Non binary/transgender teacher

[Luckymumtotwo]

I am going to refer to the teacher as male because my child genuinely does not know how they currently identify. Sounds like they were male and then to be addressed as they/them and DS thinks might now be a transgender woman - changed name and hair - but DC is not certain.

Apparently children have been told off for addressing him as he and DS tells me that he doesn't ask him anything if he can help it because he doesn't know what to say.

Teacher has asked them to address him by a short version of his first name which I've only heard used for a female previously. DS feels awkward using it. Other teachers are not addressed by first names and usually addressed as Sir/miss.

I might ask school to revise how this teacher is addressed. Maybe "Teacher"? Not sure that works but I'd rather not have the casual use of a shortened first name where this isn't what generally happens.

My son is already used to asking people how they want to be addressed due to various identities in classmates and doesn't usually feel awkward. I think it's because it's an adult. At 12 I don't think he should have to ask the teacher.

It's not irrelevant. Schools have been targeted by lobby groups to push through an ideology that is damaging to women and girls, and has been proven safeguarding risk.

I don't believe in gender ideology. And I certainly don't believe that we should be teaching children but they cannot identify men as men. That it's 'rude'.

I find it completely unacceptable that children are expected to adhere to an ideology that is entirely detached from reality, and is detrimental to women and girls.

It's always been utterly cringe making for a teacher to ask to be called by their first name. Even former students now in their 30s still call me Ms Redfern. I can't imagine any Headteacher being thrilled that a member of staff is asking to be called by their first name, unless that's the norm in the school. It blurs the boundaries. Id definitely be emailing the Head for clarification.

It's not us "muddying the waters" Enid. It's the lobby groups weighing in on education policy and practice despite their lack of safeguarding / psychology / education expertise. It's often been said on this board that the backlash will be immense and now people are pushing back as the most appalling scandals are being exposed.

Like Roses, I've been teaching in schools for decades and know this is the first time a group has been able to actively remove safety and privacy from other groups for their own validation purposes. So of course we wonder whether this is an adult using children to validate their own beliefs. Look around at this week's coverage of Mermaids and Educate & Celebrate and wonder how this has been allowed to happen!
We've all been told to shut up & Be Kind, while so many unsuitable adults step in.

You misunderstand my point entirely.

How schools deal with staff members who wish to transition is obviously entirely different to how schools deal with children who wish to transition. This is because for a staff member their school is their workplace and therefore the school will have to abide by current employment law in handling the situation. This is entirely separate from the safeguarding advice and guidance given to schools regarding dealing with pupils who wish to transition. That is what I meant by not muddying the waters. You can't conflate the two scenarios as they are not subject to the same policies and procedures.

I share the same concerns regarding gender ideology within schools and the groups that have been allowed to infiltrate and shape policy with very little critical oversight. Please don't mistake me on that front.

Despite that, I still object to the bigotry directed at trans people on this thread. The rhetoric that trans people are out to exploit and abuse as a default is a deeply troubling one and not one that I think has any place in a civilised society. It is not about shutting up and being kind - I know what you mean and I am totally against the silencing of women who have huge concerns about the loss of single sex spaces and so on. I haven't drunk the Kool Aid, don't worry. It's about challenging bigotry and nastiness directed at a group of people, the vast majority of whom have never and will never do anything to harm anyone else and just want to be left to live their lives in the way that feels authentic to them. We used to say very similar things about gay people that are currently being said about transpeople and this is what I find troubling. It's a very sad state of affairs all round and there are no easy answers.

Suggesting that a trans teacher will be allowed to not abide by the same rules as everyone else because they are trans is suggesting that there is some loophole in safeguarding procedures around gender identity, which there isn't.

Yes there is. Very much so. You haven't kept up with the massive great big loophole in the DBS system have you? Can you guess what that loophole might be?

It has always been possible for anyone to get around DBS checks by not declaring name changes or not declaring times spent living abroad. This 'loophole' you're referring to is not unique to trans people. There have been many cases where men and women have been able to abuse children in school settings due to not declaring criminal offences that have occurred abroad. Look up Southbank International School for the most prominent example, if you're interested.

I understand the concern around this but pretending this is a new thing that uniquely provides an opportunity for transpeople to not abide by the rules is incredibly disingenuous.

