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!

Per capita many more transsexuals are assaulted and raped when placed in male persons, for instance, than women are when m2w transsexuals are placed in women’s facilities. To adopt a utilitarian starting point, allowing trans women to be put on women’s prisons delivers the greater good for the greater number.

99% of sex crimes are committed by men. That is all the reason you need to segregate by SEX. The case of sexual assault by women are vanishingly rare. 'Women do it too' is not an excuse to open the floodgates to male sexual assault.

I don't.

I want the words used in UK law, to be written correctly on a poster about the law.

If we start calling theft "product acquisition", that doesn't means that a person who steals is not a thief.

The word is sex. Not gender. In law.

Therefore, the poster should use the word sex

Why is male on male violence a problem that women should solve?

Why should women accept males, who might rape them, in prisons because males assault other males?

Small men and gay men are also a risk in prisons, should women also welcome them with open arms because they are at risk?

I note you haven't answered the question. Everyone will note you haven't answered the question. Please answer the question.

And to yours: Rape can only be committed, in UK law, with a penis. To whit, by a male. In a women's prison, adding in some males (more often than not convicted of sexual offences) raises the rape rate from zero to more than zero. This is 100% avoidable by NOT locking males in with females.

Trying to go to the other extreme of isolation is pointless whataboutery.

Yes. The right side of history. That would be the side where MRAs actually respected women and didn't trample all over womens rights, I take it.

But the cases of transsexual women assaulting cis women when placed in women only spaces are tiny. That is the metric that matters.

Are we just talking about "transsexuals" then? I thought that was outdated?

To adopt a utilitarian starting point, allowing trans women to be put on women’s prisons delivers the greater good for the greater number.
Are you sure? You'd have to weigh up the unhappiness of the large number of women in the prison who didn't like having a man there as well as the happiness of the trans woman (or any bloke claiming to be trans). In fact utilitarianism generally isn't very supportive of any minority interest, as more overall happiness is created by making the majority happy not a small minority.

There's no such thing as "cis", it's an ideological in-group label most of the world doesn't use.

Some bold claims. I'd say it benefits women not one iota placing a TW in a woman's prison and opens them up to harm they were not previously exposed to. I don't believe your assertion about TW in male prisons and I find your dismissal of the harm done to women as offensive in the extreme. Even if your claims have any basis in reality, it is the prison services duty to protect vulnerable prisoners and tw should be assessed and treated like other vulnerable male prisoners. They DO NOT belong in women's prisons.

It’s not true that males in prison have “more often than not” been convicted of sexual offences. Sexual offenders are not a majority of imprisoned male offenders.

This. If we adopted a utilitarian starting point, most women don't want male bodies in female spaces, and there are many more of us.

‘Bold claims’ completely supported by easily sourced data

The metric that matters is that not one woman was raped in a woman's prison until they stopped being single sex.

That is why single sex spaces are important.

For the safety and dignity of women.

You don't give two hoots about women. We are just human shields and collateral damage to your 'tiny minority' of males who you believe to be oppressed but it is blindingly obvious they are the opposite of that by the way they are prepared to trample on the rights of those that they claim to 'identify as'.

Go on, show us the data where we benefit from males in female only spaces.

No it isn't tiny. It happens. Once is too many. Just the presence of TW is humiliating and intimidating to women too.

do you not think, though, a utilitarian strategy based on achieving the lowest net amount of assault, trumps one based on accommodating feelings?

In your opinion. That isn’t research.

They're a majority (61%) of male prisoners who claim a trans identity, though: www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-sex-offenders-exploiting-trans-rights-policies-behind-bars/]]

So to return to the question: what's an acceptable number of women raped and assaulted by males in prison, in order to validate the males' claimed identity?

Is there an upper number, for you? How many would be too many?

Or is an infinite number OK with you, as long as males get what they want?

do you not think, though, a utilitarian strategy based on achieving the lowest net amount of assault, trumps one based on accommodating feelings?

Yes, I do. Which is why I support males staying out of women's spaces, however sad it makes them to have their feelings hurt.

I care about people. And all the evidence suggests there is a tiny ‘threat’ to women and a net reduction in overall assaults when trans women are allowed in women only spaces.

In your opinion. That isn’t research.

So? Go and survey women. Then you'll have your research.

Nice try!