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!

www.dancingleopard.co.uk/products/alva-midi-shirt-dress-in-dotty-purple-on-green

twitter.com/j_ashworth656/status/1620392433623388162?s=46&t=UUwZBgCOrSWopVEqhs_Q_w

Saw this link on another thread and thought of you. Perfectly shows what happens when sex is replaced by gender.

I have that exact dress you've shown op and had never crossed my mind. Must get it out!

Well, to my shame, it is from M&S (the irony) before the pandemic. I've altered it a bit, actually turned the dress round and made it a V neck, rather than a high collar, but it's a favourite for spring.

I do also seem to remember that yellow was sometimes used for suffragette colours, although I do wonder if that was in America . I've certainly seen women's rights jewellery from the era using citrine for the yellow.

Yes! I did remember correctly. Yellow, purple and white were used for the US woman's suffrage movement. So I like to think that the yellow on my dress also includes our overseas sisters.

And yes, I may have thought about this a bit too deeply...

Anyway, I've made many of the changes suggested to my message. I just need to work on a final paragraph/how to phrase my 'demands' that the posters are replaced, and that the school stops using No Outsiders resources (whilst suggesting the SSA resources).

Any suggestions gratefully received 😆

I would personally go for a conciliatory tone along the lines of:

While I agree that the messages of equality and inclusion are important and such behaviour should be encouraged in school, I feel that accurate language around this is extremely important for the reasons stated above.
In view of this, I would like to see the school replace the misleading No Outsiders posters either with accurate EA posters such as the one from Safe Schools Alliance linked above, or with something else entirely that promotes the message of us all being equal despite our differences as a standalone message.

Any good? Or not direct enough?

Ooh, thank you, that's a good starting point.

I think you've got a cracking letter now, thank you for doing this. I also like Nancy's idea of a pleasant way to conclude thus proving how utterly reasonable you are.

I wouldn't use my suggestion obviously but:

Take the posters down today or i will.

OK, I just typed a long post, then managed to delete it all in one go in the attempt to post the link. Got the link, but am not even sure it'll work, so do just google the below in the Guardian if not: it's a review of Atack's programme on sexualised images, & includes quotes from school girls sent these at an early age. The essence of the rest was to agree with PPs, & add a few points that may (or may not - huge thread to absorb, so apologies if already pointed out) offer an additional perspective/argument or two. Some may come across as goady, and you've been the epitome of professionalism so far, so may be best kept here; some may be helpful. In summary, as I should be working now...

1. If the school acknowledges, as their responses to you imply, the argument that avoiding the word "sex" is advisable in a primary context, how do they manage teaching sex ed.?

2. The (positive) inclusion of "gender reassignment" plus the replacement of "sex" with "gender" creates a false equivalency: are they representing the PC of "gender reassignment" as the ability to change sex (which would be misleading), or are they presenting the PC of "sex" as relating to self-perception (which would represent a pro-active denial of girls' legal rights). Or are they not addressing this conflation, which would to encourage the confusion they claim it prevents?

3. Speaking of confusion, I'd be naughtily tempted to "model" (as teachers say!) this confusion myself by requesting clarification on what the founder could possibly mean when he says he'd "correct" older students using "sex" back to "gender". Either he's getting muddled himself... or we're back to that pro-active denial of girls' rights.

4. As PPs have pointed out, the giggles defence is, I'd say, a strong argument FOR using the term "sex". The giggle-response to sex is a rite of passage that WILL happen in the playground whether or not a placard or teacher uses the word "sex". As such, I'd say the school has an explicit responsibility to guide students through this, modelling more mature perspectives. Denial and avoidance aren't appropriate in education! And ESPECIALLY not in this case, because...

5. Let's face it, we all know it's the boys who are likely to be giggling loudest, while the girls will be more inclined to blush and quietly shrivel with embarrassment. This giggling is for entirely innocent reasons... but, also... It represents the first stage in a lifetime of boys and men feeling uncomfortable about and around the female body and its functions, and failing to recognise its very serious implications for girls' and women's safety and comfort. We should be addressing this head-on, from day one, not running scared and thereby implicitly condoning boys perceiving sex-as-joke, and girls perceiving sex-as-shame.

6. Lastly, if you wanted to ground your argument in an article in today's Guardian, firmly establishing your noble left-wing credentials while also refuting any "What's she fussing about FFS" perspective, have a read of this. It could be a useful way to legitimise (as if you should need to - grr!) pushing so hard: Emily Atack review. Does the school not have an urgent responsibility to teach your daughter that she is protected against such behaviour?

Huh. So that ended up pretty lengthy again.

Having read that back this morning I see that I have used 'important' twice in the first sentence and 'message' twice in the last, but you get the gist!

Does the school not have an urgent responsibility to teach your daughter that she is protected against such behaviour?

This is described in KCSIE which the safeguarding lead should know inside out.

Sex is included in the EA so that sex is not discriminated against. We don't bring a claim for gender discrimination, it's sex discrimination. Children of both sexes should have equal opportunities and for girls that may need to be enhanced in order to recognise that they are more vulnerable to abuse based on their sex.

Now in primary schools the issues Em has had will be tacklers more through general online bullying however the latest reports on children accessing porn says that many primary children are accessing content as young as 9. They have access to social media via phones. It is an issue.

Are they allowing the girls to have sex specific teaching on periods away from the boys? This is all sex based, not gender.

Sorry OP I need to read through your letter properly- it looks really good though from what I've seen.

A few minor nitpicks

• I'd go with "vital" rather than "extremely important" - means you're not repeating important twice
• "Consequently" rather than "in view of this" - feels more direct
• It may be better to split the last sentence into two for clarity, eg "...posters with ones that reflect the EA accurately such as the ones from Safe Schools Alliance linked above. Alternatively, it may be more appropriate to use something else entirely, with a more general message of us all being equal despite our differences."

Does that help?

@Vebrithien you've only got 10 posts left. If you get chance can you make a new thread and put the link in this one.

Thanks @Boiledbeetle

New, sparkly thread over here...

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4733278-sex-not-gender-no-outsiders-changing-the-equality-act-depheaddsl-captured

10 posts into the new thread, and there is already a "what about"

Vebrithien · Today 13:31

10 posts into the new thread, and there is already a "what about"

Yes, I made a few points to them.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4733278-sex-not-gender-no-outsiders-changing-the-equality-act-depheaddsl-captured