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

Personally I do think that's what's happening. I see why - you can confidently say things knowing you'll be backed up by the law. But it's just saying things. It's not dealing with the core issue.

Yes, I agree. And I do also believe that our legal freedom of speech and belief is incredibly important, or we would have no means to challenge anything at all. But the sex fudge, as @ArabellaScott calls it, isn't necessarily enough to protect women and children.

Isn’t it as likely that SSA are positioning themselves as a nonpartisan organisation so that they can actually leverage some influence after the election?

I think it's perfectly fine for them to set out what their organisation is about and distance themselves from ideas that they believe are damaging to them and their aims. @2fallsfromSSA if you're around, don't know if you would like to comment?

Does it though? If you bring in "legal sex" then where does that end?

That is precisely where we can't have belief trumping safeguarding. Be it in a religious school where children are made unsafe due to belief, or be it in wider discussions about changes in the law where the GC groups keen on "legal sex" drown out other views. Whether they mean to or not, to be clear.

As Ereshkigalangcleg says, the Forstater case can take us down a path where safeguarding is overlooked.

Personally I do think that's what's happening. I see why - you can confidently say things knowing you'll be backed up by the law. But it's just saying things. It's not dealing with the core issue. And yes I do think my strip searching example is a good one here. It shows both the limits of belief and the danger of pinning things on that belief. You have to think "what if" and worst case scenario.

This is a purity spiral then. Funny, I thought the other side would be the ones to get whipped up into one first. I could still see a purity spiral being the thing that implodes their reign of bonkers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d70h

What happened in the world of knitting was absolutely horrendous and we really, REALLY would do well to try to avoid fanning the flames of one in our movement. Including posting and commenting on threads like this one. (Yes I know, pot/kettle).

I think this too - but it's a seriously confusing statement.

Maya Forstater's case brought a definition of "gender critical" into law that some people consider is taking us down a path where safeguarding is overlooked.

I think there are different understandings of the umbrella term "Gender Critical". Yes it originally referred to feminism. But it has evolved.

Take strip searching for instance. What is the point of being able to say "I don't think that was a woman who searched me, it was a man" and facing no sanction for that, but being told "tough, that's her legal sex"? This is where GC belief is useless and those pushing it here there and everywhere need to seriously take a step back and think what the consequences are.

This seems really confusing. GC belief simply means recognising that clothing, hobbies, mannerisms etc aren't what makes someone a woman or man but their physical sex does.

GC belief doesn't lead to the idea of supporting the ludicrous idea of a legal sex which isn't based in reality.

The whole point of the arguments that have been going on on this board and elsewhere for years is that the man wanting to strip search women can be stopped no matter how he identifies.

What ResisterRex said. This thread is completely uncalled for. It's like one of the million anti KJK threads.

Thank you for bringing this statement to the wider attention of FWR. SSA are correct and I'm glad they've set this out in clear terms.

I think we are in real danger of sleepwalking into labelling things GC, when they are not. They are safeguarding concerns. GC might be a protected belief but it doesn't trump safeguarding.

We used to talk a lot about safeguarding here in FWR. But these days we don't. I think that poses a risk to children and vulnerable adults. I think we are being slowly encouraged to move ourselves further and further away from safeguarding discussions.

Take strip searching for instance. What is the point of being able to say "I don't think that was a woman who searched me, it was a man" and facing no sanction for that, but being told "tough, that's her legal sex"? This is where GC belief is useless and those pushing it here there and everywhere need to seriously take a step back and think what the consequences are.

If anyone reading this is unconvinced by my example then maybe it would dawn on you when the next Child Q case happens and the female child is searched by an adult male. If you design policy like this, of course it could happen. But if it did, everyone would throw their arms up in horror. Why? I can see the danger now. Because while I might be GC, I know where that ends and the limits. Knowing the limits means I am not concerned about raising safeguarding concerns.

Maybe that's the kind of thing SSA mean.

But OP, why don't you ask them instead of using FWR to trash them?

The statement about some lesbians getting a sexual charge from clothing refers to a comment by Stella O'Malley. She was roundly denounced for the comment by all parts of the GC movement (for want of a better word). I think it was just an ill-thought through off-the-cuff remark in an interview. It most certainly wasn't a gender critical position statement.

Not sure, but think this might be linked to a current fairly bewildering act of self sabotage where some feminists are criticising others for working with GC people who aren't left wing. It's a purity thing.

I think they're trying not to be embroiled in it.