9 yr old told off for calling non-binary teacher Sir

[Nowherecitizen]

My friend’s son was told off by a teacher at his school for referring to them as ‘Sir’. The teacher is male but identifies as non-binary.

Their title is Mx which the children are aware of. But the little boy simply looked at an adult who is visibly male and used the term Sir.

I have seen this teacher and they are 'masculine' looking but will sometimes wear a skirt and heels.

Friend’s DS felt bad and can’t recall exactly what was said to them but said the teacher was ‘very cross’.

AIBU to think this was mishandled? Surely the child should be reminded gently of the preferred identity of this adult but should not face a telling off?

What is the non-binary version of Sir anyway?

You have just contradicted yourself in that gender reassignment is the protected characteristic.

and that is where things get woolly.

No, he’s 9.

I don't think it does. EHRC definition here

In an employment tribunal it was ruled that non-binary also qualified and this was published on the home office website. I mean discrimination wouldn’t come in to it unless this kept notoriously happening but they have the right to have whatever title, just as much you have the right to whatever title you want.

It literally says:

The Equality Act says that you must not be directly discriminated against because:

• someone thinks you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. For example, because you occasionally cross-dress or do not conform to gender stereotypes (this is known as discrimination by perception).

I got called ‘Mum’ a lot. I’m not a mother and never want to be, but it didn’t offend me. I just used to laugh and say “I’m fairly sure I’m not your mum”

Kids get their words muddled up. It happens.

I'm not mocking you and I think you know that.

You may have mentioned sex in other posts. But when we come back to the question of biological essence versus social construct - which is the basis of the article you linked to demonstrate why identifying as a sex isn't the same as identifying as a race - You refuse to engage with the sex question.

So, to reiterate, I agree that gender is a social construct. But I disagree that sex is. In fact, sex is much more strongly and clearly based on biology than race is.

So either ...

You disagree with me there - do you?

Or you need another argument about why 'identifying' as a sex you are not is different to 'identifying' as a race you are not.

This nine year old does not 'think' the teacher is in the process of gender reassignment. In fact, the nine year old knows he isn't.

But the discrimination in question references things like employment/housing. The nine year old has no power to discriminate on anything the EA covers.

The ET case was brought because though the employee sometimes/latterly identified as non binary the discrimination was due to his feminine style of dress and everyone thinking he was trying to present as a woman. Which (I'd say especially in an adult office environment) was the whole point
If a shop floor mechanic or a primary school teacher tried to wear pencil skirts and high heels, or a theatre nurse was wearing stilettos and makeup, it's management's job to have a word. Whether they were male OR female.

I had a young assistant, and a colleague had another young assistant who both showed their pants over low slung trousers (it was the early 2000s). Mine was female and my colleague's was male. If we'd only spoken to one it would be sexist and if anyone ogled my assistant it would be harassment. But a general word about visibility of underwear in the office environment was had.

One would be forgiven for thinking they just make it up to suit whatever privilege they decide to claim.

Like the ‘non binary’ guy who decided to join the girls queue to be searched by the lady security guard outside a nightclub and kicked up a fuss when he was told to join the mens queue.

Or the non binary guy who decided that wearing nail polish and done interesting clothing entitled him to join the women’s exercise class at university.

It’s odd isn’t it?

Oh I’m not saying the 9yo is. This all stemmed from the poster who insists on saying that wanting to be addressed as Mx is sinister amongst all other things and they have no right to be called anything other than a man, so I’m trying to reiterate that the teacher can title themselves whatever they want, despite what the poster thinks or feels.

I don't think you're right there. On what grounds? Not the equality act anyway.

@TheKeatingFive - no I don’t know that you aren’t mocking me. Because I already told you where I stand on both sex, gender and race. If you look through you can find the answer that I have provided.

not once I have said that sex is a social construct. The social construct vs biological essence as you put it. I have not refused to engage with the sex part of this argument I answered all of your prompts - again look for what I have said in my replies. You might not like the answers I give or disagree and again that is your right but I am entitled to my opinion. the interesting thing is why do you you keep asking me all these questions- and I’m really thinking to myself whats your point? What is your argument?
I hope you have a lovely life - I don’t wish any ill to you but I have answered enough of your questions and won’t be answering any more. I am comfortable with my views - I’m happy with where I stand. You won’t change my mind just as I’m sure I won’t change yours.

What extensive research have you done to justify this comment?
I have existed in this planet for 50 odd years and used my powers of observation.

Women sometimes wear skirts and heels for sexual purposes. Should we ban skirts and heels for everyone?

In my 50 odd years I have never heard of any woman wearing a skirt in public in order to get themselves off sexually. I have however, heard of many men who do so and seen the incompatibility of an erection and a skirt. Especially when children are present (more about that later)

Same applies to women. Just because a man wears a skirt doesn’t make him a paedophile, predator or deviant. Some men just want to wear a skirt and heels. What about a skirt without heels or vice versa, is that acceptable?

I didn’t say all men are but SOME men are predators and deviants. Statistically FAR more likely to be than women. We have no way of telling which man is going to be a predator hence we utilise safeguarding principles.

Its a skirt and heels, not chaps and crotchless panties with thigh high boots.

There is extensive evidence that a simple dress or skirt combined with the thrill of being in public is all it takes for some men.

God help you if you bump into Grayson Perry.

Yes, God help me. An ‘interesting’ man who thought it appropriate to turn up to a children’s charity event wearing a large black dildo.

You minimise and hand wave and justify predatory behaviour. In this day and age when rape and child sexual abuse is endemic we need to reduce opportunities, not increase them.

No one would be telling my child off for calling a male sir, if they don't want to be misgendered then don't work with children when that will likely happen a lot, especially young children who just say it how they see it

Grayson Perry has openly said that this is the case for him. I do not think we can know whether that might apply to others.

https://www.ukdeedpolloffice.org/what-is-the-mx-title/

Anyone can use the Mx title. Even you.

Ok, so the article you linked argued that ...

Gender is a social construct, not an essential characteristic. So can be legitimately 'identified out of'.

It also said that race is an essential characteristic so can not be 'identified out of.'

So I put to you (and the author of the article), what about sex? It is clearly an essential characteristic to my mind - So presumably cannot be 'identified out of'.

The author of that article simply sidesteps that question, which to my mind negates her argument. But what do you think?

You cited that article as supporting your position that identifying as a race you are not is not legitimate, while identifying as a sex you are is.

But there's a major flaw there in that the article doesnt engage with sex -but gender.

So I agree I'm being persistent, but if you're going to cite the article as support for your position, then addressing this major oversight is important.

Oh I'm sure I can. The question is whether I can compel a nine year old I'm teaching to use it.

Yes, that’s quite common knowledge.

Just like it’s common knowledge that teenage girls don’t do that. And women don’t wear skirts for purposes of their own sexual gratification. Some men do though.

Thank you. Yikes to the juxtaposition of his dildo with the picture of the child’s face. I doubt that was an accident.

Sickening, isn't it?

To think that once upon a time, I thought he was quite cool 🤦‍♀️

That was a first tier tribunal and sets no legal precedent. Afaik the ‘win’ was because the employer didn’t mount a defence. Things have changed significantly since then.

People can adopt whatever title they like, no one has the right to bully schoolchildren demand that everyone uses that title.

We should not be forcing this nonsense into our kids' heads. Teaching is about imparting knowledge and helping children find their way in the world not to cow tow to narcissistic neediness.

We should not be forcing our kids' to 'believe this nonsense. Teaching is about imparting knowledge and the skills to get along in the world, not cow tow to narcissistic neediness.