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!

We wear dungarees. Lesbians are over represented. We met at Greenham Common. We're all old.

It's illuminating seeing it all gathered in one thread for the woman-hating, ageist, homophobic pish it is.

This is what you're supporting, SNP. This is what you're basing policy on. You idiots.

Here's a nice article about Greenham Common by Julie Bindel, 40 years on.

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/29/greenham-common-at-40-we-came-to-fight-war-and-stayed-for-the-feminism

👍

Julie is a bit dismissive but the stories of women there are great.

I think this thread might have moved on since this stunning statement but I am just going to tell you my musings here.....

Not only can gayness be literally proven because it manifests itself as an attraction - whether romantic or sexual - between two people of the same sex, but it was illegal, until the late 1960s in this country. You could go to jail for having sex with someone of the same sex. That was pretty damn provable, in court.

It's never been illegal to change your gender presentation, want to be called a different name or different pronouns. It might not have been accepted, or understood. Trans people may have faced enormous prejudice, may have felt shame etc. But it was never punishable by law.

A trans woman could always marry a woman. A trans man could always marry a man. But if you were a couple of the same sex, even if one of you was trans, you could not get married until 2010 (or 2004 if one of you got a GRC. YES, TRANS PEOPLE GOT THE RIGHT TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. BEFORE GAY PEOPLE DID!!!) . That was provable, demonstrable and easily observed.

And a trans woman and a woman, or a trans man and a man, have always been able to start a family. Often in the normal biological way of sperm meets egg but if not, via adoption. Same sex couples faced huge hurdles if they wanted IVF or to adopt, even if one of you was trans. Provable, observable, with a massive impact on your lives.

how do you like that mulling?

I like the fact that some threads like this are allowed to run their course and get picked up by us mums - lawyers, carers, teachers, stay-at-home mums etc. Unlike the Phil Mitchellesque ‘big brother’ his name suggests, I imagine ELO as a young male A Level politics student but he could be anybody. On one hand, why waste the collective time as a group of busy women dismissing his points but on the other hand it’s good to have free speech where everyone is given an equal platform to have their say. But the biggest benefit is that there will be lots of readers seeing that by addressing all this ideology and not dismissing it by ‘being kind’, us mums are speaking common sense. Of course we want to ‘be kind’ but when laws are being misquoted and challenged due to this ideology, women are standing up and saying no. From the experience we have had and because we want to protect the next generation, ourselves and those older than us. In terms of the equality you can look at age, disabilities and religion as particularly affected by this ideology.

ELO you are already behind on the most progressive terms, and in danger of not being inclusive, as you wrote:
Did you guys all originally meet at Greenham Common per chance?
The word ‘guys’ was brought up as being not inclusive at a meeting last year. This was news to me as it is the word I heard from young adults/ older pupils at school when talking about a group of peers. The acceptable word is now folx.

It's a good mulling.

Really want mulled wine now, but it might be a bit early...

Ooh is the latest visitor a name-changer? I'm usually pretty good at spotting them but this one has gone over my head.

Anyway, I'm glad about his posts. I'm sure it's been eye-opening for any lurkers to see that rape of women is acceptable collateral for not hurting men's feelings. Most visitors aren't quite so open with that opinion. I also note there's still no number that would be acceptable, just vague handwaving and mentions of the greater good.

It's long threads like this that informed me what was going on, so bring on the non-sensical posts, they give a great chance to show which side of the debate is based on facts.

As an aside, who pictures ELO as a 22-year-old lad that gets a bit of frisson from applying some eyeshadow and nail varnish? Just me?

Thanks for the text and link to LH's judgement, NancyDrawed. I hadn't read the judgement in full and seen how all the laws interact. It isn't as simple as my previous post said. Sorry - my bad - MN is always a great education!

It all seems such a mess, with inconsistency and lack of clarity! LH says it's obvious that a woman should be allowed a forensic medical advisor of the same biological sex, so that law clearly implies biological sex... but other laws don't Problem is that what is 'obvious' changes over time and between different people where this subject is concerned. It feels like we need to go back to the drawing board, to redraft GRA and Equality laws, go through all the different situations, and debate what the fairest way forward is for everyone.

