..to think Stonewall should not be involved with schools?

[ConcernedMum100]

AIBU to think Stonewall should not be involved with schools...

Historically, Stonewall has done amazing work and led the way for equality. However, over recent years their priority seems to be a different sort of activism, which has caused many of their original supporters to abandon them.

I want to stress that I am very much in favour of primary schools teaching about diversity and different types of families including same sex parents, etc. I believe that's very important. I do however have reservations with Stonewall for various reasons, as follows:

-Its school resources with regards to transgenderism and gender identity, such as An Introduction to Supporting LGBT children, breach the Department of Education’s guidelines in many ways, including the sexist and regressive suggestion that children enjoying clothes or toys typically associated with the opposite sex is a sign they may be transgender. The resources also say that children are given a label at birth (they mean their sex is recorded) and that sometimes this label will have been wrong. They are not referring to the tiny percentage of babies born with a DSD, but children whose gender identity is supposedly different to their sex. Whatever that means. The resources also say that a school should not tell the child’s parents about their gender identity if the child does not want them to. Which means they’re suggesting schools change a child’s name and pronouns without informing the parents. Seeing as they communicate that children with gender dysphoria are often vulnerable and even suicidal, this seems very irresponsible.

-Its stance on child safeguarding. Stonewall have been very clear that they disagree with the High Court’s ruling which concluded that children under the age of 16 are highly unlikely to be able to consent to puberty blockers. They are in favour of medicating children as young as 10 years old, who are experiencing gender dysphoria and say they want to live as the opposite sex. This follows research showing puberty blockers do not have a positive effect on the children’s mental health, but do cause issues with brain development and bone density. Nearly 100% of children who have taken puberty blockers go on to take cross sex hormones which will likely lead to loss of sexual function and infertility. There has been an alarming increase in children identifying as trans over the last few years and the reasons for this is unknown, and there has been no research to understand the apparent strong link between autism and gender dysphoria, nor homosexuality and gender dysphoria.

-Its stance on women’s single sex spaces. Via both Tweeting and their school resources, Stonewall have made clear they believe women and girls do not have the right to single sex spaces at time when they may be vulnerable, because they believe males who identify as women (the prerequisite of which is to declare themselves a woman-no need for any medical treatment or diagnosis) should be treated as females in every aspect of life. This means access to women’s communal changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, toilets, and rape shelters, to name a few examples.

-Its stance on women’s sports. Stonewall disagreed with World Rugby’s decision to prevent transwomen competing in women’s rugby. This decision was reached by World Rugby because they found that to include TW in the women’s teams would be unfair and unsafe (in increased risk to the women on the team by at least 20-30%) Stonewall appear to believe (and say) that inclusion comes above all else, even the safety of women and girls and their right to fair competition.

I don’t feel comfortable that an organisation with these highly controversial and political viewpoints has access to primary school children, whether it’s via face to face sessions, training school staff, or learning resources.

Of course Stonewall are not the only organisation which has these worrying beliefs. However, they are the biggest and most well funded. They are also listed on the Department of Educations “experts” page, despite breaching its own guidelines, which I think is wrong and also makes it very difficult for parents to complain to schools.

What are your thoughts?

Okay let's stick to sex. Let's say a man who ran a bulding company refused to employ women on the site and argued it was a proportionate means of meetings a legitimate aim because woman are on average less physically strong then men? Would they simply be making use of their sex based rights?

Why are you doing this jj? You know as well as I do that this is bullshit. Of all your specious arguments, this is one of your most specious yet.

This isn’t about the “right” to discriminate against a whole group of people because some of them may not have the right attributes for the job, which is obviously unlawful - despite which it has been and still is all too often the experience of women, even now, as I’m sure you know.

This is about recognising that there are groups of people who share a common pc, who may need spaces or services to be kept for the group of people with that pc exclusively. And once you open those spaces and services up to those without the same pc, they are no longer exclusive.

If you let just one non dysphoric person into a support group for dysphoric people, it is no longer exclusively for those who are actually dysphoric, and no longer serves the purpose that it was created for. Conversations will be derailed onto the experiences and needs of the non-dysphoric person; those who feel too vulnerable to share their experiences with someone they know doesn’t have the same history will be silenced.

