Sex and gender: a simple foundational understanding

Absolutely, @SerafinasGoose

In answer to Point 2:

For a very small number of people (with Differences of Sex Development), sex observation at birth is difficult to ascertain and requires examination to determine. Sex (male or female) is then "assigned" and registered following the examination.

I'd replace the word 'assigned' in the penultimate sentence as 'determined'.

You cannot assign a biological sex, and although the sex of people with DSDs is less easy to identify they are nonetheless either male or female.

It might seem a small point but I think it's important.

If someone who has a gender identity is undergoing a reassignment (at any stage, including how they choose to present) from one gender identity to another, the reassignment is protected under the Equality Act 2010, meaning that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone for being transgender.

Hmmmm, up to a point, Lord Copper. Yes, this is the surface understanding, but the real test is that the protected characteristic is "gender reassignment."

This means that, say, a man who is undergoing, undergone, or about to undergo, gender reassignment, should not be treated differently to another man, who is not in this category.

This is often misunderstood as the idea that we have to treat a man undergoing gender reassignment as a woman. No, the comparator is a man not undergoing gender reassignment.

I think what you completely miss in your first post @BonfireLady is that the general understanding of "gender" (aside from its misuse as a synonym for 'sex') is that:

the term should be gender roles and stereotypes: that is, the constructed set of ideas of what traits, behaviours, and attributes are considered "appropriate" for each sex. This ideas are historically and culturally specific and changeable.

To put it simply:

sex = biological reality; male/female; unchangeable; ahistorical.

gender = socially constructed roles and stereotypes; masculinity/femininity; changeable; historically and culturally specific.

(and BTW, people with DSD aren't "assigned" a sex - they are one or the other sex, and are tested for their sex, but have 'differences' - just as a human born with only one hand, isn't not a human, they are a human missing something that humans normally have).

Oh, seeing as you've got more time I'll pipe up and say I think you should have the short section on DSDs. I think it's good to stave off any absurd challenges to human sexual dimorphism, but I also think it's good to advocate for respect for privacy for people with DSDs.
So something like:
A small number of people are born with intersex conditions, also known as Differences in Sexual Development (DSDs). A person's intersex status is part of their private, medical history.

OP I think you should add a sentence about how the meaning of gender has changed. If children come across gender in forms and books, they should know that gender was usually a polite way or saying sex until recently.

@BonfireLady

I've just seen an FAQ document that Sex Matters released

https://sex-matters.org/resources/faqs-gender-reassignment/#who

and in it there is reference to Forstater v CGDE which show that I did NOT recall the case correctly!

"In the case of Forstater v CGDE [2021] it was established that the belief that men are male and women are female, and that this cannot change and is important, is protected under Article 9 and in relation to belief discrimination in the Equality Act.
This means that employers and service providers must not harass or discriminate against people because they recognise that “transwomen” are men and “transmen” are women. Employers and service providers cannot require people to believe that someone has changed sex, or impose a blanket constraint on expressing their belief. "

I had thought that Maya's case supported a lack of belief in Gender Identity Ideology which I suppose it did in a roundabout way. Anyway, just wanted to correct my earlier error!

At the heart of it, what I would want to know is, if my child asks if they are a boy or a girl, what are they going to tell them? Probably 'whatever you feel like' but they need to know what those things are without confusing sex and sex stereotypes!

We all have a legal sex. For the vast majority of us, it is observed (accurately) and recorded at birth.

The other way we get our legal sex is if we are granted a Gender Recognition Certificate, which changes our legal sex recorded at birth. You have to be over 18 to get one. Therefore, if you are talking to staff in a school of under 18s, every single one of them has the sex as recorded at birth.

You are wishing to uphold the law of the land.

I don't think that gets repeated often enough: we are not the ones who want to change laws (with the possible exception of repealing the GRA). We want the existing laws maintained and upheld.

OP, I agree with others in keeping your first response as short and succinct as possible. The longer explanations can be used later if needed.

I would approach it by explaining that this is your understanding of sex vs gender; how will they be teaching it?

Sex- the biological reality of Homo sapiens being a dimorphic species that reproduces sexually. This is relevant in certain key situations such as changing rooms and sports, and is a factor in safeguarding (I think it's crucial you mention safeguarding at some point).

Gender- much harder to define without resorting to stereotypes and cultural assumptions eg boys predominantly play football in the UK, but in the US it's a massive girls/womens sport.