I grew up in East London and ELO is nothing like any of the locals I know, I suspect ELO moved there from somewhere else.

Although having said that, I think the Equality Act is really good. Maybe it's just the GRA which needs to be reworked.

Pheeeewwww

Long thread, but incredible.

By the way, reading long and impressive threads like this, with information, links and really good arguments put so well, helped me talk to my school about this issue, especially when I was reported for being anti trans.

It's so easy to see that as soon as there is mainstream, fair debate about this subject it is all going to fall apart.

And as for do I know any trans people? Yes, I do. And she has said she just wishes it could all go back to how it was 15 years ago.

It's 2023. Acceptance and tolerance of someone who wishes to be seen as the opposite sex should not have to be based on anyone believing that they actually ARE the opposite sex!!

I grew up in East London and ELO is nothing like any of the locals I know, I suspect ELO moved there from somewhere else.

15 years spent in the USA according to other posts. Apparently brought back some of their regressive ideas. (Also explains the "Equalities Act" thing - that's the name of the US's equivalent law. Lots of US-addled folx misname ours as a result).

Might explain the Trumpian misogyny but not the visceral distaste for women that seeps through so many posts on this thread.

IIRC the GRA was put in place to allow same sex marriage at a time when it wasn't legal - as in, if one of the couple changed legal sex, it was no longer a same sex marriage in the eyes of the law (even though it reality, it was!)

What actually is the need for the GRA in 2023?

Well that explains a few things!

Thanks for your clarification, NancyDrawed

Underground?

The SNP, like many other political parties are captured. Blinded by their absolute Stonewalling. Every time something like this happens more and more people in every generation are made aware of the ludicrous situations gender ideology creates with its lies.

It won't stand. Which is why, whilst truly aghast at the stupidity of some, we are certain that there will be a backlash and common sense will prevail.

Watch Canada for the incremental changes back to reality.

(Also explains the "Equalities Act" thing - that's the name of the US's equivalent law. Lots of US-addled folx misname ours as a result).

Aha!

I don't see a need for it either. Surely the Equality Act alone means that a Trans person will be treated as if they were the sex they'd prefer as far as is reasonable because everyone has the right not to be treated unfavourably compared to the opposite sex. The single sex exemptions already require proportionality. Simples.

The GRA also allows someone to change their records, but that doesn't sit right with me. The ways in which recorded sex is used affect everyone else in society, not just the individual. Disaggregated statistics, monitoring equal representation and the gender pay gap, risk assessments and medical screenings: these should all should be kept accurate for everyone's benefit.

The GRA also has privacy aspects which are designed to allows holders of a GRC to hide their biological sex. Again, I'm not sure that's necessary these days in our more tolerant world.

I think only a couple of sentences directly address my point and they are pretty weak sauce.

The rest is a rant about something else.

I think only a couple of sentences directly address my point and they are pretty weak sauce.

The rest is a rant about something else.

Yes. I too was at Greenham.

And if you think women saying we won't agree to be raped in order to make some men feel happier is 'bile' then I can't wait to see what you set forth for your hat trick of MRA stupidity.

But thanks for the clarity. You are doing some Stirling work... just maybe not as you might think.

Agreed JustWaking Trans people have the same rights as everyone else and are rightly entitled to the same protections in the law. The conflict revolves around their determination to remove hard fought for rights that women have acquired in acknowledgement of specific biological and attitudinal disadvantages.
It's unbelievable that some argue for the words woman and mother be detached from pregnancy / maternity policies and healthcare. Let alone that adults weigh in on the rights of girls to undress in school changing rooms free from the male gaze. But this is where we are with entitled males insisting that these views are old fashioned and bigoted. So much harm being done to so many women and girls by this miniscule % of the population.

They also appear to be having internet problems.

I'm guessing the Wi-Fi isn't good in their parents loft.