St Pauls School ditches the title "Head Girl" - The Times 19/06/21

It's not archaic, it's accurate. Would you say the Girl Guides need to change their name?

Interesting question. After all it is now a mixed sex organisation. Or would a name change simply not be validating enough 🤔

[quote Paralithic]The Torygraph is reporting that SW is digging in at schools, telling them to do away with “girls” and “boys” as it’s “gendered language”, and encouraging mixed sex sport and allowing pupils on trips to share dorms based on gender ID (god help any school safeguarding leads on that one).

The article lists St Paul’s as a SW school.

archive.ph/bDkHc[/quote]
Which is ridiculous when these schools are in existence to cater to a single sex, boys and girls. You can't therefore have mixed sex sport, because they aren't mixed sex schools. Of course you may well have trans boys in girls schools, for example, but they still play sport all together with the "girls" regardless, because, you know, they're girls. They also all go on trips together already, regardless.

Will St Paul's (Girls) be accepting trans girls at 11+ then? Will St Pauls (Boys) accept trans boys? I very much doubt it. If they do start, that's when the shit will hit the fan.

It's not archaic, it's accurate. Would you say the Girl Guides need to change their name?

Yes. The name of the school is also archaic.

Except it is literally a school for girls, set up because they aren’t allowed to attend the boy’s school over the river.

See also GDST - Girls’ Day School Trust.

Single sex education is specifically allowed in equalities legislation. You don’t have to agree with it, but I wouldn’t expect single sex schools to be embarrassed about it.

The Torygraph is reporting that SW is digging in at schools, telling them to do away with “girls” and “boys” as it’s “gendered language”, and encouraging mixed sex sport and allowing pupils on trips to share dorms based on gender ID (god help any school safeguarding leads on that one).

The article lists St Paul’s as a SW school.

archive.ph/bDkHc

Allen and Overy

Clearly however good GB are at waving flags they didn't manage to persuade them to alter that very very unkind company name.

“The school said the main reason it was reverting to the historical title of head of school was because senior pupils considered themselves young women rather than “girls.“…….. The senior pupil was known as head of school for decades after St Paul’s Girls was founded in 1904.”

Seems like a sensible thing, and not even a new thing.

Lots of secondary schools, including two of our locals, also have switched to use “head student” style titles as the older students preferred that to girl and boy.

There are four large private schools in my nearby town. Two for boys, two for girls. The boys' schools were each just called '(Name) school'. The girls' schools, '(Name) Girls school'. In the last few years the 'girls' bit has been dropped and all four are (Name) school.

I agree with that decision and maybe that's where St Paul's should go next.

We don't have Headmasters and Headmistresses any more (in the state sector at least) and sex-defined role titles have been seen as archaic and wrong for decades.

Because sex isn’t relevant to who is teaching - although the head of SPGS is the ‘high mistress’.

However this is literally St Paul’s GIRLS’ school.

People seem to want to have it both ways. Call a female police officer a policewoman, and you're being sexist. Change head girl to head of school and that's wrong.

Job/role titles should not reflect a person sex or gender. It's not difficult.

What's wrong with Head Pupil?

I think Head of School is a far better term than Head Girl

We don't have Headmasters and Headmistresses any more (in the state sector at least) and sex-defined role titles have been seen as archaic and wrong for decades. Also an 18 year old is a young woman.

The

It’s fine in itself, but name change is unnecessary if the school is a school for girls.

Or is it for the benefit of people who want the language that women and girls have to describe ourselves decoupled from biological sex?

Schools inclusion alliance seems to be targeted at the private schools. I guess this is where a power grab is perceived.

www.schoolsinclusionalliance.co.uk/#

In any school, I think that 'Head of School' is just fine. Btw, I have children at single sex private schools. I'm sure I will be flamed on here

We should be taking more notice of Global Butterflies. All the focus gets put on Stonewall but this org also have very high profile clients. The fact they are also venturing into schools specifically all girl schools is concerning

Yes

Difficult to understand how this demonstrates anything other than stupidity.

It is not an inclusive school. Apart from anything else it discriminates on grounds of ability and parental income.

If the school wants to be co-ed it should go ahead. However, if it is still sees value in providing education for girls it shouldn’t treat the word ‘girl’ as distasteful or imply that girls who don’t comply with a stereotype are not girls.

'Asked how teachers should deal with “non- accepting parents”, Semple said: “I think a lot of the time when we’re working with parents they haven’t had access to the same material and training and education brainwashing that we as teachers have had. So I think there’s an element of supporting parents with education.”'

We should be taking more notice of Global Butterflies. All the focus gets put on Stonewall but this org also have very high profile clients. The fact they are also venturing into schools specifically all girl schools is concerning.

Very good point, OvaHere. I hadn’t heard of Global Butterflies, although I am interested in this issue. They’re obviously clever about keeping out of the news. Very disturbing.

Re St Paul’s… they take girls, obviously. If girls identify as male - they can stay? What about boys identifying as girls? Can they join? What do the school actually define as a girl?

I have a fair few friends from schools like these. Intelligent, highly successful women, amazing jobs, loads of both earned and family money, incredibly confident.

They are - generalisation - largely ‘feminists’ in a “porn is liberating, sex work is work, TWAW, be kind, it’s our fault for not speaking out about sexual assault ’ way.

They don’t seem to recognise that their experience as a women is quite rare, and that women from less privileged circumstances experience a lot more harm from all those things. It’s difficult.