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

This

It would never occur to me that anyone 'gender critical' would be in favour of 'legal sex' as a legal fiction to allow someone to lie about their sex. If there are people who call themselves gender critical who agree with this then I would say it is them that are not gender critical, not SSA, who clearly are.

I am still very confused by this statement, and I am a big supporter of SSA.

Same here. Accepting the status quo of GRCs granting the legal status of woman to males is not an intermediary position from which to argue against the idea of males being given legal status as women. It seems more like accepting your opponent’s argument while working to ameliorate it/tinker round the edges.

About "legal sex" and FPFW - I was also unaware. But having read KPSS explain their position on that idea, I find myself agreeing with them.

I had no idea FPFW took that stance! I wonder why?

@2fallsfromSSA thanks to you and your colleagues in SSA. I have a daughter in Y1 in England and I fully support SSA.
I think it's absolutely right to clarify your position and perhaps avoid getting dragged in or associated with arguments that are not SSA's primary focus.
Thank you for engaging, and I hope it is useful for SSA.

Thanks for the input we have edited our statement and removed the reference to trouser-wearing lesbians as on reflection it did not fit in a positioning statement.

We appreciate it being brought to our attention.

So from that I got that Fair Play for Women are in favour of including males with a GRC as women? I didn't know that. Are there others?

I get that people thinkGC organisations are saying that. But with the "legal sex" business - no they are not. They are likely going to take us to a place where more harm and mess happens. See: KPSS position as against Sex Matters position.

I disagree. I think it's a "Yes, and" situation, not an "either/or" Simply focusing on safeguarding will do very little for addressing, for example, the sex pay gap, or the pin collar ghetto, or the persistent undervaluing of work seen as "women's work" - just to name examples around women's work & wages.

KPSS set out the legal sex issue here

Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5094418-keep-prisons-single-sex-wind-down?msgid=136167370#136167370

I get that people think GC organisations are saying that. But with the "legal sex" business - no they are not. They are likely going to take us to a place where more harm and mess happens. See: KPSS position as against Sex Matters position.

I have clearly missed some discussion so could you please say which GC organisations are in favour of the concept of legal sex? As I do not support that and want to know if I am funding or otherwise supporting stuff I don't believe in. I had a look at Sex Matters website and can't see it there. Or is this some academic feminists versus grassroots organisations thing?

Like others on this thread, I'm concerned at how we've watched safeguarding children be eroded, not only as IcakethereforeIam so accurately describes but with open attacks on safeguarding children made by powerful political figures (Cashman etc). Completing the KCSIE consultation highlighted just how easy it's been for trans lobbyists to openly challenge, rewrite and erode fundamental safeguarding principles with the trans captured DfE and Ofsted standing by watching until Cass sounded the alarm.
There's now quite a mountain to climb as schools and other services have to quietly retreat from their 'yes your body can be wrong but a sex change can fix it" position to one that acknowledges the dangers this poses to children. As this thread shows, it's far from over in some schools:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5101400-new-sexualitygender-group-set-up-at-daughters-school-how-do-i-respond?reply=136181083

But what a constructive thread this has turned into. Informative discussion and debate with only one attempt to smear. Thanks SSA for taking an open approach to criticism.

Was the betrousered lesbian statement withdrawn? I missed it.

It might be too much detail. OTOH, (as well as being offensive and regressive) it's also potentially a way of creating a narrative that doesn't exist. From there, if accepted as the narrative, similar ideas and notions can become "truth". So yes it should be challenged. I suppose the possible risk to SSA in not putting out a position on it is that people think "these organisations are trying to help children" and throw them in together. That would be harmful to SSA's reputation. (There's another discussion about the extent to which Genspect is beneficial to UK children of course but that's rightly on another thread).

The rest of the changes @2fallsfromSSA make sense and seem to uphold your position as a safeguarding organisation. I think it's illogical that the GC position has not unequivocally been "OK, we won the "right" to say we don't believe people can change sex but obviously this can NOT be the end point. Women and children are being harmed and that's where we need to focus now very clearly".

I get that people think GC organisations are saying that. But with the "legal sex" business - no they are not. They are likely going to take us to a place where more harm and mess happens. See: KPSS position as against Sex Matters position.

That is a detailed area, no doubt. But we really do need to understand the effects and consequences of legal sex. Discussion must be had on that.

As an edge of the debate person, I’d recommend removing the lesbian in trousers section and addressing it as a separate issue if you want to.

Lesbians in trousers are not the key focus of your organisation 😁

Thank you again for the interaction, SSA, I know you are a much-appreciated group and I hope everything here has been constructive.

In reference to the comment that was highlighted about lesbians in trousers, on reflection for a strategic position there is perhaps too much detail, however we stand but we said by our orginal tweet which challenged this comment and we were disappointed that this comment was not more widely challenged.

