St Pauls School ditches the title "Head Girl" - The Times 19/06/21

[Melroses]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f707e7ac-d068-11eb-9bfa-a3bc386e6928?shareToken=e18c13082af7a98763f997219209b04c

An interesting follow up on Twitter:

twitter.com/TimesLucy/status/1406185779278368771

St Pauls School staff has received training which includes safeguarding advice, along with other independent girls' schools, from a company that is run by 2 late transitioners which exists to bring awareness of trans and non binary to the business sector.

I think Head of School is a far better term than Head Girl

We don't have Headmasters and Headmistresses any more (in the state sector at least) and sex-defined role titles have been seen as archaic and wrong for decades. Also an 18 year old is a young woman.

The

It’s fine in itself, but name change is unnecessary if the school is a school for girls.

What's wrong with Head Pupil?

People seem to want to have it both ways. Call a female police officer a policewoman, and you're being sexist. Change head girl to head of school and that's wrong.

Job/role titles should not reflect a person sex or gender. It's not difficult.

We don't have Headmasters and Headmistresses any more (in the state sector at least) and sex-defined role titles have been seen as archaic and wrong for decades.

Because sex isn’t relevant to who is teaching - although the head of SPGS is the ‘high mistress’.

However this is literally St Paul’s GIRLS’ school.

@merrymouse

We don't have Headmasters and Headmistresses any more (in the state sector at least) and sex-defined role titles have been seen as archaic and wrong for decades.

Because sex isn’t relevant to who is teaching - although the head of SPGS is the ‘high mistress’.

However this is literally St Paul’s GIRLS’ school.

Yes. The name of the school is also archaic.

There are four large private schools in my nearby town. Two for boys, two for girls. The boys' schools were each just called '(Name) school'. The girls' schools, '(Name) Girls school'. In the last few years the 'girls' bit has been dropped and all four are (Name) school.

I agree with that decision and maybe that's where St Paul's should go next.

“The school said the main reason it was reverting to the historical title of head of school was because senior pupils considered themselves young women rather than “girls.“…….. The senior pupil was known as head of school for decades after St Paul’s Girls was founded in 1904.”

Seems like a sensible thing, and not even a new thing.

Lots of secondary schools, including two of our locals, also have switched to use “head student” style titles as the older students preferred that to girl and boy.

@PaleBlueMoonlight

Agreed re: Global Butterflies. Very much under the radar and very very present in law firms in particular. Had no idea they were in schools. Also involved in creating the diversity guide for legislation, which (rightly) sets guidelines for the civil service about drafting legislation without male pronouns. Interested me because it was two diversity organisations (one of which, Global Butterflies, was a trans organisation) who advised on the document; not a women’s organisation.

I can’t help sniggering , sorry, I know I shouldn’t, but on the Global Butterflies site one of the companies they worked with is called

Allen and Overy

Clearly however good GB are at waving flags they didn't manage to persuade them to alter that very very unkind company name.

The Torygraph is reporting that SW is digging in at schools, telling them to do away with “girls” and “boys” as it’s “gendered language”, and encouraging mixed sex sport and allowing pupils on trips to share dorms based on gender ID (god help any school safeguarding leads on that one).

The article lists St Paul’s as a SW school.

archive.ph/bDkHc

Yes. The name of the school is also archaic.

Except it is literally a school for girls, set up because they aren’t allowed to attend the boy’s school over the river.

See also GDST - Girls’ Day School Trust.

Single sex education is specifically allowed in equalities legislation. You don’t have to agree with it, but I wouldn’t expect single sex schools to be embarrassed about it.

It's not archaic, it's accurate. Would you say the Girl Guides need to change their name?

[quote Paralithic]The Torygraph is reporting that SW is digging in at schools, telling them to do away with “girls” and “boys” as it’s “gendered language”, and encouraging mixed sex sport and allowing pupils on trips to share dorms based on gender ID (god help any school safeguarding leads on that one).

The article lists St Paul’s as a SW school.

archive.ph/bDkHc[/quote]
Which is ridiculous when these schools are in existence to cater to a single sex, boys and girls. You can't therefore have mixed sex sport, because they aren't mixed sex schools. Of course you may well have trans boys in girls schools, for example, but they still play sport all together with the "girls" regardless, because, you know, they're girls. They also all go on trips together already, regardless.

