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 reckon a random poster with a dodgy posting history who asks a board of women to discuss gay sex "How often do they have to do it to qualify by your definition, and what kind of activities?"* probably needs the MNHQ health warning:*
We always ask users to remember that not everyone on the internet is who they say they are

There’s plenty of definitions of transgender out there - just Google them.

Why is it so many people sold on genderism are unable to answer very simple, basic questions, and instead suggest we find out ourselves?

Can you not answer this, EastLondon?

Tis all them womanly hormones flooding their system.

obviously

Talking of weak sauce, can you define gender for me, or trans, or can you even articulate a meaning for transgender? One that is equally robust in law?

There’s plenty of definitions of transgender out there - just Google them.

Guess that's a no then 🤷‍♀️

As always. Ask a question that should be easy for them and they do a runner

Okay, let's pretend I could be arsed to google.

Is transgender 'being born in the wrong body'?

Is it 'having an inner sense that one likes certain clothing/hair/toys'?

Is it 'feeling an affinity with stereotyped behaviour normally associated with the opposite sex?

Or is it something else?

@ArabellaScott 4 to go to 11 000

💪

3

I'll be waiting another hour for these last ones. Best go keep watch properly

@EastLondonObserver I presume sexual preference could be observed through subcortical responses to visual sexual stimulation. You wouldn't need to actually have sex. The behaviour (eg physical response) would still be observable.

Particularly interesting from a poster who has demanded exact information themselves rather than make the effort to go and look for it, even when given the sources.

<shrug>

Well that was a quick shift

Particularly interesting from a poster who has demanded exact information themselves rather than make the effort to go and look for it, even when given the sources.

That's cos we're staff, not the Honoured Guest.

(Same as the proposed prison scenario, you'll note).

The distinction that several posters made earlier was that homosexuality is a ‘behaviour’ and transsexualism, in contrast, is only a ‘feeling’. Their conclusion was that although there is no (currently) known biological basis for either, homosexuality is legitimate and transsexualism is not.

Now you are saying they are both a ‘feeling’. Which kind of undermines the whole gender critical project, no?

Glad we flushed it out in the end!

The distinction that several posters made earlier was that homosexuality is a ‘behaviour’ and transsexualism, in contrast, is only a ‘feeling’. Their conclusion was that although there is no (currently) known biological basis for either, homosexuality is legitimate and transsexualism is not.

Now you are saying they are both a ‘feeling’. Which kind of undermines the whole gender critical project, no?

Glad we flushed it out in the end!

I'd think it's rather more like a religious faith.

You may outwardly and openly perform for example the lifestyle and actions of Catholicism to the degree that suits you; you may inwardly hold sincere beliefs even without sharing or enacting them. Not really measurable or distinguishable other than observing actions and declarations and only the person themselves will ever decipher the truth of their faith. Which may take most of a lifetime to fully pin down within themselves.

Well I'm not sure any of this has any bearing on whether women's rights should be subordinated to men's rights. And children should not be safeguarded.

Whether TQ+ and homosexuality are feelings or reality do not provide a reason for male supremacism.

So no. Not really.

(The key point being that sex is an immutable fact and that women and girls need sex based rights, even when these are inconvenient to men.)

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation simply meaning attraction to your own sex.

Gender identity is a vague idea that you have an internal essence magically corresponding to the localised/contemporaneous sex stereotypes of men or women where you are, or you feel you sit outside that, because you are unique and special.

<flushes>

I wonder if they're is any correlation between having to flush twice when you have done a rather large crap and having to post twice when you have written write a large pile of ....?

This whole sexuality tangent is basically the Chewbacca defense.

No-one here is proposing separating any prisons, sports or anything by sexuality, because despite being concrete it isn't easy to cursorily determine. And it doesn't predict anything as useful as sex does - Strength, violent tendencies, sexual aggression etc.

If I recall correctly ELO started the tangent with something like "if you can't easily detemine sexual orientation, why shouldn't you treat gender identity the same". And yes, we already do. We ignore both, and segregate things, where necessary, by sex.

I tell you what, there are certain gentlemen who make me feel very heterosexual even though I am, alas, never to embrace them.

There are probably some responses and behaviours that could be observed and measured in those scenarios but I am too bashful.

And by the way, googling transgender is one of the first things I ever did, expecting to find some criteria or research or data or something - but ELO, if you can point me in the right direction of a definition that doesn't use circular definitions or gender stereotypes you could change my mind?

Beetle