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 the person wants to post the case "2 weeks ago" that would be interesting to read. Plenty of us on MN are lawyers. The problem with the poster is it has decided to wipe women out which is a huge concern for many women. By all means list all the protected characteristics but don't change them, don't change the wording of the Equality Act 2010 to lie as to what it says.

Section 4 says

"The protected characteristics

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

age;

disability;

gender reassignment;

marriage and civil partnership;

pregnancy and maternity;

race;

religion or belief;

sex;

sexual orientation."

Xenia · Today 10:19

If the person wants to post the case "2 weeks ago" that would be interesting to read.

I don't think he will, on the grounds that it didn't actually happen.

OP do not explode with rage! It is important you are seen as rational. They have no idea of what you have delved through to arrive at the point you have (and naturally annoyed). You are just starting them on their journey. Be rational (trans ideology will melt it has no intellectual basis), calm and persistent. You can always feed them more information every time you raise it (and if necessary escalate it).7
I no longer hit people with the full force of the sheer lunacy that is going on, unless they are clued up. It is too much to take in and they assume you must be mistaken or mad. But drip feed it in over time and every single person is utterly appalled (right side of history my arse). The best ones are those who scuttle off to do their own research ('educate' themselves as our TRA friends like to say) and return saying WTF.
Believe it or not the vast majority of people have NO idea what is going on.

IK,R? It is so consistently wrong from TRSOH that I'm convinced there is something going on.

Is this referring to Lady Haldane in Scotland? Regarding representation on public boards

(Although I have to say that I interpreted LH's conclusion as 'a person with a GRC is legally recognised (fictionally) as their target sex' which I believe has always been the case and which still allows for biology to trump legal fiction. Copy and pasted, so looks slightly odd:

[53] For all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that in this context, which is the meaning
of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, “sex” is not limited to biological or birth sex, but
includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their
acquired gender, and thus their sex. Such a conclusion does not offend against, or give rise
to any conflict with, legislation where it is clear that “sex”means biological sex. Mr O’Neill
referred to the example of the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences)
32
(Scotland) Act 2021 where references to the sex of the forensic medical examiner can only
mean, read fairly, that a victim should have access to an examiner of the same biological sex
as themselves. I agree. There are no doubt many other such examples.

Full ruling here

www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022csoh90.pdf

Linked from MurrayBlackburnMackenzie

Op your best initial strategy is to ask questions (neutrally) and keep your powder dry. Force them to be explicit about what is being taught. What, specifically, are the children being taught that a girl is/ a boy is? How does this differ from cultural concepts of masculinity and femininity, that are separate characteristics from biological sex? Are they not being taught that being a "masculine" girl (and what traits are perceived to be masculine change over time, in different societies and by the perceiver) is perfectly fine and a different thing from being a boy?

(Just brain storming, can be refined I'm sure)

But having said that, does Scotland rushing through self ID negate this?
Lady Haldane states that to be counted as (fictionally) legally female, a man must have a GRC obtained through the processes laid down in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

Self ID via GRR changes the processes, therefore they will no longer be those stated in the 2004 act.

So many comments made on this thread that I thought ooh I'll comment on that only to read on and discover you wonderful women had also had the same thought.

So can I just day to the O P, wow! This is a thread you won't forget in a hurry! And seriously as this point the school have had their chance. Serious Paddington bear stare. "This sign is incorrect. You were informed of this many weeks ago, yet despite the error on the protected characteristics being pointed out to you you have failed to rectify it. Which regulatory body do I need to put in a complaint to about your dealings in this matter?" Might focus their mind a bit

And as for the other issue that cropped we appear to be at the point where they are not afraid to come along and say. Lie back open you legs don't upset the man.

I won't comment on that as I'm having a hard time at the moment staying polite. So onto fluffier things I've just got a new t shirt. Hang on I'll just put it on to show you. what do you think of the logo?

DO YOU THINK WE ARE STUPID?

Yes. Sensible advice. Stay calm. Ask questions - not too many. Allow them to do research, and ask questions themselves.

But I will comment on this

risk assessment being a fundamental part of penal practice.

Well yes. I think must women subconsciously indulge in some form risk assessments before shagging

Or was that not what they were talking about?

Yes.

Unfortunately while you deal with the extremist sexism that actually the rights of male humans should not always be placed before and above the rights of female humans, and that female humans' job is to provide therapeutic support for male humans regardless of the impact this may have on them...

you also have to do it while managing the extremist sexism that if you sound too 'angry' or not sufficiently naice and pro male humans, you will be dismissed out of hand. In part because you're talking about a very low status group's issue where it's not really nice for female humans to talk about it all. (In case it wobbles male feelings.)

Women: suck up your sex based disadvantage, it's your birth right and destiny! Do it to enable men to have the illusion that they have changed sex, sex is not dimorphic, it's all about gender and the body is irrelevant.....

Embrace sex based reality and your subordination while lying that it isn't happening for the benefit of less than 1% of the opposite sex!

What woman would mind doing that, eh? Who would hesitate about raising little girls in such beliefs?

But having said that, does Scotland rushing through self ID negate this?
Lady Haldane states that to be counted as (fictionally) legally female, a man must have a GRC obtained through the processes laid down in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

Self ID via GRR changes the processes, therefore they will no longer be those stated in the 2004 act.

That's a really important point. Especially as Lady Haldane acknowledges that in some circumstances (forensic medicine bill) sex should mean biological sex.

How Fucking dare you.

One woman.

That one woman is one woman forced to be raped and endure lifeline trauma for ever to many.

One woman raped in the entire Fucking world is one woman too many.

How Fucking dare you.

And I'm putting myself back in a time out. Tea, fag and cat time

Yes.

This guy was called Lord Farquaad for a reason.

OMG I just only now got that, nils. The 'Farquad' pun, I mean.

You must have a much purer mind than me!

Me too!

Shame this well resourced ‘underground cell’ of Vipers I’ve wondered into that resides on no less than a part of a parenting website has been so ineffective in preventing planned legislation in Scotland, and inevitably soon, England.

There is a new generation that reject your hateful bile.

Did you guys all originally meet at Greenham Common per chance?

Shame this well resourced ‘underground cell’ of Vipers I’ve wondered into that resides on no less than a part of a parenting website has been so ineffective in preventing planned legislation in Scotland, and inevitably soon, England.

There is a new generation that reject your hateful bile.

Did you guys all originally meet at Greenham Common per chance?

I do believe that EastLondon's suggestion that we repeal the GRA and replace it with

the realities act

is a great idea, though.

Shame this well resourced ‘underground cell’ of Vipers I’ve wondered into, that resides on no less than a part of a parenting website, has been so ineffective in preventing planned legislation in Scotland, and inevitably soon, England.

There is a new generation that reject your hateful bile.

Did you guys all originally meet at Greenham Common per chance?

In my case, it's not pure, it's a bit thick!

Much pure. So innocents.