Boundaries, jj. Those things that you, as a male person, think female people should not be entitled to have, and are doing your damndest to break down.

Are the stonewall lesson plans translated into minority languages?

I would assume that a lot of parents who may not have English as their mother tongue would be interested in know that Stonewall proposes normalisation of porn, the gingerbread man and quite detailed sex discussion including that awful puzzle (which part goes where).

Does anyone know?

It's not a religous based right because it's not dependent on religion. Any organisation could legally discriminate against gays and lesbians if they could show it was a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim - they don't have to be religious.

This is why the courts have maintained a high threshold of what counts as proportionate and legitimate - because otherwise the Equality Act would be meaningless.

Yes. And?

@MaudTheInvincible

This has all come a long way from the OP. I wonder if the misdirection, monotonous derailing and enormous deflection have anything to do with a desire to stop parents discussing the very important point of whether schools should allow this particular lobby group any access to their settings, or influence on the content of their teaching.

Yes, to get back to the OP, The resources also say that a school should not tell the child’s parents about their gender identity if the child does not want them to. Which means they’re suggesting schools change a child’s name and pronouns without informing the parents. Seeing as they communicate that children with gender dysphoria are often vulnerable and even suicidal, this seems very irresponsible.

I've been following this thread for the last couple of days. Gender ideology believers like to claim that any parent who does not immediately affirm and celebrate their trans identified child is a horrible bigot and will probably beat them and put them out on the street. I wouldn't say this never happens but it's just another facet of the tactic which claims that radical feminists are being given cash by American evangelicals. But if we pretend it's true for a minute, aren't they putting these kids in more danger?

If kids, teachers and everybody at school uses the child's new name without the parents knowledge, it's extremely likely that will get back to the child's parents eventually.

Are the stonewall lesson plans translated into minority languages?

They really should be, as proposed resources for schools.

I think that this actually is quite an important point. I believe that all parents, regardless of whether they are born in this country or not, should work together with the schools for both religious education and for sex Ed.

It is quite easy for religion. The school only needs to state what certain groups believe without value judgment. The parents can re-emphasise whatever they believe at home.

For sex Ed, given how complex these issues are, I personally see absolutely no reason to introduce them in primary schools. Any “dumbing down” of the materials risks loosing nuances which are essential. Secondary school materials need to be carefully and objectively written.

However, whatever is taught, I think it is crucial that all parents are fully onboard with the curriculum in order to be able to discuss it at home as well. I think the lesson plans should be circulated to parents in all languages that are spoken at each school.

I see JJ hasn't responded to my posting of the actual EA that says when single sex services are allowed. Did you know, JJ! That the EA act also says that your example of sexism in the workplace is NOT allowed?

So again, women can exclude all males, including those with a GRC and those with the characteristic of gender reassignment, under certain circumstances. This does not mean men can exclude women when sex is irrelevant. Like the job example.

It is really clear in law, how all those other orgs have screwed up royally is beyond me.

Why are you doing this jj? You know as well as I do that this is bullshit. Of all your specious arguments, this is one of your most specious yet.

I don't think it's specious at all. If you managed to successfully argue in court that preventing a trans woman from using a toilet because it made someone feel uncomfortable was proportionate and legitimate that would set a precedent which could impact on all of the other protected characteristics including sex - and that would cut both ways because they EA does not have seperate clauses for men and women. If you make it easier to discriminate against trans women then you also make it easier for men to discriminate against women.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of things that biologically male people (aka men), as a class, have denied to biologically female people (aka women), as a class, on the basis of our sex, throughout the ages, and still currently in some parts of the world:

The right to own property
The right to vote
Bodily autonomy
Bodily integrity
Full citizenship
Reproductive rights
The right to an education
The right to higher education and professional qualifications
The right to exercise a profession or trade
The right to earn money
The right to credit in their own name
The right to be legally acknowledged as a human being in their own right, not as a the chattel of a man
The right to make decisions about their own lives
The right to travel
The right to divorce
The right not to be raped by their husbands

And so on.

