Seven key questions Gillian Keegan needs to answer on ‘woke’ trans school guidance

Stoke North Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis is a former teacher and school standards minister who is a senior figure in the influential New Conservatives group on the right.

As it emerged that former Home Secretary Suella Braverman tried to block new trans guidance for schools amid concerns it was too liberal before she was sacked, he asked for an urgent question in the Commons today on the issue.

With the new guidance published today by Education Secretary Gillian Keegan in a written statement, Gullis’ application was denied by the Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle.

While many have welcomed the long-awaited guidance others on the right have described it as “too woke”.

Mr Gullis has issued seven key questions which need to be answered via Express.co.uk.

Click here to join our WhatsApp community to be the first to receive politics news from The Express

Jonathan Gullis’s questions

Mr Gullis said: “It seems fine on first reading but these questions need to be answered.”

1. Why did the Government not make the changes to the Equality Act to legally define sex as being biological sex? Who was pro changing it and who was against changing it in Government?

2. What counts as a “specific action” that would then require the school to inform a parent? Who determines what specific is? Doesn’t this just create a system in which all schools will interpret the guidance differently, leaving parents in a postcode lottery situation as to whether or not it they’d be told? Allegedly the guidance says teachers and children can have a “general” discussion which means no specific action is needed. What does that mean? Who determines if the conversation is general?

3. On safeguarding a pupil by not informing parents – won’t this just lead to religious persecution of households whose parents are Muslim or Christian Evangelical for example? What is a parent doesn’t believe any child should transition before 18? Would they be a risk to their child and the school therefore wouldn’t inform? What is a parent is informed, and god forbid harm comes to that child, will the school be legally held accountable? It again leads to putting pressure on each Head Teacher to determine what to do, meaning different schools will do different things.

4. Why at the very least, wasn’t any of this banned at primary school where children are very young and therefore more vulnerable? Even the guidance talks about “caution” with younger pupils.

5. By not interlacing a ban on social transitioning, without medical sign-off, isn’t this essentially self ID in another name? By not asking for medical professional input, aren’t we in just enabling what we criticised in Scotland with the SNP’s plan on self-ID?

6. Teachers will still face accusations of not being in “good faith” if they refuse to use someone’s preferred pro noun, meaning Head Teachers again having to decide whether or not they investigate claims made and some teachers may unfairly face disciplinary actions. This will again create a postcode lottery issue.

7. It is bizarre to release this guidance and not include information on the types of materials, which has been one of the biggest issues. This will again leave schools using different materials at different age groups which in itself will mean confusion for parents.

SOURCE

Leave a Comment

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +