People from our side being vocal on Twitter re gender identity ideology in schools

[Leafstamp]

Is it me or is the the schools issue is gaining in intensity?

Look at the replies on this thread: twitter.com/Headteacherchat/status/1613087688378417152

The Education Secretary really needs to get a grasp of this.

twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1613190410700193792?t=llkaLTUQHdAoKFZZVCEUbw&s=19

How on earth do you square teaching this to young girls?

Girls, the NSPCC say be aware of your body signals when you're worried or uncomfortable or upset. Anyone asking you to do anything like get undressed that makes you feel those signals, you should say NO. Your body and your boundary are YOURS.

.....unless it's a classmate who's a boy who has invoked the magic words.

Then however worried and uncomfortable and upset you may feel, and however much you do not want to get undressed in front of him, you must hide those feelings like a good girl and show your body as your teachers tell you to prove to this boy how important he is and how much the teachers value him.

Oh and yes, we've given you some confusing ideas now about you can only say no to people wanting you to do things with your body that they want but make you unhappy..... really, a 'no' should be predicated on whether you may upset a male person. But only special male people. You'll work it out.

*Girls, the NSPCC say be aware of your body signals when you're worried or uncomfortable or upset. Anyone asking you to do anything like get undressed that makes you feel those signals, you should say NO. Your body and your boundary are YOURS.

.....unless it's a classmate who's a boy who has invoked the magic words.*

Except the NSPCC don't say that, do they?

twitter.com/lilylilymaynard/status/1285982284353540099?s=46&t=psqmr3CrLV1fGlQW-Lmf5w

And there was rubberwankman and their response to that. Telling people off for "kink shaming", and a referral to the Charity Commission which seems to have either never reported, or reported under the radar. It was never made public.

And the James Esses case to do with Childline. So the list goes on.

How the hell there's never been an investigation into the NSPCC and Childline, I'll never know.

Oh the NSPCC have also stood behind the pants campaign AND simultaneously telling girls to be kind and not do the pants campaign in the case of a boy who invokes the TQ+ protections. When they were due to come to a MN 'webchat' and knew they'd be confronted with this absolute conflict and dereliction of responsibility they ran away.

I have no patience with either organisation you mention and fully agree. But it makes to me an absolute hypocrisy of teaching the Pants Campaign in school.

It would be a good one, if there weren't this quiet little caveat for girls.

twitter.com/galluslass/status/1613171640472580096?t=hj0Ga9TBFZawxDoaadoZtw&s=19

This really reminds me of "the law as you wish it" not how it is...

nilsmousehammer · Today 09:38
How on earth do you square teaching this to young girls?

Girls, the NSPCC say be aware of your body signals when you're worried or uncomfortable or upset. Anyone asking you to do anything like get undressed that makes you feel those signals, you should say NO. Your body and your boundary are YOURS.

.....unless it's a classmate who's a boy who has invoked the magic words.

Then however worried and uncomfortable and upset you may feel, and however much you do not want to get undressed in front of him, you must hide those feelings like a good girl and show your body as your teachers tell you to prove to this boy how important he is and how much the teachers value him.

Oh and yes, we've given you some confusing ideas now about you can only say no to people wanting you to do things with your body that they want but make you unhappy..... really, a 'no' should be predicated on whether you may upset a male person. But only special male people. You'll work it out.

Quite.

Look at this schools guidance screenshot a parent put on that tweet thread. Another poster has mentioned this too.

The Equality Act for the protected characteristic ‘sex’ of a whole group of girls is turned on its head to favour one boy who feels he wants to be a girl ( characteristic ‘gender’ )

Here is that school’s guidance written out.

Where a child's trans identity is known to the wider school community schools
will need to ensure that they have a robust language using the Equality Act and a Human Rights approach to counteract any prejudice expressed or concerns raised. Additionally, when a parent or carer raises a concern about the safety of their child when spending time in the company of a trans identified pupil or staff member it is vital that staff focus on the 'problem being with the person who raises the concern and not with the trans individual. Therefore,
support work should be aimed at answering the question "how can we make your child feelnmore safe?" rather than compromising the rights of the trans person.

Scenario I) My daughter doesn't want a boy changing next to her, what if he looks
at her body?

For example, in this scenario it would not be appropriate to remove the trans person from the changing rooms if a concern is raised by a parent or carer. In this situation, it would be far more
appropriate to look at offering an alternative changing arrangement for the child who feels uncomfortable around the trans* person. A Human Rights response would be to state that although the individual in question may have the body of a boy, they are in every other respect a
girl and as such have the right under the Equality Act to change with the girls and to be treated fairly as such. It is the responsibility of members of staff to support both trans* students and
cisgender students to feel comfortable around one another.*

That is just so terrifying. And the lack of the consideration for the girls involved is mind blowing.

Is everyone here aware of the petition to update the Equality Act to make clear that sex means biological sex?

If the government would do this, that’s how to get through to schools that under the Equalities Act the protected characteristic of sex does allow for entirely sex based spaces, and does allow for not including someone of the opposite sex - whatever they identify as.

The person of the opposite sex may be offered a suitable third space, or the facilities used by others of their sex.

That is the law but not being understood as such due to lack of clarity.

Petition to update the Equality act to make clear that sex means biological sex.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

Is there honestly no oversioght of safeguarding at all in the UK?

Do Ofsted not have some overarching responsibility for safeguarding policies like these that out children at so much risk?

How can a Federation running 30 schools be allowed to have such a poor understanding of their legal duties?

Because gender identity is special, the new scared caste. We are meant to believe that they are not like other people and therefore not subject to the same safeguarding standards.