We have never had the actual right to live free from the fear of male violence, even when the law says we should - men are still killing women at horrific rates, and rape is currently practically decriminalised in the UK, with convictions standing at only 1% of reported cases.

Now let’s look at the list of what women have historically denied men, on the basis of their sex:

Oh, that’s right, nothing. Because guess what, it’s always been the men who’ve been in power.

Except, relatively recently, in some parts of the world, we have been able to deny them the right to enter into spaces that are reserved for us, where we may be physically or emotionally vulnerable.

That’s it. That’s what we have denied male people.

And that’s what some of them, including jj, are so enraged about.

Enraged because we are not fulfilling our proper function as support humans to males, but instead demanding, against that very long and wide backdrop of male oppression and abuse of females, that we be seen and treated as full human beings ourselves.

It’s very unedifying.

@MaudTheInvincible I agreed the thread has gone a bit off track. But in order for the time to have been well spent, maybe the 1000 plus people who voted not unreasonable to the OP could ping an email expressing their concern about Stonewall Championship to their kid's school today. I understand that Stonewall are issuing a new toolkit to schools this month, so it would be timely I guess.

Safe Schools alliance have some useful templates

Repeating what was said earlier in response to Stellwagon 's point:
Gender ideology believers like to claim that any parent who does not immediately affirm and celebrate their trans identified child is a horrible bigot and will probably beat them and put them out on the street. I wouldn't say this never happens but it's just another facet of the tactic which claims that radical feminists are being given cash by American evangelicals. But if we pretend it's true for a minute, aren't they putting these kids in more danger

Only the courts can remove parental rights. Even Social Services and the police can't remove parental rights without a court's agreement. The fact that so many trans groups tell schools they 'trans' children in secret from their parents is against the law and downright sinister.
There are a number of parents considering suing various schools for doing this - but they don't because it puts their child at the centre of a legal case. Sadly that's what is needed to shock schools.

Also copy MP

@Ereshkigalangcleg do you know if transgender trend and safe school alliance publish anything in minority languages?

I do think that there may be a large group of parents who may not even know that this discussion is ongoing given language difficulties and/or not being enough integrated into society to know where to look for court judgements.

Given that the only thing everyone on this thread seems to agree on is that the discussion should be as wide as possible, surely making sure that all parents at least have awareness of these discussions and the main points should be a no-brainer?

If you managed to successfully argue in court that preventing a trans woman from using a toilet because it made someone feel uncomfortable

It is not about comfort it's about safeguarding.

Transwomen include cross dressers and men who make no changes to their physical appearance based on a notion of 'feeling like a woman'. This is a safeguarding issue which is exactly what the single sex spaces were designed for.

Safeguarding women does not open the floodgates in the way that you suggest at all.

If men needed safe spaces to remove the risk of harm to them then they could indeed have them. But it is recognised, based on very basic biological factors, that women are at more risk of harm.

It does not discriminate against transwomen who are biological males to say no to the removal of single sex spaces. It may hurt their feelings and need for affirmation but they have other options.

As it has been pointed out before on this thread and endless times on others, it is the broadening of the definition of trans that has caused most harm to transwomen. Many transwomen recognise this and are as annoyed with all this as we are.

So JJ's latest gambit is that we are all here because Glinner tells us to be? I didn't get an email . And that no parent, on a website for parents, is the slightest bit concerned?

I expect you have to be signed up to Glinner's website to be emailed. Instead of, you know, one of the 14 million unique users per month on this website.

Still, it makes a change to being warned we may be complicit in terrorism if we look at kiwi farms, or being collared for revenge porn if you point women towards a snap happy pervert in our toilets or, being accused of 'shoving bi-phobia down people's throats', if we wax lyrical about soulmates, or, 'decimating' the tourist industry on the basis of sex segregation and no trans tourist ever deigning to darken our doorstep, and, not forgetting, jeopardising trade deals between America and Britain, because we have to do what Joe Biden has done, or else.

Still, treating women on here like uninformed, incurious sheeple who aren't down with the lingo? Score.

Because parents don't want to know the first thing about the sex education, ideological education, or people with a bit of a dodgy agenda going into their children's schools, do they?

