Phillipson: Teachers cannot insist on gender-neutral Mx title
Bridget Phillipson said schools have a responsibility to make sure teachers are treated with respect, but also that people 'with a range of viewpoints' on transgender issues are also treated with respect.
Ms Phillipson was pressed further on Thursday on comments she made earlier this week about the right of teachers to make such a request.
The Telegraph reported recently that a primary school in the south-east of England had listed a new teacher, who the newspaper said was male according to their biological sex, as Mx in a list of staff members.
Mx is described as a gender-neutral title for those who do not identify as being of a particular gender or do not wish to be identified by gender.
Speaking on Times Radio, Ms Phillipson said: 'A teacher can, of course, make that request, but you can't insist that it's followed.'
Asked whether she would call someone Mx, Ms Phillipson said: 'I think that's a hypothetical situation. I've never been asked to do that.
'As a matter of principle, on a wider point, I would usually seek to respond to someone in a way that they would prefer, but there is no obligation for people to do that.'
Asked by Nick Ferrari on LBC whether the issue will cause confusion, she said: 'Schools, as employers, have responsibilities for managing this, in that they have a responsibility to ensure that staff are treated with respect, but also that people with a range of viewpoints are also able to express their views and are treated with respect as well.'
Ms Phillipson also said she 'can't put a timescale' on when long-awaited guidance for schools on gender-questioning children will be published.
The Government has previously said it will not be hurried into publishing guidance for schools, amid calls which came after the Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman in April.
Draft guidance for schools and colleges on how best to support pupils has been on hold since Labour entered Government. It was published by the Conservative government in December 2023, and a consultation ended in March last year.
On Thursday Ms Phillipson, who has previously said guidance would be issued later this year, said the priority is getting the guidance right.
She told LBC: 'I think it's more important that we get it right than we rush it, because these are serious and quite sensitive issues about children and young people and their wellbeing.
'I do know that schools are asking for guidance.
'We want to make sure they've got that guidance, but what matters most is that the guidance they get is workable and they find it practical and helpful in responding to what can be quite challenging issues for schools, when they're supporting young people who might be experiencing questions around distress or their wellbeing.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
13 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Trump says Zelensky can stop war with Russia ‘almost immediately' ahead of talks
The US president suggested Mr Zelensky would have to accept there was 'no getting back' Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014, and Ukraine would not be allowed to join the Nato alliance. Sir Keir and other European leaders will seek to persuade Mr Trump not to push for a settlement which rewards Vladimir Putin's aggression and to get US security guarantees for any military peacekeeping force from the so-called 'coalition of the willing'. Those joining Sir Keir include France's Emmanuel Macron, Germany's Friedrich Merz, Italy's Giorgia Meloni and Alexander Stubb, president of Finland. Nato chief Mark Rutte and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen are also attending. In a message on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said President Zelensky 'can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight'. He said there would be 'no going into Nato by Ukraine' – keeping its neighbour out of the alliance and its mutual defence pact has been one of Russia's key aims. I'm on my way to Washington D.C. to meet @POTUS, @ZelenskyyUa and other leaders. Here's why: — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) August 18, 2025 But Sir Keir, along with other Nato leaders, has said Ukraine is on an 'irreversible path' to membership of the alliance. Government minister Stephen Kinnock said the 'pathway for Ukraine to Nato' could not be dictated by any other country. The health minister told Times Radio: 'Any decisions taken about Ukrainian territory must be taken with the agreement of the Ukrainian government and President Zelensky. 'The other is that the pathway for Ukraine to Nato and to security guarantees cannot be dictated to them by any other country, and the other is to send a very clear message that we the British people stand firmly shoulder-to-shoulder with the Ukrainian people as we showed when we opened our homes and our hearts to the Ukrainian refugees.' Mr Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff has suggested that measures similar to Nato's Article 5 mutual defence provision could be offered by the US without Kyiv joining the alliance. Mr Witkoff, who took part in the talks between Mr Trump and Russian president Mr Putin last week, said it 'was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that' and called it 'game-changing'. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato,' Mr Witkoff told CNN. Mr Zelensky said any peace deal must be lasting 'not like it was years ago, when Ukraine was forced to give up Crimea and part of our East – part of Donbas – and Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack'. He said: 'Russia must end this war, which it itself started. And I hope that our joint strength with America, with our European friends, will force Russia into a real peace.' I have already arrived in Washington, tomorrow I am meeting with President Trump. Tomorrow we are also speaking with European leaders. I am grateful to @POTUS for the invitation. We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably. And peace must be lasting. Not… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 18, 2025 At the White House, Mr Zelensky is expecting to face calls from the US president to concede to full Russian control of Donetsk and Luhansk, two mineral-rich regions of Ukraine that are mostly occupied by Vladimir Putin's forces. In exchange for these demands, the Russian president would reportedly withdraw his forces from other areas of Ukraine and accept the Nato-like guarantee designed to prevent him launching further incursions. Ahead of their Oval Office encounter, the allies are likely to be mindful of the previous occasion Mr Zelensky visited Mr Trump in the White House. February's public spat, which saw Vice President JD Vance accuse Mr Zelensky of not being thankful enough to the US, resulted in American aid to Ukraine being temporarily halted. Mr Trump will again host Mr Zelensky in the Oval Office before a separate meeting with the European leaders.
