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!

in ‘high risk’ spaces such as prisons psychological

And do you then extend this to all males? Can I come in if I pass your psychological assessment?

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

Ah, that would be a "yes" then.

You’re unrelentingly male supremacist in your thinking

Talking of "old school male Vs female binary thinking"...

Can anyone estimate the percentage rise in prison pregnancies if any males are permitted, compared to a female-only-group?

ELO

So that's stage one of the policy, using psychometric testing to judge risk. Now, in order not to be discriminatory we have to test all prisoners (regardless of sex or gender) before they are sentenced and then assign their place in the prison estate depending on results.

What should happen if you have a male and a female all score exactly the same score? Should they all be placed in the same prison and, if yes, which estate?

Fucking hell.

You won't be the only one, I guarantee it.

And you're not?

You're not talking in terms of 'people', you care about male people getting what keeps them psychologically cared for and have no reciprocal care for actual harm and assault and violence on female people. Your points are entirely sex based.

And this business about mixed sex with good risk assessment is all that matters...

well it hasn't helped the women raped and assaulted so far, has it? That's a little more than a whoopsy daisy situation isn't it? We're back to how many injured, traumatised, life changing assaulted women are worth the happiness of a male?

(Because no one is wondering how many sad male people should equal the safety of one woman, are they? Gosh there's that binary again!)

Plus for the lurkers watching this with their mouths open: look up the ridiculousness that is that there is:

1. a very carefully designed, highly effective risk assessment tool for male sex offenders, which gives a very accurate predictability of their risk to others.

2. there is a totally separate one for females. Different one entirely. As male and female sex offending is totally different, this being to do with the whole 98% of sex offenders being male fact. (See MoJ statistics.)

3. Where a male prisoner identifies as a woman the female risk assessment is used. Which is lovely for the male prisoner psychologically but absolutely no use at all in predicting the risk to female prisoners about to be forcibly exposed to this male. This is one of those situations again where the psychological wellbeing of 1 male is prioritised over actual bodily harm to x number of
   females. (Spot the binary thinking!)

Gosh isn't it great being born a female 'person'?

And frankly the border for managing to care about females is not 'well too many have now been raped, injured, lifetime traumatised, perhaps now there's enough reason to.... <shiver> .... look at safe alternatives to a male that do not include providing them with non consenting, forced female bodies. (Bodies because no other part of those women is of any interest is it? No one cares about their feelings, beliefs, psychology, identity - just their physical presence is the required bit and they don't get any choices. They can't identify out.)

No males, at all, in any female prisons. That's it. That's the line. That's what I'll support to the end. No matter how many lovely male TQ+ people I meet, because they are not more important than female humans. They're really not.

Yes, me too!

I was typing out a message earlier, when I realised the poster and poster meant different things in my head...

Too many homophones on this thread ...

Where a male prisoner identifies as a woman the female risk assessment is used.

This is one of those things that seems too ridiculous to be true, but actually follows as soon as you start down this path of going along with the pretence.

And the same idiocy is also apparently why the original Dutch researchers found "transition" reduced dysphoria in children. Before the transition, boys were given the male dysphoria test and asked lots of questions about being uncomfortable with having a male body. And the reverse for girls. After the transition, they were given the opposite-sex dysphoria test! So boys were asked questions about being uncomfortable with having a female body. And, amazingly, they got a lower score! (Insert infinite facepalm emojis here).

Took quite a few years for that to come to light.

Lets be honest about this, the conflict here is between two positions.

1. TQ+ identified people (specifically males) are more important and special than anyone else and all other people should lay back and think of Stonewall in providing for TQ+ needs.

2. There are set standards of care, equality and inclusion that should apply to all regardless of sex, chosen gender identity, ability, race, belief, culture, age, etc etc etc, and no one group should have less or more rights than another.

One of these positions is 'transphobic'.

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

@EastLondonObserver Sorry to disillusion you, but sex is binary. I've made 2 children. There was a sperm and an egg involved in the creation of both. My husband and I did not have a conversation to decide which of us would grow the children inside us. That was decided by the binary nature of our biology. Our gender related feelings, clothes, personalities, psychology, hobbies and even sexual orientation were irrelevant to the creation of new life.

I can guarantee you 100% that if you create a child at some point in the future you will need a sperm provided by a man (I assume that will be you) and an egg provided by a woman.

The earliest writing, on cave paintings has been deciphered. It is all about the cycle of life, of tracking female animals and recording when they give birth.

The two sexes, male and female are fundamental to our existence. Our sex is recorded in every cell of our body. No amount of arguing about men being 'psychologically female' or trying to persuade us that the difference between men and women is actually some sort of feeling will change that.

Must confess, have had a little trouble keeping up with the posts, what with having to sort swimming lessons, dinner and bed time routines. You know, all the little things that females often have to deal with, on their role as a support human.

From being told by my grandfather, than women shouldn't be allowed to go to university, to repeated sexual assaults at the age of 11 by my male classmates, all the way up to discrimination at work due to my caring commitments (which hasn't held DH back at all), I know, and the rest of humanity, know who the women are.

When men want sex, they know who women are.
When men want babies, they know who women are.

This woman has had enough. I will not stand by and let my DD journey into the world unable to say that her sex is female, and as such she had protections in law.

Who knew Boston were so massively before their time?

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

It's quite a well known phrase, most recently popularised by Rebecca Vardy in the Rooney v Vardy libel trial. Get with the program daddyo.

I don't actually like Boston very much.

This, however, is a wonderful song. And one I think feminists could get behind.

Women are getting better at saying 'no'.

Love that song Arabella.

Also I prefer the original ELO to this version. A song for us vipers, meanly refusing to validate male feelings:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=j7cyiWpX_HU

Wow, I thought I was an experienced mountaineer, but this ascent was something else altogether. Huge cheers for all you warrior women. And especially for OP and her bravery.

No idea what the lyrics mean, but this seems peppy.

I can’t believe East is for real now, nobody can honestly be so blind to what they are saying?
I just looked up pigeon chess as I’d never heard it, fantastic

Cough - I did suggest not engaging right at the start of the thread - not because of what they were saying but because they were so dedicated to baiting everyone with lazy drive-by sniping.

The other dissenting POV was much more articulate and engaged somewhat, although still didn't know the answer to my very basic questions. So it's not 'ignore someone based on what they believe' but on their lack of care of achieving civil debate.

Aunt Germaine had some good practices.

I've just had a read of the 2020 thread about Andrew Moffat and No Outsiders.

Can't deny, I'm more concerned that before.

My hope, is to find out that DD's school just had a couple of these incorrect posters on display.

My fear is that they use No Outsiders resources in lessons.

Shit shit shit shit shit.