Those changing name and gender are granted 'exceptional privacy rights' by DBS - kpssinfo.org/dbs-checks-and-identity-verification-pdf/

This 'loophole' you're referring to is not unique to trans people

There is LITERALLY a loophole which says if you are trans contact DBS if you want to declare your old name. Which if course ex criminals will do as they are all so honest.

The best solution is for your DS to ask at the beginning of the lesson “how are you identifying today.”

Yes, this privacy means their previous names will not be printed on the certificate. It doesn't mean their previous names won't be checked. They are still required to declare them and those names would be checked as part of the DBS process. Obviously some people may not choose to declare their previous names, but this has always been a vulnerability in the system. As I have said up thread, anyone can be dishonest on a DBS form. By their very nature they rely on people giving accurate and truthful information. This means they are open to being abused and they are not a failsafe. Many people slip through the net and there have been many cases where people have been found to be working with children who shouldn't be as a result.

So, in short, there is not a unique loophole for trans people to dodge safeguarding checks. ANYONE can fabricate a DBS check. It is actually quite important that people realise this.

The loophole is that if a man says he's a woman, he gets to go to a woman's prison, if a man says he's a woman, he gets to play in women's sport, if a man says he's a woman, he gets to use women's changing rooms, their spas, their toilets.

If a man says he's a woman, the policy is used to cancel a woman's life saving operation.

That's the bloody loophole.

That which would exclude men because they're men does not exclude them if they say they're not men.

So if a man told his pupils to call him Miss, for instance, there would be no earthly reason to, unless he says he's a woman.

And yes, DBS checks are very specific when it comes to gender ideology.

Out of interest EnidSpyton, what is your definition of, in this case, a transwoman? Does it include those who have AGP?

Do you, personally, need to have certain criteria fulfilled for you to consider a man as a woman?

The reason I ask is that, to me, even a man who identifies as a woman, due to say, homophobia, is still displaying sexism.

The idea that the entire concept of a woman is something that a man can don, to solve his problems, as opposed to a physical, and often dangerous reality, is just using women as a resource.

The fact that people think women should go along with it, accommodate it, is expecting them to conclude in their own oppression.

And, of course, telling them that if they don't, there will be consequences, like calling them names, just adds insult to injury, really.

@Datun I don't understand your question.

I don't believe trans women are women. Under any circumstances.

However I do believe transpeople are human beings who deserve to be treated with the same love, care, respect and dignity as anyone else.

I therefore don't agree with any rhetoric that seeks to automatically treat transpeople with derision and suspicion.

I would like to think we have moved on as a society from treating people who choose to live their lives differently from accepted, socially created norms as monsters.

That's my line, really.

Go it.

However I do believe transpeople are human beings who deserve to be treated with the same love, care, respect and dignity as anyone else.

I don't agree with the ideology, I don't respect people who do and I disagree profoundly, with being asked to adhere to it.

And I can easily do that without being in the slightest bit rude!

But apart from that, I get your point.

There are (as I see it) two problems here.

1/ What the teacher is not doing is providing a safe space for the pupils to learn in. This is a fundamental part of teaching that I hope that will all accept.

2/ They are confusing the children by enforcing their own beliefs on them. By all means go by Mx, Mrs, Mr or Rev, but stick to it and do not tell the pupils off for getting it wrong or for having a different belief in sex and gender to yourself.

And lets remember that sex is a protected characteristic as is the belief that sex in binary (under belief).

@Datun I am a lifelong feminist and actively campaign on feminist issues.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't agree with the erasure of women and the enforced surrender of women only spaces to appease a small group of vocal trans rights activists. I do agree that a lot of the trans rights activists are misogynists and that a lot of their rhetoric is deeply misogynistic.

However it's a bit like saying that all Muslims are members of Al-Quaeda, or all Christians are supporters of Westboro Baptist Church. Most trans people just want to be able to live their life as the sex they believe themselves to be and they don't desire to take away anyone else's rights in the process.

Do I agree you can change sex? Personally, no. But I don't understand what it's like to feel I am the wrong sex. I have no idea what it's like to walk in a trans person's shoes. All I can imagine is that it must be an incredibly difficult and challenging life and I have a lot of compassion for them. Do I want them to be prevented from living their lives freely and with dignity? No, I don't. But I also don't want women to have to give up their rights to live with freedom and dignity. So I don't know what the answer is to all of this, all I know is that at the moment the debate is being taken over by a level of extremism that is helping absolutely no one.

It doesn't mean their previous names won't be checked.

It relies on their honesty in declaring that they have any old names at all.

