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!

So this is Hyacinth Bucket "mustn't say 'sex' to kiddies"? Nudge nudge, wink wink. The word is sex, not the activity, but the physical characteristic.

What's most important in education is clarity. Listing all the legally protected characteristics accurately except one is neither clear nor welcoming.

showing our inclusive and diversity ethos and culture.

Well yes, it shows their ethos and culture. And why "inclusive and diverse" don't mean "safe" any more. We'll put up posters that make you more welcome for your fancy gender than your binary sex so why not become a bit more diverse? Your parents might brick themseves but no worries, we wont tell them so everyone's happy. (Sorry - rant over.)

that they don't like the word in the law when used for primary pupils.

And its then terribly helpful in sliding sex and gender into meaning the same thing all ready for indoctrination on gender woo woo.

Specious twaddle.

Yes, I agree that they are conflating the two things deliberately, in order to muddy the waters and to confuse children.

bignosebignose Today 10:59
‘ If we’re talking specifically about the Equality Act with older children and they use the term sex, I will correct them

Er, what? “

Yes, I picked that up too, and it does indeed look like planned indoctrination over a number of years 😱

Vebrithian, maybe Sinnerboy’s approach is the best one after all! Plus regular, clear conversations with your dc to shield from this!

If the can't say sex because primary children snigger, how do they describe the 7th planet from the sun? Is there a different name for that too? Something less accurate and more vague like the big cold one? Or are they calling it George again? FFS.

OP I am so angry that O can’t think straight. Your letter is so good, but now it’s as though you are supposed to answer not the deputy head but the “great authority” she is such pals with.

I mean, the kids would think “sex” is funny but not “sexual orientation”? It’s absolutely laughable, please don’t leave it there.

OP I don't know if it would help to think of this as a religion? Through language shift, they are slowly indoctrinating the children in the religion of gender, to believe they all have a gender ID or gendered soul.

This is not inclusive of other religions and particularly not inclusive of gender atheism.

There is a huge difference between teaching tolerance for difference and teaching children to believe in a particular religion. For example, a trans teacher should never be victimised for being trans. A girl with a headscarf should never be bullied for wearing a headscarf. They both should be free to teach/learn in a school.

But the existence of the trans teacher should not mean all pupils are taught they have a gendered soul and that some people can change gender and should be allowed in other people's spaces, any more than the existence of the girl with a headscarf should mean that all pupils are taught they must believe in Allah and that girls must cover their hair after a certain age.

Other people's beliefs should be taught as just that eg in RE, not as fact.

Sniggering at rude words is a primary school right of passage, surely? Along with changing the first letter of every word in the songs....

What a grasping excuse that was.

That is a good analogy about the difference between not being discriminated against for a belief on the one hand, but on the other hand not requiring others to take on that belief or themselves.

Your comments were so well put, @BoredOfThisMansWorld , that I have saved them for a future reminder if I have to take on this battle...

The Equalities Act still says "sex" and organisations that get ahead of the law are putting themselves at risk. Stonewall lost a lot of adult training for doing just that.

If we’re talking specifically about the Equality Act with older children and they use the term sex, I will correct them,

The Equality Act term is "sex" and the children should be corrected if they use "gender" instead. I'd be worried if a teacher is getting this backwards because even if No Outsiders are providing confusing material they're legally covered, just like letter says. It will be the school that gets in trouble.

So that's a good example of how confusing language confuses people!

but I think it is the concept behind the language for younger children that is more important – all different, all equal. The aim of the poster is to make clear and accessible for children all the ways we are different and all the ways we are accepted.

The school had better be careful about promoting confusion about between sex and gender in the name of acceptance. If we're not accepted and treated fairly for our sex then yeah, kids are going to have problems over gender.

Once you start using the wrong language you stop being able to have conversations with children about how a boy can wear a pink spangly frock and still be a boy, or have short hair and play football and still be a girl. Instead it all becomes about being a different gender. Does your school really want to go there?

Children getting silly about the word "sex" is the opportunity to put them right.

Edit fail - "or a girl can have short hair and play football and still be a girl"

Thank you.

I'm seeing red, at the moment.
Where do I go from here? My proposed letter doesn't work properly now.

Should I still send it, along with asking, given the lack of definition in law for gender, how they are defining gender. As we are required as teachers to not reinforce stereotypes.

I would begin with referring to the “No Outsiders” provider’s sentence asking if the word ‘gender’ should be changed to sex - because the answer is undoubtedly yes.

Though she says the poster is not representing the EA, it actually resembles it so exactly in all but that one detail, to appear to be changing the UK Equality law.

You have heard of other schools amending or removing that poster precisely because those schools did not want to be held accountable for teaching outside of the law.

You could suggest that the No Outsiders provider asked the deputy head this question because they knew at heart the poster might be wrong.

Then somehow your letter.

I’m interested if you think we should change the gender bubble in the future. Let me know your thoughts, eager to discuss.

This is the sentence I meant.

Who do they think they are?

Okay, @ScrollingLeaves , that gives me food for thought. I have the new transgender guidance for schools from @rabbitwoman and her LEA.