The original lesbians-in-men's-clothing comment was made quite a while ago, so it's odd it was on your recent radar at all; and it was very widely challenged at the time, and the woman who make the comment, and then withdrew it, has certainly been very very challenged on this thread. I'm not sure SSA needed to wade in in defence of lesbians-in-men's-clothing, but hey, thanks for thinking of us

Yes I apologise for the accidental misgendering 😂

I really need to wear my glasses more...

Thank you for the feedback, I'm glad you found a way in to your school. The hope is when people actually read our resources they see we are coming from a SG perspective.

This thread has been very helpful.

I've been misgendered. I'm off to call the police 😉😂

Thank you for everything you're doing in all of this. I have no doubt that there are many parents (and teachers) who feel the same gratitude as I do for all of the heavy lifting that you have done to get these issues raised up the public agenda.

I've been talking about conversations with schools on a different thread but I'll loop back to it here, as it's directly relevant. I found it really difficult to have an "in" to share the SSA work with my daughters' school. From any school's perspective, every organisation that isn't "officially approved" is a potential "political lobby group". This was made considerably worse by the (hopefully to be replaced) RHSE guidance that effectively directs schools in to the biased hands of "specialist LGBT organisations" for their curriculum materials. I'm pleased to say that I did find a way to share your work with the school but it took time to get there.
Having a clear statement about the purpose of the group makes good sense and helps with these types of conversation. It sounds like this thread has provided an opportunity to tweak the positioning of the statement so that it hits the mark as intended.

I'd take out the "lesbians in trousers" bit. Adds nothing and confusing to people who aren't closely following the debate.

Bonfirelad you are absolutely right about those two issues going hand in hand. This is why we are calling for a public inquiry because there has been a systematic dismantling of safeguarding across all sectors:

"I want to centre a) safeguarding in schools (SSA does this brilliantly) and b) stopping the promotion, and enforcement, of genderism and genderist beliefs in education, healthcare and general policies/legislation. The two go hand in hand."

Thank you all for your comments. We are reflecting at the moment and your comments have sparked some discussion in our group this morning. We have made some edits to our statement and added this addition:

"We support the repeal of the GRA and strongly refute the concept of legal sex on safeguarding grounds. Will not support any compromise position that centres rights over safeguarding. See Tanya Carter's interview for the Future of Legal Gender project in 2022 which gives more detail on our position on the concept of legal sex."

We are concerned about compromises being suggested and we want to firmly state our position that we will not support anything from any organisation, GC or not that does not follow safeguarding first principle. We hope that our statement has done that.

In reference to the comment that was highlighted about lesbians in trousers, on reflection for a strategic position there is perhaps too much detail, however we stand but we said by our orginal tweet which challenged this comment and we were disappointed that this comment was not more widely challenged.

So what do you all think? Does it strengthen or detract from our position? If people feel that it detracts and is confusing then we will remove it.

Also happy to take on board other comments if people still feel our statement is confusing.

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2024/06/18/our-position-as-a-safeguarding-organisation/

Ereshkigalangcleg thanks

Thanks for coming on and commenting SSA

Personally, I don't call myself "GC" and I only used to talk about holding "GC beliefs" because it was legally protected. When I found out that it was also legally protected to say that I don't believe everyone has a gender identity, I found this far more useful:

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?t=L1MAeU_L0TRfQkNsREgXYw&s=19

I want to centre a) safeguarding in schools (SSA does this brilliantly) and b) stopping the promotion, and enforcement, of genderism and genderist beliefs in education, healthcare and general policies/legislation. The two go hand in hand.

I'm totally confused by this discussion. But just jumping in to thank you, RoyalCorgi, for a simple and clear outlining of gender critical beliefs- what they mean for me, anyway.

Wasn't it framed as a 'belief' because that was the only thing the court could rule on. I know, every sane person knows, that you cannot change your sex. That is a fact.

I take on board that safeguarding has been overlooked...perhaps not the right word. Maybe the shenanigans the genderwoo brigade have gotten up to in schools, on helplines, in the NHS are wrong because they are inappropriate and, sometimes, particularly regarding children, genderwoo/GC notwithstanding. If gender ideology had never been a thing, the dice game, playdoh genitalia, the Family Sex Show would still be wrong.

You'd think the so called Trans community would also be up in arms about some of the stuff they've been co-opted for as an excuse to show perverted stuff to kids.

Too often when called out on it they state LGBT+ inclusion for activities that are dubious. The Scottish guy defending giving taxpayers money to a porno explicitly said they're okay with behaviour that would shock the mainstream.

so it's difficult to understand why it is now being used to suggest that FWRers,

It isn't, it's not about FWR. It's about disagreements with the direction some people are going in, which go both ways.