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!

I agree with you that sexual orientation and transesxualism are both only verifiable by behaviour. This is why they are both afforded the same protection: you can't be discriminated against because your partner is of the same sex nor can you be discriminated against because as a man you wear dresses.

Neither have anything to do with sex segregation, which is a verifiable reality. So, EastLondon, there is your answer. Being gay does not impact your rights, it does not expand what you are allowed to do and it protects. Same for transgender: it does not give you the rights for the other sex, it only protects.

All services, facilities and sports we are talking about here are segregated on sex. Not gender, not sexual orientation, not gender reassignment.

Its does strangely work both ways. :)

I believe gay people exist although there is no (as yet discovered) thing as a gay gene.

I believe trans people exist and experience the feelings of gender they describe although there is no (as yet discovered) objectively verifiable quality that makes ones gender Man or Woman.

However I do not believe that these feelings of gender are the same as physical sex and therefore I do not believe they should be treated as interchangeable with physical sex.

I do not believe that a coincidence of naming whereby Woman can be said to mean "female sex, any gender" or "gender identity of woman, any sex" is a valid reason to open up provisions created to support those of the female sex, which exist in the form they do entirely because of the needs and challenges faced by female sex, to male people with a gender identity of women no matter how genuinely felt that identity may be.

Because to be female is a thing itself, not an idea in the minds of men.

Apologies for the potentially stupid question, but what I don't understand is if trans women are allowed in women's only spaces, what is the need for those spaces at all?

I believe it to be based on inherent biological differences (size, strength and penises to be exact).

But if you're saying a biological male who feels like a woman can be there, aren't you basically saying there is no need for them at all?

Or if not, why do they think they are necessary?

All services, facilities and sports we are talking about here are segregated on sex. Not gender, not sexual orientation, not gender reassignment.

Right, because sex segregation is very easy and in some circumstances very effective, due to the stark male/female differences.

Any other sort of segregation would not be easy, nor would it be effective.

So the objection here is to actions that would undermine an existing effective system.

Always the forced teaming! Thank heavens so many of us in the LGB community see this for what it is.

I think most women on FWR do overall. That's why despite us being such an irrelevant group who no one listens to, these dull ideologues won't ever leave us alone.

Apologies for the potentially stupid question, but what I don't understand is if trans women are allowed in women's only spaces, what is the need for those spaces at all?

Not a stupid question, a very pertinent one.

Because most trans women don’t assault anyone in prison. So why layer on the added cruelty of putting them in a prison in which they don’t psychologically ‘fit’

And some do.

To put males in prisons equals women being put in fear, losing their dignity and privacy, being harassed and intimidated and raped. All this is evidenced. It's fact. Even this tiny number of males has stacked up a lot of female victims.

So why layer on the added cruelty to women of putting them in a prison where they live with the psychological distress of all this plus the physical injuries and lifetime trauma of rapes?

Those males can be kept safe in the male estate.

You cannot talk about this without demonstrating that to you 'people' mean males and female humans are just this walking resource belonging to males. You don't see them as equal or fully human. Which makes an absolute nonsense of pretending to believe there's any change of sex or transition: you are talking in wholly sex based binary times as to who matters and who doesn't.

Btw is anyone keeping track of the flounces?

hopefully emerge more tolerant people.

More tolerant of females accepting rape and assault by males as their biological destiny for the better happiness of males?

You're on a women's rights board darling. Get a grip.

do you not think, though, a utilitarian strategy based on achieving the lowest net amount of assault, trumps one based on accommodating feelings?

But they are psychologically women so it’s humane to put them in women’s prisons

Thanks to @EastLondonObserver I’ve gone from lurking, thinking yes you all make sense but surely the trans activists must make sense in some way, I need to work this out, to total realisation that they have absolutely nothing.

The poster argues against accommodating feelings to make strategy and then argues that TW feel they are women so that’s why they go in women’s prisons.

That’s all they’ve got. Until we get to “so suck it up women even if you get raped or your feelings are hurt “ and the homophobic, misogynistic and ageist comments.

Unbelievable.

You can quote the DfE guidance I linked to upthread. There's a good example about climate change which makes it clear that you can teach facts (such as two sexes - male and female - in mammals, the importance of this in terms of reproduction, sexual dimorphism etc) and you have to present both sides in a neutral way on political opinions (some people think everyone has an inner 'gender identity' that may not 'match' their sex, others don't).

The sex binary in humans is fact. It is also a fact that sex is the protected characteristic in EA 2010. Not gender.

We disagree, but I appreciate your well argued post.

I'll just mention the 1823 Gaol Reform act, in which Elizabeth Fry was incidental, which mandated separate sex prisons to protect women prisoners from sexual exploitation.