There was also the case of a poster's DH/P who questioned the wording in his own school. Will try to look up who that was, and see if I can find out a rough location.

And then there is the case law showing that although Stonewall gave incorrect/ahead of the law advice, it was Garden Court that were found to have broken the law?

(Please correct or improve that sentence, if you can??!!)

These are the conflated bubbles for anyone who hasn’t seen.

Also the idea that primary school children would use a phrase like gender reassignment is laughable. If they need to have sex “simplified” to gender, then surely gender reassignment would be something more like “change gender.”

Blatant fob off.

This last point by bignosebignose Today 11:02
that if the provider is truly aiming to simplify language for primary school children, and thinks a child can’t understand ‘sex’ and therefore replaced it with ‘gender’ , then why haven’t they also simplified ‘gender reassignment’ and ‘sexual orientation’ in the other bubbles? They have quoted those complicated concepts exactly as they are in the EA.

It was @Elsanore’s husband.

Here is the whole poster showing all the peach bubbles.

I'd be inclined to escalate this as a formal complaint to the governors? Regrettably but given their involvement with No Outsiders (lots of evidence about their involvement in queer theory) and asking why is the school not simply following national guidance?
It's not up to individual teachers to change language that they don't like. Although it's apparently a "coincidence" that the only protected characteristic that's erased is sex, it is nevertheless significant that this is the one that's missing.
If teachers are uneasy / unwilling to use the legal name of a protected characteristic sex, then children will grow up unable to articulate sex based reasons for discrimination. Deliberately erasing the word sex as this DH is advocating, creates a hostile environment for girls and women. Schools should be explicit (in an age appropriate way) about issues of discrimination and give children the linguistic and intellectual tools to describe what they see. Sacrificing facts and accurate language in the alleged interests of "inclusivity" does girls and boys no favours. Schools should not be following the wishes of adult activist groups but always centre the rights and best interests of children.

A bit of a rant but hopefully there's something in there of use?

What a weaselly non answer from No Outsiders, I am fuming on your behalf!

I think the term sex muddies the issue. It means something else and young children can read it and think it’s funny. I also don’t want Y2 children going home saying “We learned about sex today” when they actually really talked about gender.
I think gender as a term is useful when you later talk about gender reassignment. You have your gender but then you can also reassign your gender. They fit together – it makes for uncomplicated explanations and conversations further up the school.

How does using the correct term 'sex' when talking about the reality of whether a child is male or female 'muddy the issue' ffs?
If my Yr2 child came home and said 'I learned about sex today' I would say 'That's interesting, what did you learn about it?'
How does this sentence make sense? 'you have your gender but then you can also reassign your gender'
They absolutely DO NOT fit together and make for confusing and complicated explanations. Surely it would make far more sense to say 'you have your sex - the reality of whether you are male or female - and everything else is your personality / individuality. If you decide that you don't want to conform with the societal norms and behaviours based on your sex that's fine blah blah gender reassignment'

If we’re talking specifically about the Equality Act with older children and they use the term sex, I will correct them, but I think it is the concept behind the language for younger children that is more important – all different, all equal

Yes, we ARE all different but equal. Why on earth would the author of the letter 'correct' a child who uses sex when they mean sex?

Every time I re-order I do consider changing the gender bubble to a sex bubble so you know at some level that it is incorrect to use gender in place of sex then!

In the end I don’t think it matters. Some people are definitely trying to make it a political issue, I just want children to know that there are boys and girls and everyone is equal.
YOU don't think it matters and that it isn't a political issue, but it DOES and it IS.
Yes, boys and girls are equal in most things and should be given the same opportunities. But their sex will have an impact on their lives and that cannot be changed and knowing that there are boys and girls means knowing that boys are male and girls are female!

I hope that helps. I’m interested if you think we should change the gender bubble in the future. Again, the acknowledgement that gender is not the right word to have on this poster. Perhaps the way the wind is blowing is beginning to get through to those who want to push this ideology and they are looking to still have a business when the shit hits the fan?

To add to the list of words ( also used in the EA) which a primary school child would find difficult to understand, and for which the provider has not provided a simplified alternative in line with their stated reason for changing ‘sex’ to ‘gender’, (or even in line with their feeling children would snigger at the word sex):

gender reassignment

civil partnership

sexual orientation ( which has ‘sex’ in so is as snigger worthy as sex)

race and ethnicity ( I feel a bit unclear about the nuances myself).

Wish44 · Today 10:52
Hi OP,

Today I was doing online mandatory training on the equality act for the Local Authority that I work for. It listed gender and not sex as a protected characteristic

Inspired by you ( and the many others on this forum) I emailed the appropriate people pointing out this error . Wonderfully within 10 minutes I had a reply acknowledging their mistake and reassuring me that they would correct it. This will ensure that thousands of La workers are now correctly informed.

Together we can do it!!!

OP I was mistaken about this being a school too but Wish44 had success with a Local Authority, inspired by you!

I wonder if @WarriorN is around? She seems to know a lot about schools.

OP here is a screen shot of when Elsanore mentioned her D Husband inspired by you had had this changed at his school. Then I think she came back on this thread too later.