North Wales Chronicle
44 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Trump says Zelensky can stop war with Russia ‘almost immediately' ahead of talks
The US president suggested Mr Zelensky would have to accept there was 'no getting back' Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014, and Ukraine would not be allowed to join the Nato alliance. Sir Keir and other European leaders will seek to persuade Mr Trump not to push for a settlement which rewards Vladimir Putin's aggression and to get US security guarantees for any military peacekeeping force from the so-called 'coalition of the willing'. Those joining Sir Keir include France's Emmanuel Macron, Germany's Friedrich Merz, Italy's Giorgia Meloni and Alexander Stubb, president of Finland. Nato chief Mark Rutte and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen are also attending. In a message on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said President Zelensky 'can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight'. He said there would be 'no going into Nato by Ukraine' – keeping its neighbour out of the alliance and its mutual defence pact has been one of Russia's key aims. I'm on my way to Washington D.C. to meet @POTUS, @ZelenskyyUa and other leaders. Here's why: — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) August 18, 2025 But Sir Keir, along with other Nato leaders, has said Ukraine is on an 'irreversible path' to membership of the alliance. Government minister Stephen Kinnock said the 'pathway for Ukraine to Nato' could not be dictated by any other country. The health minister told Times Radio: 'Any decisions taken about Ukrainian territory must be taken with the agreement of the Ukrainian government and President Zelensky. 'The other is that the pathway for Ukraine to Nato and to security guarantees cannot be dictated to them by any other country, and the other is to send a very clear message that we the British people stand firmly shoulder-to-shoulder with the Ukrainian people as we showed when we opened our homes and our hearts to the Ukrainian refugees.' — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 18, 2025 Mr Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff has suggested that measures similar to Nato's Article 5 mutual defence provision could be offered by the US without Kyiv joining the alliance. Mr Witkoff, who took part in the talks between Mr Trump and Russian president Mr Putin last week, said it 'was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that' and called it 'game-changing'. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato,' Mr Witkoff told CNN. Mr Zelensky said any peace deal must be lasting 'not like it was years ago, when Ukraine was forced to give up Crimea and part of our East – part of Donbas – and Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack'. He said: 'Russia must end this war, which it itself started. And I hope that our joint strength with America, with our European friends, will force Russia into a real peace.' I have already arrived in Washington, tomorrow I am meeting with President Trump. Tomorrow we are also speaking with European leaders. I am grateful to @POTUS for the invitation. We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably. And peace must be lasting. Not… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 18, 2025 At the White House, Mr Zelensky is expecting to face calls from the US president to concede to full Russian control of Donetsk and Luhansk, two mineral-rich regions of Ukraine that are mostly occupied by Vladimir Putin's forces. In exchange for these demands, the Russian president would reportedly withdraw his forces from other areas of Ukraine and accept the Nato-like guarantee designed to prevent him launching further incursions. Ahead of their Oval Office encounter, the allies are likely to be mindful of the previous occasion Mr Zelensky visited Mr Trump in the White House. February's public spat, which saw Vice President JD Vance accuse Mr Zelensky of not being thankful enough to the US, resulted in American aid to Ukraine being temporarily halted. Mr Trump will again host Mr Zelensky in the Oval Office before a separate meeting with the European leaders.