200 years later exactly, and we have males arguing that they would be a lot happier in women's prisons and their sexual exploitation of women is a necessary thing, and it's not like it matters really. And it's not like you need equality of care for male and female prisoners. A male being psychologically distressed is far worse than the lifetime impact and injuries of rape.

Good grief there is not enough glue in the world to get into the mind of someone this sexist.

You're missing the point. It is irrelevant whether gayness can be proved biologically because feelings are irrelevant in law.

Same sex marriage allows any two people of the same sex to marry. You don't have to prove that you are gay. It is the act of marriage between two people of the same sex which is allowed.

At one time 'homosexual acts' were unlawful. You were not prosecuted for being gay, you were prosecuted for homosexual acts.

If a man has a feeling that he is a woman, that is a feeling. No one is against him having that feeling. He may dress as he pleases and change his name and body if he wishes. He may do all of the things he feel are feminine - or not - however he chooses to express himself. If he chooses to call himself a 'transwoman', no problem. However, if he enters a women's toilet or is placed in a women's prison, or takes part in women's sports, then this is the act, of a man entering a space which is not for him. As I said earlier, feelings are irrelevant. The physical reality of a male body in a female space is what I object to.

If laws are to be made on feelings, how are feelings tested.

John A really feels like a woman
John B doesn't really feel like a woman but feels like he would like to watch women undress.

How can anyone distinguish between them?

How many victims exactly?

Rhinos's last sentence was
Because to be female is a thing itself, not an idea in the minds of men.

and then ELO said
We disagree, but I appreciate your well argued post.

Presumably you do it disagree with that last sentence?

But they are psychologically women so it’s humane to put them in women’s prisons

Winding back a bit, as a man, I too would be far more psychologically suited to being in a prison full of women, and it would definitely be more humane to put me in there than in a prison full of men.

If "transwomen" can be admitted, is there any reason why I shouldn't be permitted? Does the tolerance extend to letting me in? Letting me in could also be a "win-win".

This is one of the sticking points for me - the problem isn't so much coming up with dodgy justifications about why it's somehow "okay" to let "transwomen" violate a boundary - it's that there's never any follow-up to explain why they would continue to discriminate against other men, and maintain any sort of boundary at all.

All the arguments about transwomen - "the vast majority aren't rapists", "they just want to pee", etc, etc, apply equally to men. And if men are supposed to be a threat to "transwomen" then clearly that could be handled case-by-case with "risk assessment" - no need to have a blanket ban on men.

So the onus on ELO is to justify gender segregation.

Susan A does not care how John A or John B feels.

Susan A would just like to not be raped please. Or to have a shower with John A or B in there with John's tackle out and John's eyes on her, and to know as John A and John B does that it's purely in the gift of either John as to whether or not her emotional distress will be extended to physical assault. Today.

Exactly?

Is there an acceptable number?

How many female victims is an acceptable number to you ELO in pursuit of male people’s happiness?

How much distress caused to women in prison by the presence of (often aggressive) male prisoners, even if those women aren’t themselves victims of sexual assault by those males, is acceptable to you?

Just how much collateral damage do you think we female people should sustain for the benefit of male people? Just wondering if you can quantify exactly how dispensable you think female people are.

Males, especially really do not grasp this.

However, it is apparently important to ignore Susan's feelings or safety for the greater good. I'm sure this will be of some comfort to her.

I don't think it makes the lives of vulnerable children questioning their gender identity and feeling uncomfortable with their sex better to lie to them and to tell them that others should lie to them.

I know a few such children - every single one had mental health issues before they suddenly found out about gender. Not a single one seems happier since they 'came out' as non-binary or transgender, in fact I would say the opposite is true. They thought it would resolve everything but it hasn't.

I think it makes their lives worse, often confuses them (gender is not synonymous with sex, you can't change sex) and could lead to them making decisions to take puberty blockers and cross sex hormones which could make them as an adult sterile, unable to orgasm and in lifelong pain. I think if adults are going to argue children can consent to these drugs, they need to be given very, very clear information about the differences between gender and sex and particularly about medical intervention.

I think children should have age-appropriate but correct facts about sexual reproduction and yes, also the political / philosophical belief of gender ideology, presenting both sides.

I think safeguarding children is important. They should be protected from the emotional abuse of being forced to use wrong-sex pronouns against what they believe and normal usage and the safeguarding risk of telling children they cannot trust and dare not speak what their eyes and ears are telling them. I think this is particularly awful for SEND children.

This response is a lazy dog whistle.

We accept a level of risk and ‘collateral damage’ in almost all areas of legislation - from speed limits to health and safety and so
on. Zero risk is hardly ever perused as an outcome.

a minuscule number of rapes, assaults and so on have been committed by transsexuals in female spaces.

yes, the greater good is served by a tiny increase in risk to cis women of a very small number of trans women sharing some spaces with them

A minuscule number of assaults have been committed on MTF trans people in male only spaces.