Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Boiledbeetle · 22/09/2023 16:38

Their list of updated bits is rather short!

Updated 22 September 2023:

  • p. 50: Removed FAQ 4.35.
  • p. 52: Amended example 4.7 to add ‘co-educational’. Replaced word ‘sister’ with ‘sibling’ in example 4.8.
  • p. 60: Amended comment on gender segregation in schools.
  • p. 87: Amended definition of gender reassignment.
  • p. 89: Amended definition of sex.
  • p. 90: Amended FAQ 5.131 to refer to protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment (now FAQ 5.132).

Hopefully meaningful though. (Will admit i haven't actually read it yet).

OP posts:
ValancyRedfern · 22/09/2023 17:28

Those changes look promising....

LoobiJee · 22/09/2023 17:41

Interesting that the example which the EHRC hasn’t changed is the one that creates the impression that it is unfair or inappropriate for a boy who declares a feminine gender identity to use the boys’ changing room with the other boys.

From the Sex Matters analysis of the guidance:

“The second example suggests it is not “appropriate” for a boy who identifies as a girl to use the boys’ changing room. But this would in fact be direct gender-reassignment discrimination. Schools are required to provide sex-segregated facilities. While a unisex alternative might sometimes be able to be found, at other times the only practical option may be the boys’ or the girls’, and the school should be clear that it is always appropriate for gender-non-conforming boys to use the boys’ facilities and gender-non-conforming girls to use the girls’ facilities, without being bullied, harassed or excluded. “

Makes you wonder if male access to females in a state of undress was the key die-in-a-ditch entitlement which the TRA groups were lobbying the EHRC for behind the scenes whilst this updated guidance was being drafted, and that’s why this example was one that didn’t get corrected in the update.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 22/09/2023 18:01

LoobiJee · 22/09/2023 17:41

Interesting that the example which the EHRC hasn’t changed is the one that creates the impression that it is unfair or inappropriate for a boy who declares a feminine gender identity to use the boys’ changing room with the other boys.

From the Sex Matters analysis of the guidance:

“The second example suggests it is not “appropriate” for a boy who identifies as a girl to use the boys’ changing room. But this would in fact be direct gender-reassignment discrimination. Schools are required to provide sex-segregated facilities. While a unisex alternative might sometimes be able to be found, at other times the only practical option may be the boys’ or the girls’, and the school should be clear that it is always appropriate for gender-non-conforming boys to use the boys’ facilities and gender-non-conforming girls to use the girls’ facilities, without being bullied, harassed or excluded. “

Makes you wonder if male access to females in a state of undress was the key die-in-a-ditch entitlement which the TRA groups were lobbying the EHRC for behind the scenes whilst this updated guidance was being drafted, and that’s why this example was one that didn’t get corrected in the update.

And that's been the problem hasn't it? The ability of these groups to access legislative bodies, medicine and education and reform them to their own wishes while removing the safety of women, girls and children.
We're seeing all this being rolled back worldwide but at what a cost .

NumberTheory · 22/09/2023 18:09

LoobiJee · 22/09/2023 17:41

Interesting that the example which the EHRC hasn’t changed is the one that creates the impression that it is unfair or inappropriate for a boy who declares a feminine gender identity to use the boys’ changing room with the other boys.

From the Sex Matters analysis of the guidance:

“The second example suggests it is not “appropriate” for a boy who identifies as a girl to use the boys’ changing room. But this would in fact be direct gender-reassignment discrimination. Schools are required to provide sex-segregated facilities. While a unisex alternative might sometimes be able to be found, at other times the only practical option may be the boys’ or the girls’, and the school should be clear that it is always appropriate for gender-non-conforming boys to use the boys’ facilities and gender-non-conforming girls to use the girls’ facilities, without being bullied, harassed or excluded. “

Makes you wonder if male access to females in a state of undress was the key die-in-a-ditch entitlement which the TRA groups were lobbying the EHRC for behind the scenes whilst this updated guidance was being drafted, and that’s why this example was one that didn’t get corrected in the update.

I don’t think so. The guidance does not suggest allowing them to use opposite sex facilities, and with the clarification on sex it is clear tat facilities must be single sex.

I think this is more about treating a transboy’s feelings and safety in regard to situations where they might be naked or partially naked around other boys in the same way they are supposed to treat girls’ feelings and safety around boys.

We don’t tell schools they should mix sexes in these situations and just ensure there is no bullying, because we know that a) that doesn’t work, and b) people feel embarrassed and uncomfortable even when there’s no bullying.

I don’t think respecting the fact that trans pupils may feel different and/or embarrassed even if there is no bullying needs to be a threat to women’s rights providing the solution to that isn’t to use women as the “safe space” for men who don’t feel comfortable with other men. I think pushing the third space option makes far more sense from a protecting women’s rights without being anti-trans stance (which should be the EHRC’s stance) than insisting people must use communal sex-segregated facilities.

