We are a Safeguarding Organisation - Not a Gender Critical Campaign - Safe School Alliance

The revised statement is better. But it still starts with a reference to 'parts of the GC movement' that drops people into the middle of an argument they are quite possibly unaware of and that you then claim not to be part of. The web post linked in the thread header does not seem to link to any explanation on Twitter (and with Twitter changes a lot of people would be unable to read it if it did) - it just references 'recent events'.

It's confusing.

Thank you @ResisterRex.

To clarify. We did comment on that incident when it happened. If you follow the link in our website post to X you will see the full discussion. We asked for feedback on this thread about whether we should keep that specific comment in our statement and removed it following feedback from posters.

The OP is very opinionated on what other women should do and is a regular and prolific thread starter, so I don't think this thread was a deliberate attempt to undermine SSA. I'm not sure they have that level of cunning. There are other posts on the thread which I believe are aiming to do that.

Or. And here's a thought. Or we could see this thread for what it was? An attempt to trash SSA on FWR. And maybe - just maybe - we could start to see all these kinds of threads for what they are. Attempts to trash individuals and organisations who understand safeguarding. People who are trying to raise the alarm.

Who benefits from that? Cos it sure as shit ain't women and children.

I notice the OP has not returned.

It is my own interpretation that, had SSA not commented, this idea that lesbians are on a par with AGPs would / could have started to take root.

Then they should comment on it direcrly, where it happened. Not as a vague position statement somewhere else that will be read mainly by people who have no idea what they're going on about. That, if anything, reinforces the idea by raising it to a new audience.

My y should be a z, obviously!

Clarifying your mission is good. Thay can be done without reference to others. Coded, cliquey squabbling looks unprofessional. It will baffle and put off many who are just looking for help with the organisation's core purpose.

I agree with this.

If SSA believes it's helpful to set out what it doesn't believe, this could be done in a FAQ, explaining the issue around (say) legal sex and why "some people have argued x because they think this helps y, but we disagree. We believe y, because..."

That helps educate and providing it's done fairly in how the alternative view is characterised, isn't off putting.

They were tagged here. It seemed to me that they decided to respond.

The Genspect SOM comment on lesbians getting a sexual thrill from wearing trousers got no (or close to no) pushback from GC organisations and individuals at the time.

It is my own interpretation that, had SSA not commented, this idea that lesbians are on a par with AGPs would / could have started to take root. It's unevidenced and offensive. And it starts to lump AGPs in with lesbians, which aids AGPs as they benefit from being in with a benign group, but it harms lesbians to be placed in a group like AGPs. This is very obvious.

Like SSA said, maybe the detail didn't work for a strategic position. But I say well done them for standing up and being counted.

No idea why that's picked up my previous post as a quote. It should quote @GenderRealistBloke

I agree on both points.

Clarifying your mission is good. Thay can be done without reference to others. Coded, cliquey squabbling looks unprofessional. It will baffle and put off many who are just looking for help with the organisation's core purpose.

I clicked on this thread expecting to agree with SSA. Safeguarding and GC are two different things, nothing wrong with making clear SSA's focus and having a big tent.

But their message is weird in two ways: i. it's pushing back on a claim that isn't a core tenet of GCism at all. ii. just because someone's wrong on the internet doesn't mean an org needs to comment on it. Doing so actually makes SSA seem more attached to the GC movement, or why engage with intra-group arguments.

I clicked on this thread expecting to agree with SSA. Safeguarding and GC are two different things, nothing wrong with making clear SSA's focus and having a big tent.

But their message is weird in two ways: i. it's pushing back on a claim that isn't a core tenet of GCism at all. ii. just because someone's wrong on the internet doesn't mean an org needs to comment on it. Doing so actually makes SSA seem more attached to the GC movement, or why engage with intra-group arguments.

That FPFW info appears to be specifically in the context of a legal challenge to the census questions - 4 years ago. As pointed out by PP, that would be shaped by what they were able to feasibly push back on within the context of existing laws, not necessarily their own preferred stance. Is there evidence that they actually promote the concept of legal sex?

And the WRN screenshot posted on the first page is someone thrown out of the WRN for their views. So clearly not shared by the network.

Yep, that's the sad reality of any school where the SLTs' heads have been turned by genderist beliefs. It doesn't take much to do it and for the most part, I suspect the majority are really just trying to be kind to minority groups.
Once that label is applied, it takes a long time to prise the conversation open. It's the equivalent of sharing Daily Mail links, which I've also had to do at times (obviously with a "I appreciate the DM isn't to everyone's taste but it's the only place I can find this story published") when explaining something. I'm 18 months in to a conversation with the school and I still have to be incredibly careful with what I share. I'm relatively comfortable with this because the school has an obligation to be apolitical, but it's a tricky situation if they don't realise that they've already been politicised and are viewing their own gender-faithful position as impartial 🤦‍♀️

Unfortunately Bonfire Lady my school already includes SSA in the same 'hate group's
category as Transgender Trend, Bayswater Support Group, Sex Matters, WPUK etc. it doesn't matter how moderate/squeaky clean or otherwise you are, the hate group label is applied.

