Email to governors about gender instead of sex

[Flymetothezoom]

DC is at a primary, does anyone have a well worded complaint that I can email to the head & governors about them using “gender” instead of “sex” in the equalities policy?

Here is the segment: “What is Equality? Equality is the principle of equal treatment for all people irrespective of their gender, ethnicity, disability, religious belief/ non-belief, sexual orientation, age, gender re assignment, marriage or civil partnership and .pregnancy or maternity status”

I used to be a capable person but my brain is fried from having too many small children who don’t sleep.

The list seems to be taken from the Equality Act and it's protected characteristics so I'd point out that they've omitted sex which is legally a protected characteristic whereas gender isn't.

Gender reassignment is, but they've already included that.

*Its not it's

Safe Schools Alliance have lots of factsheets and sample letters you can copy and use with schools who "forget" that sex is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act:

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/resources-2/factsheets/

And sex matters have a very useful guide for schools to make sure they don't unlawfully discriminate against the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassingment.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/schools-guidance/

Refer them to Equality Act 2010 and ask them why they have omitted two of the nine protected characteristics sex and gender reassignment in their Equality Policy . You could also ask them to explain what they mean by gender, as there is no legal definition of this in the above act.

Keep it short, say you've spotted an error as they have listed gender instead of sex - gender is not a protected characteristic. And ask them politely to amend it. Include a link or screenshot to the list of characteristics in the Equality Act. Assume good faith in your first approach!

As well as gender instead of sex, they’ve substituted ethnicity instead of race. In the equalities act race is defined as including ethnic origin, so they aren’t adding in something that isn’t there, but they are leaving out national origin, nationality and colour, which are included as being a part of race in the act.

Agree with ghostofadog that in the first instance you should keep it short and make it entirely about them having mistakenly substituted the wrong words and you kindly pointing out the error.

Apart from the omissions that is not what 'equality' s. Equality is about treating people fairly not equally.

Eg if you are blind you cannot have a driving licence, but you are eligible for a free bus pass and you can take your guide dog into places dogs are not normally allowed.

The equality act is about making sure people are not disadvantaged because of a 'protected characteristic'.

I have no idea what they mean by, "pregnancy or maternity status"? Does that mean everyone gets time off to see a midwife whether they are pregnant or not?

I'd raise this as an educational point, if they can't get this right how are they going to teach my child?

Start with requesting correction to a factual error.

I'm a governor at a school and I'm querying this with my school and it's slow going! doesn't help that the equality policy is adopted via school trust and from our county council and all are incorrect.

Contact the marketing/office manager person and cc the Head.

it’s factually incorrect.

Second this good advice

They can leave out maternity and age.
As others had said if you are going to quote the Equality Act 2010, quote it properly.
I used Safe Schools Alliance resources. Printed copies to put in their hands are good.

I assume the policy covers everyone, not just the children.

The Pregnancy and Maternity protected characteristic is wide ranging from not sacking someone for being pregnant to making sure they have equal opportunity to apply for jobs etc. It also offers the right to return to their job and additional protections in a potential redundancy situation.

I quite aware of the Equality Act and its provisions, I'm questioning the language used that doesn't make sense.

"pregnancy and maternity status" implies you have the same rights regardless of whether you are pregnant. I.e. that you are entitled to maternity leave, time off for appointments etc.

@sashh ah, see what you mean.

Yes, hadn't thought that the policy would apply to staff as well as pupils. Still should say what is in the Equality Act, word for word and in alphabetical order.

That's the old version of the schools guidance from Sex Natters. You want the new version, which is here: sex-matters.org/posts/publications/sex-and-gender-identity-keep-your-pupils-safe-and-comply-with-the-law/

There was a sample policy that our school adapted. Sex as a protected characteristic had been already taken out when we got it. I referred the clerk to the equalities act and it went right back in. It's a factual error and the school should comply with the act.

Too many policy writers (and people writing forms, surveys etc) assume that 'gender'is a less embarrassing synonym for 'sex'. It isn't.

I did an Acas e-learning the other week and they had gender instead of sex. I emailed them pointing out their typo and they apologised and said they would correct. Definitely try the spotted an innocent mistake approach first and then escalate if you don't get anywhere

I'm a headteacher.

Just checked ours (I "wrote" it ... ie used online examples to pull it together 9 years ago before sex/gender were hot topics) and it has the same error. Not at all deliberate and doesn't imply anything ... I didn't even notice and certainly didn't put it in there deliberately as a political standpoint.

It might just be an oversight. I'll amend ours before a parent complains to my governors - speak to your HT before worrying!

This. If I received this email i would thank you and be pissed off with myself for missing it. Im on a mission to change gender to sex where it means sex. Sadly, the exam board talks of gender discrimination and i cannot change the exam board.

Thank you for your replies. Is this section of the policy correct? It is a school for 7-11 year olds.
^^
“Gender reassignment
Gender reassignment is a personal process (rather than a medical process) which involves a person expressing their gender in a way that differs from or is inconsistent with the physical sex they were born with.
This personal process may include undergoing medical procedures or, as is more likely for school pupils, it may simply include choosing to dress in a different way as part of the personal process of change.
A person will be protected because of gender reassignment where they:
• make their intention known to someone – it does not matter who this is, whether it is someone at school or at home or someone like a doctor:
• once they have proposed to undergo gender reassignment they are protected, even if they take no further steps or they decide to stop later on
• they do not have to have reached an irrevocable decision that they will undergo gender reassignment, but as soon as there is a manifestation of this intention they are protected
• start or continue to dress, behave or live (full-time or part-time) according to the gender they identify with as a person
• undergo treatment related to gender reassignment, such as surgery or hormone therapy, or
• have received gender recognition under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
It does not matter which of these applies to a person for them to be protected because of the characteristic of gender reassignment. This guidance uses the term ‘transsexual person’ to refer to someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

No. it's wrong

for a start, people under 18 aren't eligible for a GRC. That reads like gender self ID. There are lots of points to contend here - children of that age should not be on hormone therapy.

Wiser heads than mine can direct you to how best respond to that policy.

How is it possible to express your gender in a way that is inconsistent with the sex you’re born with.

It’s a broad interpretation, but I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong. The equalities act has gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. That isn’t limited (as SallyLockheart seems to be suggesting) to people who have a GRC, the act defines it:
A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Given the “is proposing to undergo” it would seem likely that the courts would take a broad interpretation and likely cover anyone who is suggesting they might want to be another gender.

Of course the law itself is foggy because of its framing this as reassigning sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex, which you cant really do. But the whole fudging of sex and gender is part of why were in this mess in the first place.

However, being covered by the protected attribute of gender reassignment doesn’t mean they are legally the sex they want to be. They are still their biological sex for legal purposes.