Please help! Gender not sex on a school 'protected characteristics' poster, just spoken to the Head!

[Vebrithien]

Good morning,

I started this thread before Christmas

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4684558-today-i-found-my-bravery?page=1

The overview is that my DD's primary school is displaying posters by No Outsiders, which are supposed to show the 9 protected characteristics, but shows gender, not sex.

The (male) deputy head I mentioned it to, before Christmas, has not got back to me. The posters are still there.

I summoned up my courage this morning, and spoke to the Headteacher. She seemed surprised, as I said I'd already mentioned it to one deputy head, and that I'd picked up on it due to my school expecting Ofsted, and reissuing our equality training.

The Head said that it was surprising, as No Outsiders were an organisation whose specialism was equalities.

I replied that the EA2010 says sex, not gender. I also mentioned that there were some concerning resources produced by them, including an assembly where a dad wants to offer violence to children who do not accept his trans child. (I know no more than this)

The Head is going to talk to her other deputy head, whose responsibility this is, and to try to put us in contact.

Where do I do from here?

Can any one help me with evidence? What particularly is dodgy about No Outsiders?

Is there anything that states that schools mustn't misrepresent the EA?

Is there any DofE (or whatever it's called now) guidance for schools on the resources they used or how they represent the EA?

And, how should I go about finding out if the school uses other No Outsiders resources?

Please help, I want as much evidence as I can.

Still shaking with adrenaline from speaking to the Head!

So female prisoners have been asked if they are happy to be incarcerated with males? The ones who have spoken up have said they felt intimidated. I'm all for for asking these vulnerable women but I'm guessing you're not.

net reduction in overall assaults when trans women are allowed in women only spaces.

Evidence please. And also a definition of transwomen versus men because all data show that mixed sex spaces increase the risk of sexual assault on women.

And 'tiny', define tiny. And why do these 'tiny' numbers not count in your opinion?

And all the evidence suggests there is a tiny ‘threat’ to women and a net reduction in overall assaults when trans women are allowed in women only spaces.

There is very little evidence available, the only starting knowledge about this heterogeneous group is that all these people are male. You will need to positively demonstrate that males claiming a woman identity pose less risk to women than the average male.

Where is this 'ALL' the evidence? Go on bloody post it.

Nice try!

It felt like a DARVO on your part, so I responded accordingly. This is all about male feelings from start to finish.

I care about people

That's interesting so you accept that transwomen are not women as you describe the collective of transwomen and women as being 'people'.

Remind me why women have to accept any risk of harm to males?

If you care about 'people' should women prisons estate also house vulnerable gay or small men who are also at risk of harm in men's prisons? If not why not?

Why, if safety of all people is your priority, don't you advocate for separate transgender wings?

Well you could start by explaining that TERF stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Then you could explain that it’s inappropriate to use the term because people who oppose rights for trans people are very rarely actually feminists and are much more likely to be allied to fascists and those who have been depriving women of their rights for decades.

that article conflates current convictions with previous ones. And it makes no distinction between types of offence. Were they against men, women, trans women, children?

yes, it seems to be higher, but not ‘more often than not’

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11492797/Four-10-transgender-criminals-prison-guilty-sex-crimes-new-data-shows.html

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/prison-service-needs-work-facts-not-fiction

Then you could explain that it’s inappropriate to use the term because people who oppose rights for trans people are very rarely actually feminists and are much more likely to be allied to fascists and those who have been depriving women of their rights for decades.

No credible point around research can reply on the Mail (or other tabloids). Come on…

Sexual Offenders may not be the majority but they are the second highest in terms of the prison population at approx 15% based on Dec 22 statistics.

You didn't specify yourself. You just said sexual offenders. And unless you think a sexual offender ceases to be one if they're jailed for a subsequent, different offence, the point stands.

Now, your answer to that question? I'm sure it's pure coincidence that your responses have yet to address it.

No - I don’t ‘accept’ that. There’s nothing in my post that says that. I care about the human population irrespective of gender.

if there’s only a minuscule ‘threat’ from transsexual women in women’s prisons why go to the expense of creating separate wings?

Well we'd love to use the Guardian but as you may know they don't report these issues. So just read it a refute it if it's all a pack of lies....but you won't because you can't.

if there’s only a minuscule ‘threat’ from transsexual women in women’s prisons why go to the expense of creating separate wings?

Miniscule... dare to state a number?

We can also get rid of the threat all together and save the expense and leave the male people in with other male people.

No probs, well I am looking to specify now as it moves the discussion on. And on that basis your point doesn’t stand.

sorry, what is ‘that question’ again?

if there’s only a minuscule ‘threat’ from transsexual women in women’s prisons why go to the expense of creating separate wings?

To protect women from being raped in women's prisons.

But you don't give a shit about women. You just expect us to act as human shields and as validation tools for an allegedly 'oppressed minority' of people who want to trample all over women no matter that it harms us.

So to return to the question: what's an acceptable number of women raped and assaulted by males in prison, in order to validate the males' claimed identity?

Is there an upper number, for you? How many would be too many?
Or is an infinite number OK with you, as long as males get what they want?

So you are cool with that leading to a much larger number of assaults and suicides?

lovely :(

Em... that's pretty much what feminists here have been saying all along, isn't it?
Women's safety matters more than men's feelings.
I'm so glad you now agree!

And everyone else, including the UN and the High Court laughed. She was wrong.

Scotland is ploughing its own furrow here. Based on disinformation and downright lies.

If you think the women here haven't followed the whole debacle and can be astounded by your superior knowledge you are deluding yourself.

The number right now is minuscule. As we are learning more about this better risk assessment can be carried out and minuscule can be reduced to even more so.

The entire anti trans stance I’ve encountered on this thread seems to be entirely driven by ideology and irrational fear flying in the face of any data, all amounting to a classic ‘moral panic’.