TeenEyeroll · 22/09/2023 18:13

Mmm I’m not liking the fact that that it doesn’t say that a person’s sex is biological and binary, it only talks about ‘legal sex’. So there is no physical meaning to the word ‘sex’ which is based in reality in the guidance.

That’s not very practical when thinking about who should be able to go into the girls changing rooms.

NancyDrawed · 22/09/2023 18:17

TeenEyeroll · 22/09/2023 18:13

Mmm I’m not liking the fact that that it doesn’t say that a person’s sex is biological and binary, it only talks about ‘legal sex’. So there is no physical meaning to the word ‘sex’ which is based in reality in the guidance.

That’s not very practical when thinking about who should be able to go into the girls changing rooms.

But no school pupil will have a legal sex which is different from their biological sex, as a GRC application can't be made until 18 IIRC

So by saying legal sex they are getting out of the 'but what about people with DSDs' as all pupils should be treated as the sex on their original birth certificate.

(I haven't read the guidance yet)

TeenEyeroll · 22/09/2023 18:17

NancyDrawed · 22/09/2023 18:17

But no school pupil will have a legal sex which is different from their biological sex, as a GRC application can't be made until 18 IIRC

So by saying legal sex they are getting out of the 'but what about people with DSDs' as all pupils should be treated as the sex on their original birth certificate.

(I haven't read the guidance yet)

Show quote history

Their PE teacher can have a GRC

Brainworm · 22/09/2023 18:42

I agree with the need to uphold single sex provision in schools and welcome guidance that reinforces this.

As someone who works in the field, I am not happy/ comfortable with the idea of children experiencing gender dysphoria and distress about their only having the option of using same sex facilities. Schools can and do make lots of adjustments to support young people manage their mental health difficulties and their stress and overwhelm. If/ where they don't, the young people often end up with emotionally based school non attendance issues.

My preference would be to find workable solutions for gender distressed children as and when they arise - with using provision for the opposite sex not being one of the options

NancyDrawed · 22/09/2023 18:56

@TeenEyeroll

I didn't think of PE teachers.

Very good point - although even with a GRC single sex exceptions can be enforced, so a male PE teacher could be prevented from entering the girls' changing room if the school was brave enough.

I'll read the guidance before commenting further

IcakethereforeIam · 22/09/2023 23:10

I think this article from the Times is pertinent (archive link)

https://archive.ph/OAPfb

Lamplightglitches · 22/09/2023 23:22

@NancyDrawed rightly points out that no child under 18 can have a GRC. One of the difficulties with the proposed Scottish reforms is that they would reduce this age to 16.

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 06:07

I think this is more about treating a transboy’s feelings and safety in regard to situations where they might be naked or partially naked around other boys in the same way they are supposed to treat girls’ feelings and safety around boys.

Sorry, I’m not clear I’ve understood the point you are making here. Your use of “other boys” creates the impression you think “transboys” are male pupils. But they’re not.

When you say “transboy” are you using that term to refer to a female pupil who asserts a masculine gender identity? (Which is what Stonewall, Mermaid etc mean when they say transboy.) Or are you using “transboy” to refer to a male pupil who asserts a feminine gender identity?

You compare the “transboy’s feelings” to how a girl would feel about being in a state of undress in the male changing room. Which would be a relevant comparison if you’re using “transboy” in the same way as Stonewall would - ie to describe a female pupil who self describes as a member of the opposite sex or as having a masculine gender identity.

But that’s at odds with your use of “other boys”, which I took as meaning that you think a “transboy” is a male pupil. It shouldn’t be seen as “inappropriate” for a male pupil to use the male changing room just because he is gender non-confirming.

Comparing that male pupil’s situation with the situation of a female pupil forced to share a changing room with the opposite sex when in a state of undress is not a relevant comparison.

NumberTheory · 23/09/2023 07:00

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 06:07

I think this is more about treating a transboy’s feelings and safety in regard to situations where they might be naked or partially naked around other boys in the same way they are supposed to treat girls’ feelings and safety around boys.

Sorry, I’m not clear I’ve understood the point you are making here. Your use of “other boys” creates the impression you think “transboys” are male pupils. But they’re not.

When you say “transboy” are you using that term to refer to a female pupil who asserts a masculine gender identity? (Which is what Stonewall, Mermaid etc mean when they say transboy.) Or are you using “transboy” to refer to a male pupil who asserts a feminine gender identity?

You compare the “transboy’s feelings” to how a girl would feel about being in a state of undress in the male changing room. Which would be a relevant comparison if you’re using “transboy” in the same way as Stonewall would - ie to describe a female pupil who self describes as a member of the opposite sex or as having a masculine gender identity.

