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!

if that is true it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still accommodate m2f transsexuals in women’s spaces.

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

psychologically women? What is this nonsense?! How is being psychologically a woman measured? How can you prove this claim?

It does, because your entire "happiness v harm" justification just went out of the window. It's just then about feelings. Why should male feelings trump female feelings? That's disgustingly sexist.

I mean, we all know how misogynistic the trans rights agenda is, but thanks so much for the live demo.

ELO, let's say we make your thoughts policy. How would you write the legislation so that it allowed genuine transsexuals (your words) to access the female prison estate but prevented predatory men from doing so?

Why? If it’s not for safety, why do women need to pander to this to our own discomfort?

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.

The main difference is that in this case we can trivially achieve it. The risk of pregnancy in particular can be trivially reduced to zero.

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

and there we have it

According to ELO, it’s worth sacrificing the rights, safety and dignity of female people for the greater good of male people.

Male supremacism writ large.

Indeed

It's just low rent goadiness. There's nothing of substance to this person's efforts. They're just amusing themselves winding up women.

There's no point arguing with this type of poster in good faith. They don't care about reason or your feelings.

Psychological evaluation- same as pre transition.

not infallible I know (I’m sure you have a few bits of anecdotal evidence :) ) , but no different really from evaluating how much of a threat a cis female prisoner might be to others in terms of violence, in deciding what wing to put her in.

Psychological evaluation- same as pre transition.

Um, do you recall saying this a few pages back?

Go Scotland! England next!

It's categorically different, because women have statistically different risk profile to other women than male people do.

I’ve no idea what your point is

obviously the assessment criteria would not be the same. But the principle is.

That there isn't going to be any psychological evaluation involved in a "transition" in Scotland, do keep up.

I’ve no idea what your point is

You seem uncertain about whether you favour self-ID or psychological evaluation.

Pigeon chess

Both actually.

in ‘high risk’ spaces such as prisons psychological

in others self

“Pigeon chess”????

lol - wow this is is a sub culture with its own phrases I’ve never heard before

But they do favour enabling sexual violence against women and girls. Which is surprising to admit to so many women and mothers.

Why? Why should female people be expected to accommodate male people to their own detriment?

Female people have been accommodating male people to our own detriment for thousands of years. Men didn’t/don’t give us a lot of choice. That’s called patriarchy.

We don’t want your reinvented patriarchy. We don’t want to be your service humans. We don’t want to absorb your damage for you, so you can feel better at our expense.

You’re still not giving us a lot of choice and patriarchy being what it is, you have the cards stacked in your favour; but just as we fought for the vote, equal pay and abortion, we’re going to fight to retain single sex spaces. Whatever truly dreadful arguments you come up with about why doing the same thing males have done for millennia is actually “progressive”.

You’re incredibly binary in your thinking.

risk at the level of the individual is a far more important and useful diagnostic metric in nsuring safety than your old school male Vs female binary thinking

Certainly is.

And very, very OT too.

Oops.