Will St Paul's (Girls) be accepting trans girls at 11+ then? Will St Pauls (Boys) accept trans boys? I very much doubt it. If they do start, that's when the shit will hit the fan.

It's not archaic, it's accurate. Would you say the Girl Guides need to change their name?

Interesting question. After all it is now a mixed sex organisation. Or would a name change simply not be validating enough 🤔

@saraclara

There are four large private schools in my nearby town. Two for boys, two for girls. The boys' schools were each just called '(Name) school'. The girls' schools, '(Name) Girls school'. In the last few years the 'girls' bit has been dropped and all four are (Name) school.

I agree with that decision and maybe that's where St Paul's should go next.

What? Are you not aware that there's a boys' school called St Paul's School? Maybe it should be calling itself St Paul's Boys' School.

Well yes the Girl Guides should change their name - they let in any boy who identifies as a girl that day...

I certainly agree with not making male the default in positions or roles. postman, policeman, etc.

But this is different. This is an attempt to not identity the sex of a person.

Teaching children and young girls that words like man, male, boy, etc, can be offensive affects safeguarding at a fundamental level. I'm not saying that's the agenda here, but that's irrelevant when it has the same outcome.

Someone above asked whether the new name, Head of School, would sound like the Headteacher.

Actually at St Pauls Girls’ School, the Headteacher is called (rather pretentiously) the High Mistress.

Now if any name needs changing, this is it.

I see nothing wrong with "head of school" - apparently it's what the role used to be known as years ago.

I see a lot wrong with hiring a lunatic organisation called Global Butterflies that tells students, among other things, that there are 150 genders.

Head of school is used for headteacher in a MAT I know od with many schools.

They have dropped "Head Girl" because it is not "inclusive". So by extension the word "girl" becomes tarnished, shameful, wrong. This bothers me a great deal. The words we use to describe ourselves being twisted and diminished. "Girl" is surely as inclusive as it needs to be for its purpose of describing juveniles of the female sex, (regardless of gender identity).

@storminasnowglobe

They have dropped "Head Girl" because it is not "inclusive". So by extension the word "girl" becomes tarnished, shameful, wrong. This bothers me a great deal. The words we use to describe ourselves being twisted and diminished. "Girl" is surely as inclusive as it needs to be for its purpose of describing juveniles of the female sex, (regardless of gender identity).

This.

I know that schools like this are mainly for the very privileged, but given that most Oxbridge colleges didn’t accept women until the 70’s, schools like SPGS can be proud of their history of encouraging GIRLS to be unashamedly academic and not give a stuff whether that meant they conformed to expectations of femininity. Now they seem ashamed.

It's all so bloody ridiculous. Who on earth thought it was appropriate for the training to be given by transwomen who have no knowledge or experience of living a young woman's life? Surely, if the school is genuine about wanting the pupils to explore their identity they should have been trained by transmen. Ah, but then it wouldn't have been male bodied people telling them what to do, so it wouldn't have been valid. After all, who are we to decide who we are without male input? Arggh, my brain is frying and I haven't got the words to articulate the complete and utter frustration and anger I feel about this utter bonkersness!

@BigWoollyJumpers

Which is ridiculous when these schools are in existence to cater to a single sex, boys and girls. You can't therefore have mixed sex sport, because they aren't mixed sex schools. Of course you may well have trans boys in girls schools, for example, but they still play sport all together with the "girls" regardless, because, you know, they're girls. They also all go on trips together already, regardless.

Obviously, you won’t have mixed sex sport in single sex schools, but the Torygraph article is speaking about schools across the country signed up to SW - so both single sex and mixed sex.

You’ve rather missed the point though - SW is encouraging all the schools that they’ve inserted themselves into to be “inclusive” by erasing terms like “girl” and “boy” and replacing them with gender neutral words.

It’s part of the plan to muddle the meanings of words (girl, boy, man, woman, male, female) to the point where they are meaningless and anybody can identify themselves as anything they choose.