But that’s at odds with your use of “other boys”, which I took as meaning that you think a “transboy” is a male pupil. It shouldn’t be seen as “inappropriate” for a male pupil to use the male changing room just because he is gender non-confirming.

Comparing that male pupil’s situation with the situation of a female pupil forced to share a changing room with the opposite sex when in a state of undress is not a relevant comparison.

Yes, sorry, I changed my scenario round part way through writing and confused myself and my language.

That should have been transgirl around other boys.

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 08:09

Thanks for clarifying NumberTheory.

If you’re talking about a male pupil being uncomfortable getting undressed with other male pupils (because of believing he has a feminine gender identity), then a girl’s feelings about being forced to be in a state of undress with boys is not the relevant comparator.

A more relevant comparator for the uncomfortable male pupil would be, for example, a girl who hasn’t gone through puberty yet being uncomfortable getting undressed with girls of the same age who have gone through puberty or vice versa. Those girls aren’t offered different changing rooms to prevent them feeling uncomfortable.

rogdmum · 23/09/2023 08:40

I am over the moon that the example of not using a trans identified girl’s new name and not referring to her as a boy being direct discrimination is now gone. The Principal of my daughter’s former school quoted this example in his response to us during our formal complaint as a large part of his justification for the school immediately supporting her social transition. He said “helpfully… an example is given…”

The Scottish Government is now going to need to revise the sections where they now have incorrect text quoting the EHRC Technical Guidance. That will go down well, I’m sure.

ArabeIIaScott · 23/09/2023 17:24

Schools will no longer automatically be breaking the law if they refuse to refer to children by their chosen name or gender, Britain’s equalities watchdog has ruled.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission previously said that failing to refer to a female pupil by their “adopted male name” and call them a boy would be “direct” discrimination.
However it has now deleted the guidance following complaints by campaigners. It has also said that schools are legally obliged to provide separate changing rooms for boys and girls based on the sex of their birth.

All good!

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 17:32

ArabeIIaScott · 23/09/2023 17:24

Schools will no longer automatically be breaking the law if they refuse to refer to children by their chosen name or gender, Britain’s equalities watchdog has ruled.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission previously said that failing to refer to a female pupil by their “adopted male name” and call them a boy would be “direct” discrimination.
However it has now deleted the guidance following complaints by campaigners. It has also said that schools are legally obliged to provide separate changing rooms for boys and girls based on the sex of their birth.

All good!

Schools will no longer automatically be breaking the law if they refuse to refer to children by their chosen name or gender, Britain’s equalities watchdog has ruled.

Hmmm.

I suppose a press statement explaining that “the EHRC has withdrawn its incorrect assertion that using a child’s name in place of their “chosen” name would be a breach of EA2010 by the school” could be a tad, um, awkward.

EasternStandard · 23/09/2023 17:38

ArabeIIaScott · 23/09/2023 17:24

Schools will no longer automatically be breaking the law if they refuse to refer to children by their chosen name or gender, Britain’s equalities watchdog has ruled.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission previously said that failing to refer to a female pupil by their “adopted male name” and call them a boy would be “direct” discrimination.
However it has now deleted the guidance following complaints by campaigners. It has also said that schools are legally obliged to provide separate changing rooms for boys and girls based on the sex of their birth.

All good!

This sounds good to me

EasternStandard · 23/09/2023 17:39

This will feed into our direct guidance presumably

nothingcomestonothing · 23/09/2023 17:44

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 17:32

Schools will no longer automatically be breaking the law if they refuse to refer to children by their chosen name or gender, Britain’s equalities watchdog has ruled.

Hmmm.

I suppose a press statement explaining that “the EHRC has withdrawn its incorrect assertion that using a child’s name in place of their “chosen” name would be a breach of EA2010 by the school” could be a tad, um, awkward.

Show quote history

Yeah that jumped out at me too. 'Schools will no longer be wrongly accused of breaking a law which doesn't exist' would be more accurate.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 23/09/2023 17:49

"I suppose a press statement explaining that “the EHRC has withdrawn its incorrect assertion that using a child’s name in place of their “chosen” name would be a breach of EA2010 by the school” could be a tad, um, awkward".

Presumably as awkward as the government apologising for standing by while dubious groups and individuals wreaked havoc on women's rights and child safeguarding? Or the NHS apologising for conducting medical experiments on mentally vulnerable children claiming to be the opposite sex? Or the education establishment apologising for prioritising trans lobby group demands over safeguarding children?
I could go on...... 🙄

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 17:51

nothingcomestonothing

it did make me wonder if the EHRC guidance was statutory guidance and meant that them saying it was automatically illegal made it automatically illegal. Which, if that were the case, would be…not great, to say the least.

Is your user name a Sound of Music reference? The song somewhere in my youth or childhood I must have done something good?