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!

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.

Quite.

Not quite. Scroll back.

I write some of my best work on here!

Scroll back.

To paraphrase someone else, I have better things to do with my time.

First, and to Vebrithien and her daughter for the courage and determination to do what's necessary to ensure clear language and the rights of women and girls. Thank you.

Brava to the women who have taken on the misogyny, lies, and gaslighting delivered by ELO - well done you vipers.

Still waiting for ELO to provide demonstrable and factual measures of gender. Not feelings, not stereotypes put forth by others, but aspects of gender that can be quantified. Your time starts now ⏱

CLITORAL VIOLENCE

Thank you @ChewtonRoad. I'm currently on the 🍷.

My DD is still in infants, she's pretty innocent in all this. Although she has phonics lessons with the HTLA Mx, and unquestioningly called them a him. For a while, I think that she was talking about her phonics teacher by surname only (something like McSays) whereas they are actually Mx Ays.

For DD, her teacher (HTLA actually, although the school has allowed them to take a class teacher maternity cover, due to the shortage of teachers) has told her what to call them, so she calls that that. She doesn't realise that Mx is a title.

Wow what a thread. Well done to you @Vebrithien and you are completely right to call this out.

Totally. Just show me or another Lesbian the 70s flick "The Hunger" Catherine DeNeuve and Susan Sarandon get my pulse going and make my lady parts wet. David Bowie is beautiful too but does nothing for me.
Sexual desire is clearly measurable.

You don't really need to go that far even, though. No need for any external measure of being same-sex-attracted.

Thing is, if someone sincerely says, 'I am gay,' they just definitely are gay, because to feel attracted to someone is the same as to be so attracted. It's not at all the same with trans, at any rate if being trans is to be considered more than a pretence. This is because if someone sincerely says, 'I am a different sex (to what I was at conception/birth)' he or she is mistaken.

To feel same-sex-attracted is to be same-sex-attracted; to feel trans is to be mistaken about one's sex. Not in any way similar.

Being trans is nothing like being gay, in this way or most others. Another reason not to assimilate 'T' to 'LGB'.

Great thread, just finished reading every post. Things I’ve learned:

It’s better for 99 women prisoners to be locked up with and attacked by males than for 100 males to be locked up with and attacked by other males. Indeed it’s “win-win.”

People who don’t buy into gender woo are aligned with fascists but are simultaneously left wing hippies from Greenham Common.

The PP talking about identifying as a tree reminded me of something I read recently - binary sex in the animal kingdom (sorry, queendom) predates the evolution of trees.

Anyway, top work all round - ELO for displaying men’s rights activism in all its lame glory, and pretty much everyone else for pointing out the myriad flaws, as well as linking to useful resources for the OP.

OP Thank you for all you're doing. I agree going in slowly is good. If you meet resistance, mention safeguarding. Not properly quality checking the materials from outside organisations, who may have a political agenda, could be a safeguarding failure.

I thought I'd add this for you. It's the 'emotional abuse' definition in Keeping Children Safe in Education 2022. I do think elements of this definition apply to forcing children to use wrong sex pronouns. If they perceive someone as a man (or woman), forcing them to use a different pronoun I think it could be argued falls into this definition (silencing, valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person).

Third person pronouns are not the same as names, they represent whole classes of people. It is at best confusing and at worse emotionally abusive to require children, still learning about language, to do something totally at odds with normal grammar rules (different classes of third person pronouns for individuals, and ill-defined ones at that).

Every member of staff in school has to have safeguarding training every year in line with this, so they should be aware of this. If you wanted to go there I think questioning the advisability of forcing young children to comply with a staff members demands against common usage would be perfectly reasonable. I know that might feel more difficult than the general points though. More generally I think the gaslighting of children going on in schools is wrong, anti-safeguarding and it's profoundly dangerous to teach children that they should lie for adults. Children ARE being deliberately silenced for GC views in school and for using sex-based (common usage) pronouns.

It's on p10-11 and available online here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2

28. Emotional abuse: the persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and adverse effects on the child’s emotional development. It may involve conveying to a child that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may include not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or ‘making fun’ of what they say or how they communicate. It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate

11
expectations being imposed on children. These may include interactions that are beyond
a child’s developmental capability as well as overprotection and limitation of exploration
and learning or preventing the child from participating in normal social interaction. It may
involve seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. It may involve serious bullying
(including cyberbullying), causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or
the exploitation or corruption of children. Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all
types of maltreatment of a child, although it may occur alone.