Strewth. I know I've said it before, but really, the advocates for this ideology cant help giving one stonking masterclass in self sabotage.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

This is an exceptional post. Thank you.

JJ, the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act work for both men and women eg if you run a support group for men at risk of suicide, you can invoke the single sex exemptions as it is proportion and reasonable to deny women entry to the group.
Likewise it is proportionate and reasonable to deny males access to spaces where females might be in a state of undress.

[quote CoffeeTeaChocolate]@Ereshkigalangcleg do you know if transgender trend and safe school alliance publish anything in minority languages?

I do think that there may be a large group of parents who may not even know that this discussion is ongoing given language difficulties and/or not being enough integrated into society to know where to look for court judgements.

Given that the only thing everyone on this thread seems to agree on is that the discussion should be as wide as possible, surely making sure that all parents at least have awareness of these discussions and the main points should be a no-brainer?[/quote]
This is a very good point.

Thank you Delphinium

JJ, the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act work for both men and women eg if you run a support group for men at risk of suicide, you can invoke the single sex exemptions as it is proportion and reasonable to deny women entry to the group.

And funnily enough women don't object to this happening...

[quote xenomutt]@MaudTheInvincible ah that's true - I'll stop contributing to the side show. Take heart though, just today I've introduced two sets of parents of children in the target demographic to this material, who didn't know about it before.[/quote]
Brilliant job - this is what we have to do. In a democratic society all citizens should have the right to discuss issues openly and have visibility and input into the laws of the land.

As I’m sure you’ve seen upthread the stated aim by the trans lobby including Stonewall, on advice from Dentons is to keep the changes under the radar.

Then the law gets sneaked through and it is too late and we end up with the horrendous situation in Ireland.

We have had some very helpful demonstrations on this thread of how keen certain people are to prevent us discussing this openly. We are not calling for harm to anyone, in fact the overwhelming message is that we respect the rights of transgender people (as they are written in law, but the made up ones). There are screenshots of a number if these threads over in Twitter now being discussed and held up as evidence of how awful us mums who want to safeguard the children and uphold our rights.

We have produced acres of real life evidence as to the harms and issues being created yet no one has been able to give us one tiny thing that sets our mind at rest and reassures us that it’s not that bad.

In fact when I started looking into this after a terrible conversation with friends I thought I must be blowing this out of proportion and that I would do some more research and would find out that it wasn’t as bad as I thought.

Unfortunately I found that it is so much worse than that. Mumsnet has been a useful forum to come and discuss and share information but the evidence of what is happening is all out there and the more that we are vilified and doxed and attacked online (and irl) the clearer it makes the need to protect our rights.

In Scotland they have gone as far as legally redefining ’woman’ to include males. That’s where we could end up if we don’t keep pushing.

Caroline Nokes who chairs the Women & Equalities Select Committee who has been again (for some reason) looking at trying to push self id through with the GRA reforms outlined by Liz Truss. Caroline wrote a very pro twaw article in the Times around the end if the consultation and the video (available on the govt website if anyone wants to watch) of her treatment of the feminist Professors giving evidence was noticeably different (rude and dismissive) to her treatment of the trans Professors contributing. It was quite an eye opener as to how blatantly rude she was. So we gave an uphill battle with elements of the government and need to keep a close eye on what happens with Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch in the next few months.

I expect you have to be signed up to Glinner's website to be emailed. Instead of, you know, one of the 14 million unique users per month on this website.

10 million a month now: www.mumsnet.com/info/advertising

The GC take-over of the world's largest parenting website has not been good for business.

The world's largest parenting website? Wow, I did not know that. I had no idea they were so big.

@Deltoids1

JJ, the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act work for both men and women eg if you run a support group for men at risk of suicide, you can invoke the single sex exemptions as it is proportion and reasonable to deny women entry to the group. Likewise it is proportionate and reasonable to deny males access to spaces where females might be in a state of undress.

Yes potentially, and there are no loud calls from trans people for the single sex exemptions to be removed. I support them. However expert legal opinion is quite resolute that these exemptions would not apply to things like toilets or changing rooms which contained cubicles.