Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Even the NSPCC doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender

65 replies

Ofew · 08/06/2018 09:37

I have recently started a small business and needed to draft a safeguarding statement. The NSPCC website has some helpful guidance and a template, and I used them to help me write my own.
However when referring to equalities they list most of the relevant protected characteristics but the omit both sex and gender reassignment, and seem to conflate them as gender, which seems all kinds of wrong!

So I sent them an email. I wonder if they'll respond.

Here's what I sent:

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to express my disappointment in the NSPCC's otherwise helpful guidance on safeguarding statements.

I came to the NSPCC's guidance because I am drafting a safeguarding statement for a newly established small business. The guidance and template were extremely helpful and I used them to inform my own document.

However, I was extremely disappointed to see that the NSPCC omits the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment in its equality statements. It states:

Your organisation should make sure that all children and young people have the same protection regardless of age, disability, gender, racial heritage, religious belief, sexual orientation or identity.

It appears that the NSPCC may have conflated sex and gender reassignment under "gender". However these two protected characteristics are very different in law and in practice, and the kinds of discrimination experienced by people holding these protected characteristics are very different. Moreover, "gender" is not a protected characteristic in law under the Equality Act 2004. "Gender" is simply a social construct referring to certain societal norms.

I am especially disappointed that an organisation such as NSPCC should fail to acknowledge the particular discrimination, abuse and harassment experienced by women and girls because of their sex (not gender).

In addition, your approach of conflating sex and gender reassignment fails to recognise the very particular challenges faced by children who consider they may be transsexual.

I would be very happy to discuss this with you further and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/safeguarding/writing-a-safeguarding-policy/

safeguardingtool.nspcc.org.uk/documents/167/Safeguarding-policy.pdf?_ga=2.109359751.387708123.1528445170-1286254606.1528445170

OP posts:
Pratchet · 09/06/2018 12:33

Awkward thing about middle-aged women - they aren't in the least bothered about saying 'sex'. You can't rely on us to be fey around 'gender issues' lol

LangCleg · 09/06/2018 11:59

Ah - this is what you told local authorities when you were being 'responsible for a significant chunk of equality law'? That's why you're upset that your machinations and misrepresentation are now being exposed.

Correct.

Pratchet · 09/06/2018 11:57

Gib: are you accustomed to local authority duffers who haven't a scooby? Because you are being demolished here.

Ereshkigal · 09/06/2018 11:56

Thank you! Will read.

MrsWooster · 09/06/2018 11:52

gib what do you mean by bio not being as narrow as some on here think?

justicewomen · 09/06/2018 11:40

Sorry got to be quick. The Recast Directive is EU law eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0054

I think Fibbertys idea of somehow merging 2 distinct protective characteristics is a complete misunderstanding of how protected characteristics work and how EU vs domestic law works. Given we have specific protection against discrimination against gender reassignment and the legal ability to change sex it would be difficult to see how our domestic law is incompatable with the Recast Directive.

Ereshkigal · 09/06/2018 11:24

Could anyone explain the Recast Directive?

Pratchet · 09/06/2018 11:20

Ah - this is what you told local authorities when you were being 'responsible for a significant chunk of equality law'? That's why you're upset that your machinations and misrepresentation are now being exposed.

I wonder if they knew at the time that the person advising them considered it 'right' that women have 'zero' right to challenge a naked man in their daughter's changing room.

GibbertyFlibbert · 09/06/2018 11:07

"PvS and Cornwell CC predates the GRA but more importantly the Recast Directive 2006 and the Equality Act 2010, so in order to argue direct sex discrimination you would have to how less favourable treatment than someone of a different sex on grounds of sex. Sex is defined in section 11 of the Equality Act as a man or a women (ie bio or legally because of GRC).

Discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment is a separate protected characteristic (section 7) and doesn't depend on your sex. So PvS claimant (if no GRC) would plead under section 7, not section 11."

Mostly I agree. But if the two UK protected characteristics, in aggregate, provide less protection than the Recast Directive then the EA would be capable of challenge. Put another way, it is reasonable, I think, to interpret the combination as gender in terms of equality policies. I can see why activists on both sides might dislike 'their' protected characteristic not being overt but I think equality is advanced by the extra simplicity of presentation.

It's unclear what exactly man and woman mean in s11. As you say, bio +GRC but I don't think bio is as narrow as some on here think.

Ereshkigal · 09/06/2018 10:47

This is exactly what is happening. Everywhere.

