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!

Why would a school put up a poster then that didn’t have all the protected categories?

That doesn’t qualify as either ‘inclusive and welcoming’ because it then excludes females protections.

And it doesn’t qualify as educational because it only gives partial information.

I look forward to seeing what the Dep Head sends through. I would keep on this. Because that was an inconsistent line they fed you.

I have also used DH as shorthand for dickhead.

Yes, this exchange only took a couple of mins, and I ended it with asking for the reading she referenced. Made some comment about the roadworks, and wished her a good day.

The good thing is that now you can conduct the discussion in writing, so she can't claim any verbal misunderstandings. This will be helpful when she's finished tying herself in knots over a topic she doesn't understand as well as you do, if you choose to escalate it to the governors/ LA.

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.

Excellent work, OP, but honestly, this is lunacy. The law says sex, not gender, and I am massively sceptical of the argument that there are legal cases that show that gender and sex are interchangeable. I mean, really? Perhaps she is thinking of the Lady Haldane judgement, but that shows no such thing - only that a man with a GRC is treated as being of the female sex under the Equality Act.

Well yes, that was my first and honest reaction, although I didn't say it. And took her up on the offer to send me reading.

I'm a trained scientist with several science Masters degrees, and a Masters of Education. I may only be a parent to her, and only a part time science teacher to the world, but I know academia, I know how to conduct research and I know the biological dimorphism of the human species, and that sex is protected in law.

If gender can be included, as the poster is "not saying that it is the 9 protected characteristics", then sex can damn well be included too. It's not the 9 protected characteristics, so doesn't matte if there are 10 things mentioned then? Right?

I am ranting a bit, but I'm hoping that if I can rant here, I will be able to calmly explain my concerns.

I most certainly didn't rant to the DepHead today, was polite and as concise as I could be.

The DepHead said something about sex also being on the poster, which I pointed out was not right, the only sex was as part of sexual orientation. Gender identity, whilst not legally defined, surely comes in under gender reassignment, so sex should also be there.

Rant away. Best to bounce ideas off others so you have what you want to say formulated in your head.

So the Deputy Head says as the poster doesn't say that it is the 9 protected characteristics it can list 8 of the characteristics and misrepresent one of them replacing sex with gender?
Doesn't that make it a political or lobbying document (which is your concern, No Outsiders has form for this) and as such has no place in a school.

Yes that is my concern.

The "doesn't say it's the 9 protected characteristics" was delivered as the key thing.

I will be making your point, in written communication. Just going to give the DepHead some time to make first contact with her reading.

Her argument also was that sex and gender are interchangeable (my word) but that gender could replace sex

Rant away. I'd write to the Governors. Just because we don't want 12 year olds sniggering at the word "sex" is no excuse for misrepresenting the law.

This is in primary school

Sexual orientation, as well as gender reassignment are on the poster already.

But not sex.

I teach in a secondary school. We have assemblies where we teach the students about the 9 protected characteristics. Sex is included there.

Being afraid of saying the word sex in front of primary school children is wrong. Bullshitting them with lies about sex and gender being interchangeable is wrong. If we can have "Drag Queen Story Hour" for primary age kids, we can do them the courtesy of using the right words properly

Well, the ball is now firmly in her court, to send me her reading. Which I will read, and respond to.

Unless this doesn't materialise, in which case I will message her.

I'm a trained scientist with several science Masters degrees, and a Masters of Education. I may only be a parent to her, and only a part time science teacher to the world, but I know academia, I know how to conduct research and I know the biological dimorphism of the human species, and that sex is protected in law.

Something tells me she's going to discover she's messed with the wrong person.

gender reassignment ground (which is broad enough to encompass anyone who is openly trans or NB).

////

I'm still learning but I'm pretty confident that non binary is categorically NOT covered by gender reassignment. The whole point of NB is you don't identify with M or F

It doesn’t really matter. Meaning is culturally constructed. If they believe they do then let’s accept that. Would you rather they live in misery? Transgender people are a very small proportion of the population. A little charity and tolerance goes a long way.

//

How does this square with Biological boys/men taking girls and women places in sports and awards and Biological men being placed on womens prisons?

Why are feelings more important than boundaries and safety?

So, the DepH says that it is not actually a poster about the EA2010 protected characterisitcs, more a poster about inclusivity?

And this is a primary school, so I imagine she has this colourful poster up for the children's benefit, to remind them that we are all equal, whatever our differences.

But if it's aimed at the children and is NOT meant to represent the EA, why have age showing adults / elderly people rather than reception age and year 6 aged children and why have maternity on there at all? And how very coincidental that there are 9 things listed that are almost all from the EA list, with the exception of the rewriting of sex as gender.

I wonder whether she got the 'it's not meant to show the EA PCs' from No Outsiders themselves?'

😜

I may have missed this, but have you looked at the language used in the school's policies? Equalities, bullying, pastoral care etc? Have the words sex, women, girls been suddenly disappeared? It might be useful to see whether there's a larger problem or it's just a biased poster from a dubious source?

I looked a while ago, perhaps a year and a half? Sex and gender were both mentioned, from what I remember.

I did wonder about this. I didn't pick up on it today, as I wanted to have a quick chat, ideally with the invite to discuss more, preferably by email.

If it was just about inclusivity and being welcoming to all, surely all of the categories could have been rewritten, rather than using the formal language directly lifted from the EA, for all 8, only changing sex?

I would make some notes about today's conversation, so that you have something to refer to when you inevitably have to chase up the promised case law. Not in an arsey way but in a 'when we spoke on 11th Jan and discussed a, b, c, d, you kindly offered to send me xyz' way.

Once she rereads these things through a different lens, she might reach a different conclusion, as we know how TRAs like to misrepresent law.

Part of my making this thread (apart from asking for advice) was that I'm making a record of what is said and when it is said.

I will also keep a handwritten set of notes. Old school, but it's how my brain works best.