Five times more “special identity people” in the male prison estate are there for sexual offences than the general prison population in the male estate. We are not meant to take this into consideration because no one supposedly would claim a special identity for nefarious reasons.

WaffleDogBlanket · Today 14:20
Is there honestly no oversioght of safeguarding at all in the UK?

Do Ofsted not have some overarching responsibility for safeguarding policies like these that out children at so much risk?

It’s possible OFSTED is institutionally captured, but I don’t know for sure. Someone on one of these threads once said they were not rating schools ‘outstanding’ unless they were doing gender rubbish, but unfortunately I don’t remember what the evidence provided was.

*ScrollingLeaves · Today 11:41

Scenario I) My daughter doesn't want a boy changing next to her, what if he looks at her body?
For example, in this scenario it would not be appropriate to remove the trans person from the changing rooms if a concern is raised by a parent or carer. In this situation, it would be far more appropriate to look at offering an alternative changing arrangement for the child who feels uncomfortable around the trans person. A Human Rights response would be to state that although the individual in question may have the body of a boy, they are in every other respect a
girl and as such have the right under the Equality Act to change with the girls* and to be treated fairly as such.

Surely that's complete and utter bullshit? I remember discussing this elsewhere and the school said that the girl's class could all get changed in a cupboard, or a single toilet, whilst the special person could have the entire changing room.

Para 35 from Keeping Children Safe in Education:

"causing someone to engage in sexual activity without consent, such as forcing someone to strip, touch themselves sexually, or to engage in sexual activity with a third party".

IANAL but arguably forcing a girl who doesn't consent to undressing in front of a boy to change into a swimming costume could be seen as a form of sexual abuse? You have to strip in order to put on / take off a swimming costume. A teacher insisting on unconsenting girls doing this could possibly be laying themselves open to charges under the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1101454/Keeping_children_safe_in_education_2022.pdf

My guess is that question was answered by someone with a lot of following (Barry maybe?) and many have replied.

It's v interesting few / no? Other teachers have offered other ideas though.

Many will be reading though.

They (the teachers and SLT responsible) really don't see themselves as political activists though. They just see themselves as decent people and think that all right-minded people think like they do.

They don't understand the issues, and anyone who tries to raise them is dismissed.

Yes.

Few spend much time reading the news and many would just read the guardian if they did.

The other issue is it's peddled left right and centre by tonnes of resource providers that they assume there's no issue.

The dfe guidance would be read by RSE coordinator but not necessarily given as a flat blanket message.

When it's specifically outlined in keeping children safe in education (KCSIE) so that Ofsted then specifically look for evidence the school is making sure guidance is embedded, it will be common understanding among all school staff.

Ofsted test the school on the key points in KCSIE.

The only part that specifically mentions trans is around safeguarding against bullying (which links to EA.)

Anecdotally, locally, some seem to be a little overly invested in making sure children understand what the protected characteristics are.

We've literally been drilled on key questions we'd be asked by Ofsted, for example, and particularly, "who do you go to if you suspect the head of a safeguarding issue (chair of governors.)" if you suspect fgm, what do you do? (Teachers call the police themselves.)

Everything on KCSIE has come about due to specific instances of safeguarding failures where investigators could pin point where children fell through the loopholes. The website "Everyone's invited" triggered insertion of key guidance around sexual assault in schools, including primary.

Political capture means the dfe / gov doesn't yet see/ agree that social and medical transition of children is a safeguarding issue and currently would lead to extra protection for those pupils to safeguard against bullying.

We do buckets on online harms; this is eerily absent there too.

They just see themselves as decent people and think that all right-minded people think like they do. They don't understand the issues, and anyone who tries to raise them is dismissed.

Live demonstration of this going on currently on another thread.

A bit of 'my lovely friend' being tossed around (with absolute naivety and lack of life experience regarding the kind of women most affected, no lovely friends who need refuges, are of cultures and beliefs affected, who are disabled or traumatised)

Fingers in ears and absolute denial of culpability of enabling the really grim bits like the rape of women (who they'll never meet or have to cope with having empathy towards, who are very 'other' to them) because it's just about lovely people who just want to pee.

And can't possibly do that in ways that would work equally for females.

Currently being shown the porn realities of 'just wanting to pee', and the selfies of masturbating in women's spaces/swords waved etc. But that will be 'outliers' and 'a few bad apples shouldn't mean that women make men sad in their own interests because nice women....' - make sex based sacrifices.

It's penis portions. That's really most of it. Trained and ingrained.

Just to add to Warrior's informative post - Ofsted were captured by the trans lobby early on - going for and neutralising the enforcement arms (Ofsted, CQC, NSPCC, DfE etc) is essential if you want to undermine people's rights to boundaries - especially children's rights. It seems as if Ofsted are trying to quietly row back on their enthusiasm for trans ideology but without anyone noticing.

Like many captured institutions (including this government) they're only now beginning to understand the negative impacts on the safety and wellbeing of children but are caught having originally promoted it.

Not yet. They're trying currently to get their head around the idea that what they heard the SNP say on telly wasn't actually the exact truth.

And that teacher would deserve such a charge. I cannot believe how easily this abuse of young girls has become acceptable.

Yes. We've had transactivists on here (and I recall a barrister in the Allison Bailey case) arguing that women refusing to accept the presence of males as they're undressing is akin to racism. That's how prevalent (and apparently socially acceptable in certain circles) predatory values have become. And these people are able to influence all the agencies and schools mentioned above.

We've had transactivists on here (and I recall a barrister in the Allison Bailey case) arguing that women refusing to accept the presence of males as they're undressing is akin to racism.

Which, when you unpack it, is requiring the woman to validate the male with their body. By exposing their body. How much more grim does it need to get?