Please help! Gender not sex on a school 'protected characteristics' poster, just spoken to the Head!

These are the conflated bubbles for anyone who hasn’t seen.

Also the idea that primary school children would use a phrase like gender reassignment is laughable. If they need to have sex “simplified” to gender, then surely gender reassignment would be something more like “change gender.”

Blatant fob off.

This last point by bignosebignose Today 11:02
that if the provider is truly aiming to simplify language for primary school children, and thinks a child can’t understand ‘sex’ and therefore replaced it with ‘gender’ , then why haven’t they also simplified ‘gender reassignment’ and ‘sexual orientation’ in the other bubbles? They have quoted those complicated concepts exactly as they are in the EA.

I’m interested if you think we should change the gender bubble in the future. Let me know your thoughts, eager to discuss.

This is the sentence I meant.

Who do they think they are?

I would begin with referring to the “No Outsiders” provider’s sentence asking if the word ‘gender’ should be changed to sex - because the answer is undoubtedly yes.

Though she says the poster is not representing the EA, it actually resembles it so exactly in all but that one detail, to appear to be changing the UK Equality law.

You have heard of other schools amending or removing that poster precisely because those schools did not want to be held accountable for teaching outside of the law.

You could suggest that the No Outsiders provider asked the deputy head this question because they knew at heart the poster might be wrong.

Then somehow your letter.

Edit fail - "or a girl can have short hair and play football and still be a girl"

The Equalities Act still says "sex" and organisations that get ahead of the law are putting themselves at risk. Stonewall lost a lot of adult training for doing just that.

If we’re talking specifically about the Equality Act with older children and they use the term sex, I will correct them,

The Equality Act term is "sex" and the children should be corrected if they use "gender" instead. I'd be worried if a teacher is getting this backwards because even if No Outsiders are providing confusing material they're legally covered, just like letter says. It will be the school that gets in trouble.

So that's a good example of how confusing language confuses people!

but I think it is the concept behind the language for younger children that is more important – all different, all equal. The aim of the poster is to make clear and accessible for children all the ways we are different and all the ways we are accepted.

The school had better be careful about promoting confusion about between sex and gender in the name of acceptance. If we're not accepted and treated fairly for our sex then yeah, kids are going to have problems over gender.

Once you start using the wrong language you stop being able to have conversations with children about how a boy can wear a pink spangly frock and still be a boy, or have short hair and play football and still be a girl. Instead it all becomes about being a different gender. Does your school really want to go there?

Children getting silly about the word "sex" is the opportunity to put them right.

Your comments were so well put, @BoredOfThisMansWorld , that I have saved them for a future reminder if I have to take on this battle...

That is a good analogy about the difference between not being discriminated against for a belief on the one hand, but on the other hand not requiring others to take on that belief or themselves.

Sniggering at rude words is a primary school right of passage, surely? Along with changing the first letter of every word in the songs....

What a grasping excuse that was.

OP I don't know if it would help to think of this as a religion? Through language shift, they are slowly indoctrinating the children in the religion of gender, to believe they all have a gender ID or gendered soul.

This is not inclusive of other religions and particularly not inclusive of gender atheism.

There is a huge difference between teaching tolerance for difference and teaching children to believe in a particular religion. For example, a trans teacher should never be victimised for being trans. A girl with a headscarf should never be bullied for wearing a headscarf. They both should be free to teach/learn in a school.

But the existence of the trans teacher should not mean all pupils are taught they have a gendered soul and that some people can change gender and should be allowed in other people's spaces, any more than the existence of the girl with a headscarf should mean that all pupils are taught they must believe in Allah and that girls must cover their hair after a certain age.

Other people's beliefs should be taught as just that eg in RE, not as fact.

I mean, the kids would think “sex” is funny but not “sexual orientation”? It’s absolutely laughable, please don’t leave it there.

OP I am so angry that O can’t think straight. Your letter is so good, but now it’s as though you are supposed to answer not the deputy head but the “great authority” she is such pals with.

If the can't say sex because primary children snigger, how do they describe the 7th planet from the sun? Is there a different name for that too? Something less accurate and more vague like the big cold one? Or are they calling it George again? FFS.

bignosebignose Today 10:59
‘ If we’re talking specifically about the Equality Act with older children and they use the term sex, I will correct them

Er, what? “

Yes, I picked that up too, and it does indeed look like planned indoctrination over a number of years 😱

Vebrithian, maybe Sinnerboy’s approach is the best one after all! Plus regular, clear conversations with your dc to shield from this!

Yes, I agree that they are conflating the two things deliberately, in order to muddy the waters and to confuse children.

that they don't like the word in the law when used for primary pupils.

And its then terribly helpful in sliding sex and gender into meaning the same thing all ready for indoctrination on gender woo woo.

Specious twaddle.

So this is Hyacinth Bucket "mustn't say 'sex' to kiddies"? Nudge nudge, wink wink. The word is sex, not the activity, but the physical characteristic.

What's most important in education is clarity. Listing all the legally protected characteristics accurately except one is neither clear nor welcoming.

showing our inclusive and diversity ethos and culture.

Well yes, it shows their ethos and culture. And why "inclusive and diverse" don't mean "safe" any more. We'll put up posters that make you more welcome for your fancy gender than your binary sex so why not become a bit more diverse? Your parents might brick themseves but no worries, we wont tell them so everyone's happy. (Sorry - rant over.)

Also the idea that primary school children would use a phrase like gender reassignment is laughable. If they need to have sex “simplified” to gender, then surely gender reassignment would be something more like “change gender.”

Blatant fob off.

If we’re talking specifically about the Equality Act with older children and they use the term sex, I will correct them

Er, what?

That is a shame. They are saying they change the law in a sense - that they don't like the word in the law when used for primary pupils.
If they just used a few of the characteristics then fair enough if they leave sex out but instead they use all of them except that one.

I agree with the letter that we are trying to show there are boys and girls and everyone is equal but that probably means using "sex" is better anyway than gender as there seem to be hundreds of supposed genders which is far too confusing for small children.

I could have understood a comment back that the word sex makes children snigger and parents get cross to they avoid it on those grounds but even then I feel it is wrong to list characteristics in other categories correctly but not this one

Hi OP,

Today I was doing online mandatory training on the equality act for the Local Authority that I work for. It listed gender and not sex as a protected characteristic .

Inspired by you ( and the many others on this forum) I emailed the appropriate people pointing out this error . Wonderfully within 10 minutes I had a reply acknowledging their mistake and reassuring me that they would correct it. This will ensure that thousands of La workers are now correctly informed.

Together we can do it!!!

This and all the talking in the news today about men not being allowed in women's prisons makes it feels like a good day!