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 asked you ELO, why you think gender is preferable to sex

Sex is reality and is the characteristic written into the EA

Gender is an ideology

Mutter your inane platitudes and refuse debate all you like mate. The reality is people have woken up and this abusive nonsense will be swept away. You haven't won people over, you have snuck changes through on the back of other legislation. In the end you will have won precisely nothing.

But @TeaKlaxon , the protected characteristic in the Equality Act is sex, not gender. The GRA is clear that getting a GRC doesn't override biological sex in the Equality Act. Which makes perfect sense, since if you allow people to arbitrarily identify into a protected characteristic, then it becomes meaningless.

A trans woman can't be discriminated again for being a woman, because a transwomen is not a woman. Saying the TWAW mantra lots of times doesn’t make it true.

If a transwoman is discriminated against in comparison to a male colleague, then this is of course illegal. The protected characteristic is gender reassignment.

If a transwoman is discriminated against in comparison to a female colleague, then the protected characteristic is (male) sex, and it may or may not be illegal depending on whether the single sex exemptions allow men to be excluded. The GRA is very clear that a GRC doesn't change that. If it's legal to exclude men then it's legal to exclude transwomen.

Unfortunately, many organisations have been bullied into not using the single sex exemptions - and hence are excluding women who depend on a service being single sex in order to access it. The only solution seems to be for women to sue the provider for indirect discrimination against women. It's not yet clear how the courts will judge: Sarah Summer's case against the Brighton Rape Crisis Centre will be the first test case I know of.

This has been debated ad nauseam already. Do the right thing and put yourself on the right side of history.

You'll still never change biological reality for women and men - no matter how much gaslighting and bullying happens.
At the end of a day a lie is always exposed as are the liars.

I love the right side of history debates:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread

Men in women's prisons, changing rooms, rape crisis shelters, prisons and sports? Why is that progressive or the right side of anything other than wrong. Take your toxic garbage and peddle it elsewhere. Oh I forgot, you don't peddle or debate, you sneak stuff in and bully anyone who disagrees.

Any chance of a definition of gender?

Carry on you are peaking many.

Did you mean to be so misogynistic?

No actually, it’s not.

And it’s not acceptable to misquote the law. Because then it’s not the law.

OP, there have been a few cases I'm aware of anecdotally where basically anyone can set themselves up as a 'trainer' - they don't need to prove any credentials, knowledge of best practice, etc. I've seen employers in thrall to them - I won't go into details but a completely separate diversity issue was outsourced to a training company and the terms they used were clueless. When questioned the answer was simply 'well they know best, they're the trainers'.

There's another thread on MN about a charity who take kids out on 'wild' learning experiences which was shown to have unbelievably lax approach to safeguarding (the ones who took kids out on a frozen lake days after those poor boys died, and kept doubling down on the ice being '2 ft thick' and saying the area had had many days of -10 degrees, which it very obviously hadn't.

I think everyone should be holding trainers to account - at least expecting them to engage when being asked to explain things accurately. Lazy 'because I know best' is not acceptable.

Anyway, OP - keep on at the head. Plenty of resources in your favour and plenty of reasons why it’s in the school’s interest to represent the law correctly.

And let’s not forget the primary aged children.

Sorry OP for following the squirrel.

Well done you. Schools know what the law looks like - they're compelled to follow it. Every parent should feel confident in challenging legal nonsense - especially if it's from an unreliable and biased source.

No it’s not gaslighting bullshit. It’s legal fact.

The ‘sex’ protected characteristic does not apply solely in respect of biological sex. That is just legally incorrect as confirmed by the courts just a couple of weeks ago.

You may not like it that discrimination based on gender is prohibited under the the sex ground of the Equality Act but it is a legal fact that it is (at least in respect of those with a GRC).

In addition, gender identity is de facto protected because of the breadth of the gender reassignment grounds - essentially protecting anyone who has taken any step towards identifying as a gender other than that assigned at birth.

It’s really quite odd to insist on the law being represented only in a textually accurate (but contextually inaccurate) way, rather than a way that communicates what the law actually is in practice.

I'm already on it, thanks!

I'm conscious of derailing the OP's thread, so won't comment any more on this specific disagreement here, but if you want to start a thread, please do and I'm sure we can have a civil debate.

And you still didn't answer why you think 'gender' is preferable to sex!

In addition, gender identity is de facto protected because of the breadth of the gender reassignment grounds - essentially protecting anyone who has taken any step towards identifying as a gender other than that assigned at birth.

No, you are confused.

"Taken any step" probably does mean you are protected against discrimination because of gender reassignment, but a man putting on a dress (for example) does not entitle him to protections as if he had changed sex.

I don't prefer imprecise terms that include peoples feelings.

Reality & accuracy matter.

Gender, as it is used nowadays, is a safeguarding nightmare & a dangerous concept that should never have been introduced into schools.

There is nothing fine about the denial of reality & no good outcome to denying biology.

This is just wrong. Literally less than a month ago Lady Haldane in the Scottish Court of Sessions held that the ‘sex’ ground in the Equality Act does not relate solely to biological sex.

Giving the impression that it does would be highly misleading of the school.

But OP doesn’t seem to want to reflect the law correctly - she like many posters seem to want the school to imply a meaning to the Equality Act 2010 which Lady Haldane has explicitly declared to be legally incorrect.

Goodness, I step away for a swimming lesson, and everything happens 😂

Sex is the word, the concern of a 'trainer' should know the law, and not misrepresented it to young children, is my primary focus. And the school I believe has a legal duty to equally promote all of the 9 protected characteristics.

Next, is to see if they use other resources by No Outsiders. If that is the case, I will collect some more evidence, and explain my concerns.

I'm a science teacher, a woman who has experienced discrimination and violence due to my sex, and I damn well know the difference between a male and a female.

I 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.

It's a failure of the biological dimorphism of the human species, common sense and safeguarding.

In addition, gender identity is de facto protected because of the breadth of the gender reassignment grounds - essentially protecting anyone who has taken any step towards identifying as a gender other than that assigned at birth.

As we are talking about the law, please can you clarify the legal definition of "taking a step towards identifying as a gender other than that assigned at birth"?

I'm female but as usual this morning turned to the sports section of the paper first. Does that mean I'm on the road to becoming a man? Is there a checklist?

Recently, I have been so relieved that I don't live in Scotland. The land of the free(men), where women are expected to put up and shut up.

Is there a reason you can’t do your own legal research?

Do the right thing and put yourself on the right side of history.

Oh you mean the side of history that seeks to erode women's rights at law?

The side of history that's homophobic to the point of denying same sex attraction?

The side of history that chemically castrates young boys, and renders them infertile and impotent?

The side of history that doesn't give a fig that it's harming autistic girls?

NO THANK YOU.

Whether you live in Scotland or not is irrelevant. The Court of Session ruling is in respect of a GB-wide Act and so is the definitive statement of that Act’s meaning unless it were overturned by the UK Supreme Court.

From a fellow biology teacher, I am with you.