Sooner or later there will be a scandal because of this.

Original poster
Ofew · 09/06/2018 10:43

Thanks justicewomen, you said it so I don't have too.

But even if Gibberty is right and the PC of sex includes trans people without a GRC, I still don't understand why NSPCC doesn't think it's worth including in their list.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 09/06/2018 10:39

If you think differently, I would love to hear your detailed workings (I am a nerd for this sort of thing)

LOL! I love Mumsnet. Some noodle comes along making pronouncements about their expertise and proclaiming superior knowledge, then a lovely Mumsnetter does a really polite, but total, burn.

LangCleg · 09/06/2018 10:36

Rather it is delegated to policy officers who have E&D in their job descriptions. Rather than using the Equality Act, they go on courses and use materials from pressure groups uncritically, without assessing if they are accurate or have an agenda

This is exactly what is happening. Everywhere.

justicewomen · 09/06/2018 10:34

Gibberty

That is an incorrect interpretation . PvS and Cornwell CC predates the GRA but more importantly the Recast Directive 2006 and the Equality Act 2010, so in order to argue direct sex discrimination you would have to how less favourable treatment than someone of a different sex on grounds of sex. Sex is defined in section 11 of the Equality Act as a man or a women (ie bio or legally because of GRC).

Discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment is a separate protected characteristic (section 7) and doesn't depend on your sex. So PvS claimant (if no GRC) would plead under section 7, not section 11.

If you think differently, I would love to hear your detailed workings (I am a nerd for this sort of thing)

Ereshkigal · 09/06/2018 10:16

Why don't you post us a link to the wording you are referring to? Gender reassignment is a different protected characteristic to sex. If people are misinterpreting the law we should see this.

GibbertyFlibbert · 09/06/2018 10:10

"Gibberty - I understand the legal definition of sex thanks. As Eresh has said, it is only possession of a GRC that expands the legal definition of sex further than simply biology"

Not true. Read about P v S and Cornwall County Council for instance and all the various material published by various parts of the EU since

justicewomen · 09/06/2018 10:06

Womenformerlyknownaswomen

I dont think lawyers have touched it at all. Rather it is delegated to policy officers who have E&D in their job descriptions. Rather than using the Equality Act, they go on courses and use materials from pressure groups uncritically, without assessing if they are accurate or have an agenda

Original poster
Ofew · 09/06/2018 10:00

nooka, you might be right about that, but either way both sex and gender reassignment are omitted. As someone said on the local authority thread I don't understand why they don't just copy and paste from the Equality Act (and add some more characteristics if they think that's appropriate). I have no idea what the nspcc mean by "identity"!

Gibberty - I understand the legal definition of sex thanks. As Eresh has said, it is only possession of a GRC that expands the legal definition of sex further than simply biology. Children can't get a GRC. TBH I was giving a fairly generous interpretation of gender reassignment as being able to apply to children, in that arguably a child could be proposing to undergo a process to change their sex, even if they can't actually do it until adulthood. But maybe puberty blockers count? Anyway, I do think it's important to recognise that children who may be experiencing gender dysphoria or who are gender non-conforming or whatever deserve to have their specific needs recognised in safeguarding policies. And it goes without be saying that I think the same about needs related to sex.

OP posts:
womanformallyknownaswoman · 09/06/2018 09:41

The corporatising of charities has simply led to another layer of pomo-addled idiots running things who are light years from understanding the real lives and needs of their service users.

It's hard not to despair, it really is.

A shock that the NSPCC isn't carrying out it's duty of care towards safeguarding children but no surprise - those poor children. I feel like lawyers have got involved and are driving this behind the scenes to conform to "policy" and UN etc - and no one but no one, apart from us women, are pushing back.

Thx for highlighting this OP and taking some action.

Ereshkigal · 09/06/2018 09:27

If self ID comes in watch that number skyrocket in the first year.

Ereshkigal · 09/06/2018 09:25

There are about 3k max biological males with their bit of paper from the Ministry of Truth that makes them legally "female" for most purposes. They are the only people who share with millions of women the protected characteristic of their sex under the law.

Ereshkigal · 09/06/2018 09:20

So sex of children relates entirely to biology.

Ereshkigal · 09/06/2018 09:19

Children can't have a GRC.

Macareaux · 09/06/2018 08:14

What meaning does 'sex' have in law, gibberty?

Pratchet · 09/06/2018 04:09

This is what they were doing all those years 'under the radar' (transactivist direct quote) when women were trying to be nice and accommodate them.