Key question for the school- how are they going to explain gender without resorting to sexist cliches?

It is so easy to get derailed because it can get very complicated. I think that is probably part of the reason why schools have been captured - they don't understand all the nuances so if somebody gives them a simplistic 'how to' guide they grab it (there is no prescribed National Curriculum for R.E., they have to write their own).

Stick to RE and "some people believe". Once you have that established then you can move on to other concerns in a different meeting. Are you aware of the Safe Schools Alliance?

I can't be agender if I'm "gender non-conforming and/or refect the gender binary" (in accordance with the Stonewall et al definitions) if I don't actually believe in gender. It's a bit of a circular reference.
Circular reference? Say it ain't so. (that's sarcasm btw, in case it's a bit early for some people. Try asking Stonewall for a non-circular definition of 'woman')

RE people know all about 'theism' and 'atheism'. They should be able to grasp the idea of 'gender' and 'agender'. And society writes the dictionary, not Stonewall.

Yes - all PCs work in both directions.

Having a belief is protected and not having it is protected. Being married and not being married have equal status as PCs. Being a man and being a woman both give the PC of sex.

I am also not a lawyer.

I think that your point 5 is probably referring to Forstater v CGD? IIRC Maya argued from a position of lack of* *'religion or belief' (in gender ideology). So while a person cannot be discriminated against for holding a belief eg religious, nor can a person who doesn't share that belief. This is really important when it comes to Gender Ideology in schools and workplaces because it appears to be that believing in GI trumps everything else, so it is good to know that lack of belief in it is protected in law

@NancyDrawed makes a very good point, amd one that's widely misunderstood - under the EA the comparator is always sombody who is the same apart from the protected characteristic. You must not be treated less favourably (can, and sometimes need to be, treated differently - e.g. accommodating disability) than someone who is like you in all other respects. The ES doesn't give the right to be treated the same as someone with a different protected characteristic (or who is different in other ways, such as qualifications).

So a woman who has just qualified as an engineer can't be treated less favourably than a mam who has just qualified as an engineer. But can't demand the same salary as the CEO. A parent can't have less favourable annual leave terms than a non parent. A gay man can't be treated worse than a straight man. And a boy proposing to undergo gender reassignment must be treated as well as a boy who isn’t.; he doesn't gain the right to be treated exactly the same as a girl.

And there is no hierarchy of characteristics. The religious belief of a Muslim is as important as the sex of woman, the parental status of a father, the sexuality of a lesbian etc. Usually the rights and needs of someone with one PC don't clash with those of another. But when they do, there is no automatic right for PC A to trump PC B. You have to find a compromise that works equally well for everyone.

I like how you've used believe. That's how I was going to word it but I thought it may come across as dismissive.
No no no no no!! It's not dismissive, far from it.

a) the whole of the RE syllabus is "some people believe". They go on to explain what it is that some people believe. But the whole point of RE is "some people believe (corollary: others don't)".
b) it is a found principle in law, from the Maya Forstater case. People are allowed to believe in Gender Criticality, others are allowed to believe in Gender Identity.

As others have said, your OP is a bit wordy.
KISS and grab their attention. All you need is "some people believe".

Regarding the protected characteristic (PC) of Gender Reassignment, the wording in the EA 2010 means that school children ARE covered if I understand it correctly, as it could be argued that they are 'proposing to undergo' gender reassignment.

However, it is important to be clear that the PC of Gender Reassignment means that a person can't be treated any differently to any other member of their sex class (unless they have a GRC which means they can be treated as a member of their legal sex in most but not all cases - but this doesn't apply to schoolchildren as they are too young to have a GRC)

In other words, the PC of gender reassignment doesn't mean that eg a boy should be treated as if they are a girl, but rather that they should not be treated differently to any other boy.

Gender is in your mind.
Sex is in every cell of your body.

Thankyou for point 2, I was beginning to think I was going a bit mad after our mandatory discrimination training a couple of weeks ago. I was told in the mandatory training video that sex is assigned at birth.

I thought "it's not though is it, it's observed".

It's been bothering me ever since, I'm in my probation period so don't really feel I can pipe up yet but we're a bloody LAW FIRM! Surely we're supposed to get his stuff right and if we can't, how can we represent clients who may be facing disciplinary action or worse for being GC.

Sorry to derail.