How should schools and universities respond when a student asks to be considered a gender other than their birth sex? The conservative British government responds cautiously to this increasingly burning question. This is essentially the message sent by Education Minister Gillian Keegan and Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch in a series of recommendations for principals, teachers and staff. schools and universities.
This draft guide dedicated to questioning gender among students was made public in December following joint work by the two ministries, in conjunction with the professionals concerned, and is now the subject of an online consultation until ’to March 12. It follows a “significant increase” in the number of students questioning their gender and sexual appearance. These questions sometimes lead to specific requests addressed by students to the educational institution: to be able to wear the uniform of students of the other sex, to be referred to by another first name, and more generally, to no longer be treated like people of the other sex. same sex at birth.
Faced with these increasingly frequent requests, the British government first stated five main principles. Two aim to respect the questions of each student: schools have an obligation to guarantee the well-being of students, and to prevent any rejecting or harassing behavior. But three other principles of prudence are added to this: schools have the obligation to consult parents for any request from a minor student; they must fulfill their legal obligations relating to the biological sex of each child (therefore their birth sex: in the United Kingdom, it is impossible to change sex before reaching the age of majority); and on the other hand do not have a general and unconditional obligation to authorize a student to make a “social transition” at school, that is to say to change their first name, pronouns, uniform, etc. .
The guide then indicates that schools and universities must never take the lead when faced with a student questioning their gender: action can only be considered if the student explicitly requests it. A teacher who, during an informal exchange with the student, discovers this questioning, is not required to immediately inform the parents but cannot undertake to keep the subject of the discussion entirely confidential.
If, subsequently, the student asks the school to comply with his transition request, it is recommended to first observe a period of “watchful waiting” to ensure that the student’s approach is confident, mature, thoughtful. If this is the case, and the student is a minor, the parents must be informed of this request and consulted – except in the case where this could cause the child to incur a “serious risk”. Then, to decide whether or not to satisfy the child’s request, the school must take into account their age, any medical circumstances that have been brought to their attention, and the impact that this would have on the child. the student himself but also on other students, as well as the seriousness of the request.
For this last point, the document specifies that the school must question the influences to which the student may be subject, in particular “by their peers or by social networks”; and that it must also ensure that the transition request is not driven by a difficulty, on the part of the student, in conforming to caricatured stereotypes associated with their sex of birth, or in accepting their sexual orientation. In these two cases, the school must then ensure that the student is not subject to pressure relating to these stereotypes, or to rejecting behavior linked to their sexual orientation.
It is only after having weighed all these criteria that the school can administratively register the student under a first name different from the first name at birth, and ask staff and other students to designate them with other first names, provided to “communicate tactfully, and without suggesting that controversial discourses on gender have a scientific reality”. In addition, “the decision to designate a student by pronouns other than those relating to their sex of birth cannot concern primary school students,” adds the document. For other students, “schools have the right to refuse this request, […] they will only grant it if they are certain that the benefit for the student outweighs the impact on the rest of the educational community, which should only concern relatively few cases.
Finally, the document recalls that even when a school accepts the social transition of a student, they cannot under any circumstances be admitted to spaces reserved for students of the opposite birth sex: changing rooms, showers and toilets. It is the law which in fact imposes this, to guarantee the safety of students. In certain cases, the student may be able to access a separate toilet, provided that no other student is there at the same time as him. Finally, for sports practiced in groups separated by gender, students will not be able to mix with a group of another gender, both for reasons of equity and security.
Promised in March by conservative British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, this document was the subject of tense discussions between the government and parliament. Its spirit can ultimately be summed up in the words of Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden: it is about treating gender issues in schools “with appropriate scepticism”.
In the conservative camp, this document remains too “weak” however in the eyes of former Minister of the Interior Suella Braverman, who regrets that schools can in certain cases accede to students’ requests. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss said that a directive would not be enough, and that the government should go through legal channels.
The document, however, sparked an outcry among LGBT and transactivist associations. One of them, the Stonewall association, compared it to a regulation adopted in 1988, the famous “section 28”, which banned any promotion of homosexuality in schools – and on the subject of which David Cameron presented an official apology to the LGBT community in 2009. “This document will encourage harassment and attacks against transgender children,” lamented a Stonewall spokesperson, quoted by the Guardian.
The three main associations defending children’s rights, Barnado’s, NSPCC and Children’s Society, for their part regretted that the children concerned had not been sufficiently interviewed before the drafting of the document, and implicitly denounced the directives too strict, which do not sufficiently take into account the opinions of students.
Finally, on the side of teachers and school directors, some criticized a text “which leaves many questions unanswered”, in the words of Paul Whiteman, an official of the NAHT teaching union, which “continues to place those responsible schools in a delicate situation.
Also read: The case of trans students before the Council of State
In France, this question was addressed in 2021 by a circular from the Minister of National Education, known as the “Blanquer circular”, entitled “For better consideration of questions relating to gender identity in schools”. This text, much more flexible with regard to student demands, aims to clarify the rights of transgender students. It also strives to establish a framework to facilitate the satisfaction of requests for changes of first names, clothing standards and use of places of privacy. And recommends in particular to ensure the use of the first name chosen by the student in the internal life of the establishment, if this request is made with the agreement of both parents if he is a minor.
Received a request from two associations, Jurists for Children and SOS Education, the Council of State validated this circular on December 29, rejecting the requests denouncing an attack on the requirement to protect the best interests of the child.