Having said that, I really admire SSA and think their approach and ability to respond to feedback is fantastic, especially as they are just a small group of volunteers.

we probably need to spell out on what basis the GRA undermines safeguarding and we will do so.

This would be really helpful.

When I take information in to the school, I'm very conscious that it mustn't come across as politically motivated or from a lobbying position.

I also agree with dunBle that it risks creating a barrier.
Until public awareness of autogynophilia grows to a significant enough level, there will be a strong enough support from the public for the GRA and its use for the "dignity" etc of a "tiny, marginalised minority". Any challenge to it risks coming across as a step too far, potentially putting the rest of the messaging in to the "hate group" bucket.

To address some of the points raised in the last few posts:

We are not a helpline and whilst we help as many people as we possibly can, we cannot respond individually to every email we receive. We are a small team of volunteers and our mission is to empower parents to tackle their schools and advocate for safeguarding to be prioritized by the government. We have produced resources and guidance to help support parents but sadly cannot help everyone individually, it is not our remit and we do not have the time or funds to do so. Our auto response does explain this and we do try to get to as many emails as we can. I may have said on this thread but we are unfunded and we do everything we do in our own time, juggling around jobs and families. We feel our whole website explains who we are and the content demonstrates the breadth of knowledge and expertise about safeguarding we hold within the group.

I can understand why people feel this thread and our statement is confusing. We simply wanted to state our position as a safeguarding organisation. I agree with your definition of GC @greenatthetop but there is sometimes conflict around the issue of "rights" and we wanted to clarify where we stand on that. We are not a "gender-critical" organisation. We are a safeguarding one and we support those principles. However, when conflicts arise we will take a safeguarding-sfirst approach.

On the topic of the GRA @dunBle thank you for your comment, it has always been our position that the GRA undermines safeguarding. Tanya's interview linked further up the thread and in our statement outlines our position on this but we probably need to spell out on what basis the GRA undermines safeguarding and we will do so.

God this thread is confusing.

GC beliefs for me are based in sex meaning biological sex and that maintaining the primacy of sex over gender identity is vital for women’s safety, dignity and fairness.

Maintaining (a) the primacy of sex over gender identity and (b) sex being biological sex, is the bedrock of safeguarding girls and women. These things are utterly interlinked.

Just because SSA say they’re a safeguarding organisation doesn’t mean that they actually are. Their website does not reveal who they are and consequently I don’t trust them. What are their credentials? They say they’re experts in safeguarding and yet how would anyone know? They certainly don’t act like experts in safeguarding. They’re notorious for not answering emails. If they do eventually answer, they just send links to concerned parents. This isn’t safeguarding, it’s sloppy. They call people out in public- that is, by definition, anti safeguarding. Safeguarding is a real thing, it’s not just a word to throw around X and Mumsnet. It seems fairly obvious to me that SSA are a group of amateurs who think they know more than they do.

There's a difference between being in favour of it, and recognising what the current legal position is. Given that the wording of the GRA is "for all purposes" (except for the specific exceptions in the act like inheriting peerages etc), if FPFW had argued that everyone should be completing the census according to their birth sex, they might've lost.

@2fallsfromSSA I really don't think it's a good idea to have a statement on your website that you're in favour of repealing the GRA. While it may play well with certain sections of your audience, for ordinary parents who aren't up on all the arguments surrounding this area it will turn off some of them as they'll see it as you wanting to remove people's rights, and will definitely give schools that are Stonewalled up to the eyeballs an excuse to ignore your resources.

We really appreciate all your support. @dougalfromthemagicroundabout - you are right. SSA is run by a small group of women volunteers. We have no funding but some lovely people do donate money which pays for the website and our expenses so we can travel to meetings.

I want to second what @dougalfromthemagicroundabout and @MrsOvertonsWindow just said.

And to say thank you @2fallsfromSSA

Well said Dougal. This is an emergency with what's happening to children. It's been so disappointing that Sunak called this bloody election before the government had implemented the changes to protect children that they'd actually enabled by being in thrall to transactivism.

It's notable how SSA is open to criticism and able to change. People who genuinely care about children's wellbeing and safety tend to very much be willing to listen and change things. That's actually an example of a good safeguarding culture.

Compare and contrast with the other side and their debate shutting down cries of 'transphobia' / 'discrimination'. You don't try and shut down reasoned debate if you care about child safety and wellbeing.

Brava SSA. It's a difficult environment to operate in and SSA aren't getting the big government grants to do this, I think it's very much volunteers giving up time they don't really have (@2fallsfromSSA you can correct me if I'm wrong here!).

Parents care about their children and more and more are willing to stand up against the erosion of safeguarding in schools, so I hope SSA will go from strength to strength as the grassroots safeguarding first organisation our children desperately need.

I agree with KPSS regarding 'legal sex', i still don't understand FPFW's position.