is. It's been tested in the High Court. You have been provided with the links several times now. Stop lying.