Kiri Tunks

[GenderApostate]

Kiri has been voted in as President of the NUT, she is openly gender critical and a supporter of A Womans Place UK. I think this shows that teachers are not as in thrall to the TRAs as said groups think.

If only we had someone in the Government Education department who was so sensible and protective of the rights of Women and Children.
Small victories will get us there in the end.

I don't know how the NUT works, but is she likely to keep that position? There seems to be a fairly significant backlash.

They tried very hard to get her removed as vice president last year. She obviously has a lot of support.

This is probably an opportunity for teachers to hear a gender critical view from a respected professional. Schools have been targeted and gas lighted by the trans pressure groups and have often uncritically accepted the 'equality' message that has been pushed at them as training rarely allows teachers to consider how other groups needs can be met alongside an individual trans child - oppressive definitions of transphobia meaning that all questions are silenced.
Hopefully once teachers realise that it is possible to sensitively protect the needs of a transing child alongside others (girls wanting privacy in dealing with periods, pupils from religious groups expecting toilets to be sex segregated, the child who need nappies changed by a same sex adult etc etc). Simply shouting that Kiri Trunks is 'transphobic' shouldn't work. And it needs calling out as an example of how women are repeatedly silenced.

This is good news. Good luck to her in her new role.

Just had a look at her twitter feed. Fantastic stuff. Does this show that people (teachers in particular here) are actually not happy with what is going on and are prepared to do something about it? I think it is very important that there is someone like Kiri is now in such a high profile position. I feel that this is a very good thing.

Excellent news!!!

My daughter is a Teacher in a High school, thankfully the Trans insanity hasn’t infected our working class, deprived area, they’ve got far more serious issues to deal with than pandering to identity politics.

Hurrah.

It's particularly reassuring to know Kirri was voted in!

I met Kiri at a union conference once and I can confirm she’s a pretty fantastic woman. Really politically committed, lots of integrity, and bucket loads of warmth and humanity. I’m so glad she’s been elected president in spite of all the TRAs who’d love to see her booted out of her union.

Kiri for PM!

I didn't get a ballot for this and wasn't even aware there was an election, it's also not mentioned on the website.

She's incoming as president of the NUT section of the NEU, but has she actually been elected? Because the sections are officially merging into one unit as of 2019, so I'm wondering (as she was already vice president) whether it's been a case of her stepping up to be Acting-President while this goes ahead.

I can't find anything about a "vote" at all online - please can someone link me to this? As, if there was one, I obviously didn't get my ballot.

Also: don't get your hopes up too much about NUT members in general. The 2016 election (which had Kevin Courtney win as General Secretary) had the following stats:

Number of eligible voters: 297,938
Total number of votes cast: 31,941
Votes found to be invalid: 39
Votes counted: 31,902
Turnout: 10.7%

Pretty standard for union voting.

When you vote for vice-president it is with the assumption that they will become president the following year, so the vote would have been last year. Members were balotted via post a few months ago for the vice-president post. It is still unknown what will be the presidential structure come merger in 2019.

Yes, I was aware of the recent ballot for vice-president (Amanda Martin won, right?) but not for president.

I wasn't aware of this at all, that vice-presidents automatically became presidents, in spite of being part of the union since 2008! I guess, like most people in the union, I'm woefully uninformed about how it works.

Probably why the vast, vast majority of teachers in the union do not vote in union elections (10% of NUT members voted in 2016, for example). And in that case, the last time anyone cast a vote for Kiri Tunks was well before her article in the Morning Star and being outwardly Gender Critical, as it was November 2016 - so a far cry from teachers suddenly "wising up" to being Gender Critical. Around 2% of teachers maximum (estimate based on 10% of NUT members, who make up just over a third of teachers, being the largest teaching union, and a majority of those members obviously voting for her as she won!) voted for her in 2016 then, back before any Gender Critical postings.

But you're saying she automatically became president this year as that's the way the union works? Thanks for educating me on this. I thought that she hadn't appeared on any recent ballot.

Great news about Kiri. Too bad; so sad, Helen.

This is awful news and I honestly can’t believe I’m reading some of these comments congratulating her. I am a transgender man training to be a teacher and the thought of her in Union scares me. She claims to be a feminist but if she was she’d be in support of ALL women, trans women included. What does this mean for our children. We have every right to be angry and fight back as I assure you I will be. Looks like section 28 is on the rise again, is that really what we all want for our children? I urge you, please please do some research into the history and don’t turn a blind eye. For our children’s futures

What does this mean for our children.

If it means that children are free to express themselves however they wish, without it being suggested that there are 'girl things' and 'boy things', and if children have concerns about privacy, dignity and consent we listen to them, then I'm all good.

Have you read the material that organisations like Mermaids put out about children and trans issues? With your background, don't you hear even the tiniest of alarm bells ringing about how it flouts the safeguarding best practice that has been developed over the last 45 years or so?

Sawyer: please don't try the 'it's just like the 80s and Section 28' line.

Transgenderism is deeply, deeply homophobic. Lesbians and gay men are called 'bigots' for transadvocates, simply for being exclusively same sex attracted. Transgenderism is worse than Section 28: most gender-non confirming kids just grow up to be gay, but transing takes them, medicated them and sterilises them. It's been called gay eugenics.

This 'it's just like the 80s' whinge is the current transactivist PR tactic. We hear it everywhere. Paris Lees used it. Its replaced trans'women ARE women as the latest mantra.

It's astoundingly hypocritical when it's transactivists telling gay people that their sexuality is morally unacceptable.

What exactly are you scared of @Sawyer99? What history are you talking about?

Sawyer99
You have nothing to fear from people like Kiri Tunks - or most of us on this board. We all insist that you and all transgender people live your life free from discrimination, fear and intolerance. All that we are asking is that the complications resulting from self ID are recognised and that individual rights to specific sex segregate spaces are respected in the same way as yours will be.
Debbie Hayton - a transgender woman teacher explains it far more eloquently that I can:
quillette.com/2018/03/30/plea-trans-activists-can-protect-trans-rights-without-denying-biology/

What exactly are you scared of @Sawyer99? What history are you talking about?

I think this is a really important question. I’ve had a quick look at Kiri Tunks Twitter feed and she is clearly passionate and engaged on a wide range of issues, including those specific to biological women.

What do you think the impact of her appointment will be on transgender people working in schools, and children currently in the school system? Open debate on single sex spaces? Encouraging discussion on what it means to be a boy or girl (the “Let toys be toys” campaign for example)? Or do you see something more sinister?

Section 28 stated council should not “intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" - that just doesn’t square with what Kiri and others here are arguing for. We aren’t looking to shut down debate but open it up. If anything the TRA #nodebate mantra is closer to the language of Section 28.

We have every right to be angry and fight back as I assure you I will be.

I suspect in this case that "we" refers to TRAs and that any "fear" is fear that TRA ideology won't be promoted in schools.