Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

New School Guidance from Sex Matters and TransgenderTrend

140 replies

rogdmum · 09/05/2021 07:41

Great to see this!

Tailored version for Scotland as well

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/schools-guidance/

OP posts:
Erikrie · 09/05/2021 23:24

Why would so many posters be unwilling to engage with a study of the law in this regard? Even if you disagree with it, don't you want to know what it says?

Not if I have to pay for it no. There's plenty of books that I don't want to buy for lots of different reasons. This would be one of them. There's plenty of other resources out there.

theThreeofWeevils · 09/05/2021 23:20

My feeling is more or less the opposite, OvaHere. I'm all for transparency. And sunlight, of course 🌞

OvaHere · 09/05/2021 23:15

OK so massive invested interest. I am on these threads a lot and I didnt know that.Why would they not declare their invested interest? I am a chartered professional and have to declare interests. It's fair. It doesnt mean that i am not competent, knowledgeable, able, but it does mean that I have taken a side.

To be honest I don't find it very professional that Robin comes here at all under their real name to lecture and belittle women given Robin's legal role in some high profile cases, Allison's case for example was crowdfunded by most of the women posting here.

For the record I am NOT saying Robin shouldn't post on Mumsnet but to do so under their real name and profession might feel intimidating to some women considering the conflict of interest. I"m sure that's not intentional though.

Helleofabore · 09/05/2021 23:08

I have noticed at least on one other thread oldcrone where they have referred to it, maybe on two other threads. I have not read that many this weekend.

I am sure MN would very happily advertise it if they were paid the rate card fee.

Of course, Robin could also quote and reference relevant sections like most posters do normally when referencing books in answer to questions. But I don’t suppose that will be done.

CardinalLolzy · 09/05/2021 23:04

@snekkes

I'm intrigued by the number of posters flatly refusing to read a book which - although I haven't seen an advance copy - I imagine will probably cite plenty of references and caselaw.

Why would so many posters be unwilling to engage with a study of the law in this regard? Even if you disagree with it, don't you want to know what it says?

In theory yes, I always want to see the arguments laid out and have been very open in requesting this. However, there are some authors I would be wary of giving too much time to - just as a random example, ones who have shown themselves to either support racist theories or appear to due to their poor use of logic. Or, more frequently (and again, not saying this is specific to RMW, but have seen in lots of "Why GC women are wrong and bad" articles online) those who rely on premises I know to be strawmen.

Tbh I think the law itself is muddled and hard to extrapolate from into real situations without contradicting itself - as seen in several recent court cases - so unless the book fully acknowledges and deals with this I wouldn't take it too seriously.
(Clearly I am going on a lot of assumptions here as I haven't seen a copy!)

OldCrone · 09/05/2021 23:02

And, just a note, authors get banned for plugging their books, don’t they? Or at least they have in past.

I reported Robin's post plugging their book, and mentioned that I remembered another author doing this who had all their advertising posts deleted (don't know if they were banned as well). I had an email from MNHQ saying they were looking into it, but the post's still there.

spongedog · 09/05/2021 22:56

@2fallsagain

Robin was stonewalls barrister in Allison Bailey case.
OK so massive invested interest. I am on these threads a lot and I didnt know that.Why would they not declare their invested interest? I am a chartered professional and have to declare interests. It's fair. It doesnt mean that i am not competent, knowledgeable, able, but it does mean that I have taken a side.
Floisme · 09/05/2021 22:52

Oh I can't wait to see what it says, I always enjoy hearing Robin's stories.

OvaHere · 09/05/2021 22:51

@snekkes

I'm intrigued by the number of posters flatly refusing to read a book which - although I haven't seen an advance copy - I imagine will probably cite plenty of references and caselaw.

Why would so many posters be unwilling to engage with a study of the law in this regard? Even if you disagree with it, don't you want to know what it says?

I'm willing to read it but I'm not willing to buy it. So that's the biggest stumbling block as I'm sure it is for others.

So maybe if I can borrow a copy or get it at a library I might take a look.

In the meantime I'm fairly sure the Legal Feminist org will read it and give us a synopsis.

snekkes · 09/05/2021 22:42

I'm intrigued by the number of posters flatly refusing to read a book which - although I haven't seen an advance copy - I imagine will probably cite plenty of references and caselaw.