Spectator
44 minutes ago
- Spectator
Why Nigel Farage should go big on nature
Dear Nigel Farage, We haven't met, but I have a great idea for you. I head the Zoological Society of London. We're a conservation charity, not party political but dedicated to protecting wildlife. You might approve – we're a venerable national institution, 200 years old next year and still proud of our royal connections (though so is the RNLI, and you've gone off them). Anyway, here's the idea: go big on nature. Make protecting Britain's natural heritage one of your things. Outflank the government on bats and badgers. Become Swampy in red trousers. It makes sense in all sorts of ways. What could be more conservative than protecting the landscapes and wildlife that define our identity? Politics first: nature is popular. Millions of voters are members of the National Trust, the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts. Nine out of ten British adults say that they feel a responsibility to look after nature. Protecting nature is not a niche issue; it is a deeply held conviction across the electorate. You're not a great fan of the overseas aid budget, but guess which bit of it consistently polls as the most popular? Yep, the bit that protects nature around the world. It's not just the avocado toast-eating wokerati like me who care about nature. In a recent poll over two-thirds of your own voters agreed that a law should be passed significantly increasing the area of protected woodland and wildlife habitats. Another one found that almost half of Conservative voters believe the government isn't doing enough to safeguard nature. But it goes deeper than that. At the heart of your appeal is the notion of a threatened sense of identity and nationhood and little evokes that sense of identity more than the countryside. Ask an Englishman to close his eyes and think of England and he will see a meadow and an oak tree. From the Highlands to the South Downs, our landscapes are etched into our collective consciousness, a defining source of our quiet national pride. This isn't sentimentality; it's a profound connection to place, to history and to identity. Conservatism, at its heart, is about preserving what is good, what has stood the test of time, what connects us to the past and binds us to the future. The destruction of nature is a radical act, a rupture with tradition, an irreversible loss of something precious. What could be more conservative than protecting the landscapes and wildlife that define our identity? It is no coincidence that the early conservation movements drew heavily from those who valued tradition, stewardship, and the preservation of national character. Teddy Roosevelt was a titan of conservation, setting up many of America's national parks. In Britain, the 11th Duke of Bedford championed wildlife protection in the late 19th and early 20th centuries long before it became fashionable and was president of my organisation, the Zoological Society of London, for 36 years. Their motivation was an appreciation for their country's natural heritage and a sense of duty to pass it on intact. There is even a Brexit angle. Thanks to you separating us from Brussels, Britain now has the opportunity to forge its own path to combine the protection of nature with the production of food, rather than remain in a system of subsidies designed for industrial-scale French farms. The UK can let our own farmers look after the countryside, understanding that they are often the best stewards of the land. Empowering them, rather than dictating to them, to manage their land in a way that benefits both production and nature is a quintessentially conservative approach. I think this is why that other towering figure of the humorous right, Jeremy Clarkson, has hit such a chord with his everyday story of country folk. Clarkson's Farm is more than just a reality show; it is a modern parable about how we can live alongside nature that ought to appeal directly to your base. Going big on nature should appeal to your inner economic hawk. You like successful businesses, and businesses are now seriously worried about biodiversity loss. 80 per cent now say they regard it as a critical threat. Damage to nature affects the whole economy, from pharmaceutical companies, which find new drugs in nature, to fashion, which depends on nature for their supply chains, to food, where cocoa prices have been put up because deforestation and pollinator decline have reduced yields. For free marketeers like you, the good news is that progress can be made in protecting nature simply by removing the subsidies that prop up uneconomic industries. Across the world, governments are subverting the market by treating nature as a limitless free good and pumping money into dying or ought-to-be-dead activities like the floating fish factories that are bottom-trawling the oceans. Nature will thrive when mechanisms are in place to ensure it has its actual economic value; the market will take care of the rest. Your inner security hawk should also care. The Illegal Wildlife Trade, valued at £15 billion annually, funds transnational criminal networks linked to drug trafficking and terrorism. And damage to nature causes population shifts and instability. The 2010 floods in Pakistan – exacerbated by deforestation – displaced millions and fuelled Taliban recruitment. You can make this issue your own. Boris Johnson really 'got' nature, and the UK led the world in this space under his leadership. His two successors didn't. Keir Starmer hasn't yet shown much interest in the issue. Rachel Reeves has picked a fight with bats and newts. There are bright spots: David Lammy is clearly passionate about nature, and Environment Secretary Steve Reed is playing a blinder with the water companies. But if you stood up for nature, you would tap into a rich seam of public anxiety. I suspect we won't agree on much, but we might agree on nature. You might remember one British politician telling the UN that humanity was conducting a 'vast experiment' with the planet and telling the world that 'we must remember our duty to nature before it is too late'. It was your one-time hero, Margaret Thatcher. You could follow her lead. As the head of a conservation charity that is not on the left or right, but focussed single-mindedly on protecting nature, I hope you do.