There's only one set of people who are being extreme, and that is transactivists. It's not in the slightest bit extreme to preserve women's spaces, and until five minutes ago it was considered completely normal.

My issue with the ideology, i.e., that a man can say he's a woman, because he's uncomfortable being a man, is that it's sexist. I don't know any other way to explain it. Even the most innocent of transwomen is displaying sexism. The concept is sexist.

It's not about individual people, and where they are on the scale of good to bad. It's about using women as a resource, because you are failing to address whatever issue it is that makes you not want to be a man.

You wouldn't say to white people that they can black up, because they're embarrassed about being white. It would be considered racist and crass. And no one would be in any doubt, whatsoever, that it is the black people who are being used to solve the white person's problem.

Yes exactly. But as I have said repeatedly, the same can be said for anyone who has changed their name for any reason. The whole system relies on honesty and that is true for anyone who undertakes a DBS check, trans or not.

I don't know of any cases where transpeople have used this so called loophole to get around a DBS check and have then been convicted of harming a child.

I do however know of plenty of cases where men have done this.

It's not a new thing to be able to withhold information from a DBS form. Claiming it's a unique risk that transpeople pose to children is a lie.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen, yes, of course you are right, as I should have known from repeated reading of "The Scarlet Pimpernel"!
But Citizen could actually be used as a neutral form of address, and my point is that we need one.
Some languages (Turkish?) don't gender pronouns, but I don't know whether they do verbally differentiate between ( for example) a male and female actor/doctor/teacher. Obviously in reality, there are massive "differentiations" between the treatment of male and female there, and I wonder therefore how far the language absence of binary-ness is relevant in how society is constructed.

Suffice it to say, I think it is ridiculous that the English language can't deal with this appropriately. It's not only a trans issue, I've had difficulties professionally when replying to correspondence from T. Smith or Alex Brown, as Dear T. Smith just doesn't work properly. Something like ( but not) Mx would work if there was an agreed pronunciation.
I do remember when Ms first came into use, people did comment negatively, but in writing at least, it is widely accepted now. There's still an issue in distinguishing it aurally from Miss but it is now in everyday use. So deliberate, planned, rather than gradual, change is possible.

I completely agree.The whole concept of gender identity is based on gender stereotypes, which are based on sexism.

It's the stereotypes we need to be fighting against as a society. If we didn't live in a society constructed on gender stereotypes, I would imagine 'gender dysphoria' wouldn't exist, as everyone would feel free to live their lives as they chose rather than being defined by a narrow set of expectations for both sexes.

However I do think there is a lot of vitriol and suspicion being thrown around by women towards trans women, suggesting that all men who wish to live as women are either sexual predators or paedophiles. I don't believe that's true and that is what I mean by extremism from both sides.

Suffice it to say, I think it is ridiculous that the English language can't deal with this appropriately. It's not only a trans issue, I've had difficulties professionally when replying to correspondence from T. Smith or Alex Brown, as Dear T. Smith just doesn't work properly. Something like ( but not) Mx would work if there was an agreed pronunciation.
I do remember when Ms first came into use, people did comment negatively, but in writing at least, it is widely accepted now. There's still an issue in distinguishing it aurally from Miss but it is now in everyday use.

Yes, I agree. I used Ms when I got married actually, because I don't like my title being defined by marital status and didn't want to be a Mrs. I'm a Dr now, which is a relief as now I don't have to deal with the Miss/Ms/Mrs thing. I'm not sure why Mx won't work if Ms does? Ms isn't perfect but I think it does the job, and I think if Mx was used more widely it would you. I agree it can be problematic knowing whether to write Mr, Miss, Mrs or Ms on an email when you don't have that information. The English language is limited in this area.

I completely agree.The whole concept of gender identity is based on gender stereotypes, which are based on sexism.

It's the stereotypes we need to be fighting against as a society. If we didn't live in a society constructed on gender stereotypes, I would imagine 'gender dysphoria' wouldn't exist

Yes, this is what I often wonder.

Quoted from the DBS guidance.

'Transgender applicants should contact the DBS sensitive applications line on 0151 676 1452 or email [email protected] for further advice about completing the form.'

However I do think there is a lot of vitriol and suspicion being thrown around by women towards trans women, suggesting that all men who wish to live as women are either sexual predators or paedophiles. I don't believe that's true and that is what I mean by extremism from both sides.

I suspect that is more about who you know, rather than what you know 😁. But I know where you're coming from.