I think the fact your daughter thinks it's McSays is great for her wellbeing, and shows the whole 'developmentally inappropriate' bit of asking kids to do this. They can't understand gender politics or a whole range of gender based third person pronouns at primary age.

Thanks for quoting this. Very to the point.

It really is emotional abuse of children both to impose this ideology on them in the first place, and to expect them to adhere to it and penalise them in any way if they don’t or won’t.

Well said Falalalalalalaetc. Forcibly imposing this ideology on children potentially breaches all sorts of laws. Imagine forcing girls to undress for swimming in a changing room with boys who ID as girls. IANAL but I believe it's an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to force someone to strip naked (which you have to do before and after swimming). Schools creating a hostile environment for girls by insisting on compulsory undressing / showering / toilets with boys surely must be involved in levels of sexual harassment when girls who choose not to undress in front of random boys and men are forced to because of the compulsory nature of education? These issues involve coercive control, sexual harassment and breach all manner of safeguarding and bullying guidelines.

It's long overdue for parents to start pointing these potential legal consequences to captured schools.

Well, the poster is still there, and I've had no message from the Deputy head.

Wednesday is the next time I'm in DD's school, when there will be staff around, so I think I will have to wait for them.

Thanks for the KCSIE reminder, I will use that as ballast if and when needed

How are you feeling about it all, OP?

Concerned, but determined that I won't let this go.

TBF, I know exactly what the staff are going through, with the start of term. A quick, verbal chat with the Head may very well have just slipped her mind, especially if it isn't something she's ever been concerned about before. Even though it is her overall responsibility.

On Wednesday, I hope to catch the Deputy head and mention it to her (not showing the correct 9 protected characteristics in law, misleading). I will then follow this up with a message, depending on what she says.

will be doubly dammed, if I stand by and let my innocent daughter be taught that it is possible to change sex, and that all that matters is a feeling in someone's head.

Well done for having the courage to bring this up with the school. It would be good if the HT was just a bit too busy, just as you thought.

Bollicking whatnots.

Spoke to the Deputy head. She knew I'd spoken to her colleagues.

Her arguments for the poster were;

1. It doesn't say on the poster that it showing the 9 protected characteristics.

1. The EA was 2010, there have been cases in law since then that use sex and gender interchangeably.

1. Gender included gender reassignment, gender identity and something else she couldn't remember.

1. It's more about the school welcoming everyone.

My reply;

a) The wording in law is sex.

b) Every other one of the characteristics was written down, as it is in law.

c) We can't just change the wording of the law.

d) There is no legal definition of gender or gender identity.

e) Awaiting Ofsted, as a teacher, we have been repeatedly reminded that we must use the wording of the law, and to remain politically impartial (referencing the DofE 2020 guidance)

f) Yes, be welcoming and inclusive of everyone, but in that case, sex must also be included.

Her main points were that the poster doesn't say it's the 9 protected characteristics, and that there have been law cases that show that gender and sex are interchangeable.

She said she had some reading she'd been doing, that she could send me, that included the case law and the three things that gender/sex included.

I asked her to send this to me.

Better the devil you know.

This also gives me an 'in', if she does contact me, I can try to send some alternative reading material.

If she doesn't contact me, I can message her, and ask for the materials.

I have the feeling I could be in for the long haul.

Well, thats a weak response from the DH, OP. Worrying that she's doubling down, but well done for pointing it out so clearly.

The reason the poster went up depends on whether someone is just 1. absently sticking up a poster without thinking, or whether they are 2. actually confirmed genderist who is pushing bullshit ideology.

There is also the possibility that she was 1. and got rattled by your communication, which prompted her to do some defensive reading and research.

I'd be cautious about getting into too much of a face-off. Best to prompt questions and yes, settle in for the long haul.

Hm, the Deputy Head acronym doesn't really work on Mumsnet, does it?

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?

Appreciating I've been off line for a couple of days

THIS IS THE BLOODY POINT! There is no robust definition. So how the hell can anyone make any laws based on those words? How can women's rights be defended against the hideous realities of gender ideology?

Ha, yes @ArabellaScott, my DH would not be happy with me talking to the DH about sex...