Child excluded for using a ‘dead name’.

Also, I have just noticed that the child concerned is "certainly no angel". This is always one of the reddest of red flags.

I'm GC too. But I would eat my suffragette flag if this happened.

The op is claiming that this was an accidental slip of the tongue between friends which resulted in a Draconian punishment. That's the bit people aren't finding credible.

I can actually imagine many schools wouldn't accommodate a gender critical child taking the stance you've described and may well end up punishing them. I simply don't believe a slip of the tongue is punished though.

There is no such thing as a ‘dead name’, just as ‘non binary’ also isn’t an actual thing. Humans are either male or female and cannot change categories. We are talking about children here. Social transitioning is harmful, as we all know from the Cass report. As children, many of us would have played around with different names / nicknames - this child is doing the same. By using the terms ‘deadname’ and ‘non binary’ we are promoting a belief in gender ideology.

In a nutshell 😂

Exactly right, @NeverDropYourMooncup

Load of goady bollocks

That's not exclusion as 99% of people understand it. Your OP implied he'd been expelled (permanently excluded), not kept in an inclusion room and lost his breaktime.

@Gelasring you're right on all counts, I think.

Internal exclusion - is that basically being removed from classes but not the school itself?

Seems like a deliberately provocative thread title of so as to most people excluded would suggest permanently excluded from school.

I'd be surprised if it happened too. Knowing a few non-binary kids through my kids, none of them give much of a shit about the occasional use of their old name.

Quite, @Justme56 . Certainly, where I work we use the term "harassment" or possibly "discrimination" depending on the incident.

For anything to be classed as a hate crime, a crime has first got to be committed first. This has to be proved in a court of law. The court has to determine if ‘hate’ was an aggravating factor in the crime which may lead to a longer sentence. I hope this terminology hasn’t been used by the school.

Because that's the term rather than exclusion, although I can see that it was internal.
That's really not the main point. A child would not be punished for one instance of a slip of the tongue. Schools have far more serious issues to deal with and have neither the time nor resources for this.

Yes there was. For a start I was at university 25 years ago with a trans teacher trainee. This isn't a new thing.

Yes, this is like the stories you see 'I was excluded for the wrong socks'. There's always more to do with the story. Exclusion for something like this wouldn't happen for someone accidentally using the dead name. Repeatedly or with intention to upset would be a different story.

X post

I am head of KS4. I am very well aquainted with the terms and the legalities!makes no sense.

Then why are you telling her she means suspension? Of all the things there are to say on this thread? You know what internal exclusion is. The question is why she keeps saying "hate crime".

So, at a meeting, the child and parents were told that this was "a hate crime"?
What other information was given?

I am head of KS4. I am very well aquainted with the terms and the legalities!
This makes no sense.

Permanent/Fixed term/internal exclusions are the new terms for Expulsion/suspension/isolation, respectively.

So she's right to say exclusion, which she later characterised as "internal".

Other than that, it's hard to know what to make of any part of this thread.

I suspect you mean suspension? This wouldn't have happened for the reason you suggest.
What occurred at the meeting?

That's fair more likely.

You are obsessed. Talk to someone.

Goodness, almost as if there's an attempt to grab screenshots for Twitter going on, & this is all nonsense on stilts.