Why would so many posters be unwilling to engage with a study of the law in this regard? Even if you disagree with it, don't you want to know what it says?

Helleofabore · 09/05/2021 22:41

Snap SunsetBeetch.

Here is the archived version.

archive.md/Ap2As

Maybe that section of that book that keeps getting plugged is ill advised considering the ERHC has pointed out it is all untested.

And, just a note, authors get banned for plugging their books, don’t they? Or at least they have in past.

Please stop spamming with your book plugs, Robin. I have seen it mentioned before. I haven’t joined MN to see pretty blatant self promotion like this. Ask MN what their rates are for advertising, but please stop plugging the book on threads.

SunsetBeetch · 09/05/2021 22:29

"An EHRC spokesman said: "Considering the lack of definitive case law, it has become clear that publishing our guidance may not provide schools with the clarity we hoped.

"This would not be in the best interests of young people, including trans pupils. We have therefore decided not to publish our guidance." "

SunsetBeetch · 09/05/2021 22:28

Has this already been posted? Apologies if so.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/09/transgender-guidelines-girls-schools-quietly-scrapped-equalities/amp/

HecatesCatsInFancyHats · 09/05/2021 22:03

Thanks for sharing rogdmum

2fallsagain · 09/05/2021 22:01

Robin was stonewalls barrister in Allison Bailey case.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 09/05/2021 21:36

it's currently identifying as a coat-rack.

(falls about laughing)

theThreeofWeevils · 09/05/2021 21:29

@Floisme

Oh has Robin got a book coming out? Grin
You'll have to look quite closely: it's currently identifying as a coat-rack.
spongedog · 09/05/2021 21:01

I did wonder if Robin had "an interest" so that's why I politely asked! Shame they haven't been back.

Changemusthappen · 09/05/2021 20:51

Thank you, I will send this to my DCs school this week.

ChristinaXYZ · 09/05/2021 20:35

Regrettably this guidance is based on the same incorrect assumptions and misreading of the Equality Act as AEA presented in court last week. It is, IMHO, partisan, incomplete and misleading, and if followed would be likely to cause a school to be acting unlawfully towards gender diverse children and young people.

Well crowd fund and take it to court then - test it and see if it gets withdrawn like the CPS and Oxfordshire CC advice then. I am all for the clear light of day on this. If you genuinely believe it is unlawful take it through the proper channels.

Erikrie · 09/05/2021 20:30

Not that I intend to read it tbh, I don't do fiction

I like some fiction. Harry potter is fabulous. As is JK Rowling. ♥️ Although she was never pretending that Hogwarts was real.

2fallsagain · 09/05/2021 20:22

I believe Robin works with stonewall so not exactly unbiased.

Trixie78 · 09/05/2021 17:18

Not that I intend to read it tbh, I don't do fiction.

Trixie78 · 09/05/2021 17:16

Today 14:10RobinMoiraWhite

TheShadowyFeminist

Regrettably this guidance is based on the same incorrect assumptions and misreading of the Equality Act as AEA presented in court last week. It is, IMHO, partisan, incomplete and misleading, and if followed would be likely to cause a school to be acting unlawfully towards gender diverse children and young people.

Another bold claim.

Specifically, where exactly does the guide 'misread & make incorrect assumptions' about the EA2010? A vague hand wave that the guide "would be likely to cause a school to act unlawfully" doesn't really convince anyone.

Give us the details and arguments that back up your opinion. This is a discussion forum - we're all capable of discussing this. General claims without evidence don't persuade anyone.

Happy to. Dealt with in the 'Education' Chapter of 'A Practical Guide to Transgender Law' due out in about ten days.

Ok we'll just ignore you then until the book comes out 🤔🤔🤣

rogdmum · 09/05/2021 17:01

I can’t speak for English law, but I have more than one piece of correspondence written on behalf of ScotGov making it clear that affirming pupils as the opposite sex is a choice to be made by schools and that they are under no legal obligation to do so.

So- you could to argue whether or not it is kind to do so, but that’s not law.

OP posts: