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 mean there’s lots of materials that explain gender to kids in age appropriate ways.

You and your ilk usually object to them being shared with kids though.

Why do you lie so much? Sex is a protected characteristic and is not trumped by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. You cannot get around it by changing the meaning of words as much as you might wish it so. Read the guidance. The comparator for discrimination for someone intending to undergo gender reassignment is the same sex. So if a bloke decides he has lady feelz, starts wearing skirts and is thrown out of the men's rugby team he has a case for discrimination. If they get a GRC and they try to join a women's only knitting group they have a case for discrimination if they won't let him. If they try to join the women's rugby team they could bar them on safety grounds as a proportionate measure for a legitimate goal (avoidance of potential injury to women).
It is all there in black and white so why lie?

Only problem is that except on a purely textual basis the poster isn’t incorrect.

If the poster purports to quote the legislation directly and does so inaccurately OP might have a point.

But if the poster instead just communicates in digestible form what the EA2010 protects, using gender is a pretty accurate way of describing it.

'Our ilk'? You mean people who don't believe in your religion or in gaslighting children?

Sorry TeaKlaxon but I'm going to take against your interpretation. Even allowing for Lady H's judgement, the protected characteristics remain Sex and Gender Reassignment.

The knock on effect of the judgement is that those individuals with a GRC (less than 5000) are covered by the legal protections of the sex they are legally seen as. Eg if a business laid off all female employees, a trans woman with a GRC would be able to sue for sex discrimination. A trans woman without a GRC would sue on the grounds of gender reassignment because they were treated differently to the rest of their sex due to their gender reassignment

The comms campaign is incorrect by stating gender. Gender has no legal definition. Sex and Gender Reassignment do.

Lady H's judgement (whether you agree with it or not) only changed the protections offered to a tiny minority of the population. It did not change the overall meaning of the legislation. Sex still remains (as was stated in the judgement) a protected characteristic in its own right

What specifically do you think is a lie in that post you quoted?

It is all entirely accurate. It is a legal fact that the reference to sex in the Equality Act is not limited to biological sex. If you think that is a lie you need to explain why you think Lady Haldane’s judgment doesn’t apply.

I don't think it's honest to say that 'gender' is an accurate way of describing 'sex'.

As questioned above, no-one can say what it really is. It used to mean 'how people act towards you and have expectations of you based on your perceived sex'. Hence why toys are 'gendered' and not 'sexed'.

It is dishonest and exclusionary to say that they are the same thing.

But I'm happy to disagree with anyone who thinks 'gender' is clear. I'd be more confident that they were being honest if they even, once, attempted to provide a non-circular definition, but they don't - it's just dropping 'feel like a girl/boy' then never engaging.

given that, for example a trans woman who is discriminated against for being a woman

likelihood of this occurring - zero

more likely that they will be discriminated against for their protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Not acceptable either, of course

Yes, you have to read it in a 'special' way giving words new meanings they never had. Then it will make sense. Silly women thinking it means what it says.

I mean there’s lots of materials that explain gender to kids in age appropriate ways.

No, they're really are not. I teach PSHE and have tried hard to find resources any resources to use in balanced lessons on gender ("Some people believe... whereas other people believe...").

They just dance around the word and assume the children will not ask questions.

How does gender protect against sex discrimination? My sister was recently turned down for a promotion, during feedback her male manager mentioned he felt it wasn't the right time, as he believed she would be wanting to start a family soon. That's pure sex discrimination due to her reproductive role, and wouldn't be protected if you swap sex for gender surely, as TRAs believe both men and women can get pregnant?

The dishonest people usually also say 'the information is out there, I'm tired of providing it'.
After several years, it does start to look a bit like... they don't know. Or don't want to say.

If you find these different interpretations confusing, please sign the petition.

Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4668404-update-the-equality-act-to-make-clear-the-characteristic-sex-is-biological-sex

I've read several materials for children on gender and they all conflate sex and gender. They have not explained what it is and seemingly rely on children's conflation of 'female' with 'femininity' and 'male' with 'masculinity' to handwave any explanation away.

Yes, sex is a distinct ground and I haven’t claimed otherwise.

I am rebutting those who claim - incorrectly - that that ground only applies to biological sex.

But the practical effect of the grounds of the EA2010 taken together is that discrimination based in someone’s gender is effectively prohibited.

If a comms campaign chooses to set out what the practical effect of legislation is rather than the direct text of legislation, that’s not inaccurate. If anything it is much more accurate than simply using the text knowing that many people (like most posters on here) will form an incorrect view of what is protected.

OP were any of the other protected characteristics changed to make them more understandable to children, as some posters are suggesting this is a good reason for changing sex to gender?
(I'm going to hazard a guess that they're not)

If sex isn't only biological, am I supposed to tell children they also have a 'mental' sex? I would be lying to them if I said any characteristic resides purely in male or female personality/brain/feelings.

But the practical effect of the grounds of the EA2010 taken together is that discrimination based in someone’s gender is effectively prohibited.

You seem very confident of this so perhaps you could answer my question about how this would work in practice?

How could one identify discrimination based on an indefinable feeling, compared to other people's indefinable feelings?

No.

The other 8 characteristics were as they are stated in the EA2019

That is one of the things that jumped out at me, and made me start the last thread.

I'll quote this bit from Sex Matters, I'm sure they won't mind:

The judgment, although a setback for campaigners for women’s rights, has the major advantage that it will force the Scottish government to face up to the inconsistency of its claims about the impact of holding a GRC. Until now it has made different claims according to what suits it at any given moment. In Parliament, when rejecting amendments to the GRR bill, it has claimed that the Scottish GRCs which will be made available almost on demand will confer no new legal rights on their holders. In court, defending its definition of “woman” for the purposes of gender quotas, it has claimed that a GRC changes someone’s sex “for all purposes” and in particular for the Equality Act.
The judgment underlines the importance of having this question clearly and finally decided – for the whole of the UK – by Parliament.

Haldane's judgment is far from being 'the law' as TKlaxon disingenuously puts it.

I have friends in Scotland who are pleased with what's happened because like Mermaids v LGBA and the original Forstater ruling, it offers an opportunity for the stadium floodlights to be focussed on something that might otherwise have not have received much attention. Many years ago Ben Summerskill of Stonewall commented that even when Stonewall lost cases, they gained ground — because the case itself drew attention and because a bad judgment highlighted the issues that Stonewall was raising.

What if the boss had said ‘I just don’t think a woman would fit in here because I think women are more gossipy and bitchy (insert other gender stereotype here)’.

Do you think that wouldn’t be sex based discrimination simply because it’s not based on any aspects of biological sex? That’s nonsense.

Women can face discrimination for multiple reasons - some relating to their biology and some not. A trans woman who was refused a job because a boss thought women would be too gossipy etc should not be denied protection from discrimination. And under the EA2010, at least if she has a GRC, she will not be denied protection.

Of course Lady Haldane’s judgment is the law.

Courts literally exist to set out what the interpretation of law is, and that interpretation stands unless and until it is overturned by a superior court.

In this case only the UK Supreme Court could overturn Lady Haldane’s interpretation and there is absolutely no indication they will do so. But even if there were until they did so, Lady Haldane’s judgment would still be the definitive interpretation of the law.

Wasn't Lady Haldane sitting in a Scottish Court and therefore her judgement has no bearing in England?

A trans woman who was refused a job because a boss thought women would be too gossipy etc should not be denied protection from discrimination. And under the EA2010, at least if she has a GRC, she will not be denied protection.

Another example of why the GRC is not necessary. Your hypothetical candidate would be able to claim discrimination on the grounds of "gender reassignment", on the basis that they wouldn't have said that about another man.