Will Gender Ideology influence how you vote?

[Heylo]

Hi, new to Mumsnet. Full disclaimer I have no kids yet but will start trying March 24 (lesbian with some embryos in the freezer!). I decided to join after the hilarious responses to the Dawn Butler debacle over the weekend.

I’ve historically been a Labour voter but I’m voting Tory next year because I’m concerned about women’s and children’s rights in relation to Gender Ideology. The lesbian scene especially has been culturally bulldozed by the new additions to womanhood & a lot of us (in our 30s) now self - exclude based on some of the militant trans rights activists (TRAs) pressuring women into taking on trans women as partners and socialise more closely with them. (Only media reporting on this is Telegraph & The Daily Mail. There has been a media blackout on this at the BBC and The Guardian). Actually a couple of women have tried to run same - sex speed dating nights but TRAs have sent them threats, doxxed them to their employers and called the venues to get the nights / events shut down. You can read more about that here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12401009/amp/Lesbian-speed-dating-event-sparks-transphobia-row-organisers-insist-adult-human-females-attend-popular-weekly-event.html

Anyway sorry for the segue, my question is to anyone who is interested in answering- if you are historically a Labour voter would the Gender issue sway you to voting conservative?

its a big topic at the moment in Gender Critical lesbian and bi circles. Everyone is usually a Labour voter but we’re all worried about what craziness Keir Starmer is going to introduce re erasing women’s spaces. I was curious what Mumsnet users think as outside of lesbians you are the next group (parents) who are most affected by this.

But keeping children safe in education, the statutory document that the tories have added to annually, says the attached...

So not only does it communicate that "transgender children exist," it says that this is not a safeguarding risk in itself (T is, undoubtedly) it also says that there needs to be trusted adults to refer to.

It sounds idiotic in this context but dots need to be explicitly joined when it comes to outlining safeguarding - practise scenarios, based on real life ones, are common in order to do this.

There won't have been any scenarios here where the answer is to contact parents because 'lgbT is not recognised as a safeguarding trigger.' It won't have been framed as 'a secret' but as 'coming out.' And analogous with being gay. Which I imagine wouldn't be seen as something that's habitually passed on to parents unless there were other related concerns.

And as you can see, the proposed schools guidance doesn't remedy this. It actually refers schools on to KCSIE for safeguarding procedures as it's statutory.

I don't remember lgbt being in KCSIE or previous frameworks pre Tory government. It was stonewalled.

Point 204 is certainly framed as a "safe space" (I'll keep your secret.)

Im not having a go at you personally, but as a parent im fustrated by the way trans ideological has being pushed in schools.

Its very unclear as to why schools were teaching it in the first place, why they went against safeguarding guidelines, excluded parents, and what schools position is now?

Some schools seem to be blaming the government for allowing the ideology to become enbedded, others think a growing number of gender confused children is positive and secrets from parents best practice.

Unless we know what is really going on, how can we fix it and stop it happening again?

Did it come from the government? Was is a horrible series of misunderstandings - stonewall was seen as a government supported charity and allowed to teach in schools without scrutiny, or was it pushed by a gender ideologues?

I can see how the EqA forced gender ideology into other organisations, but the EqA isnt a natural law for schools to follow.

It was stipulated in the RSE curriculum.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62cea352e90e071e789ea9bf/RelationshipsEducationnRSEanddHealth_Education.pdf

In the wooliest way imaginable 😑

The tories love schools to make their own schemes of work up. It saved them some work and created new educational businesses. So, unless they bought in a scheme from outside (eg No outsiders, BISH, Jigsaw etc)

(Labour, when in power, provided exemplar schemes, though not statutory, most used them. The tories have now tasked Oak academy with a very over due job, far too late as everyone has either made their own up or bought in external schemes, for all subjects.)

This document does also refer schools to the pshe association, which had been thoroughly captured too, before this guidance came out.

That's the one where "gender identity"
was snuck in. Although it might not have been the only document. Can't quite remember. See paragraphs 75 and 82:

" ...should be taught the facts and the law about sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity in an age-appropriate and inclusive way. All pupils should feel that the content is relevant to them and their developing sexuality. Sexual orientation and gender identity should be explored at a timely point and in a clear, sensitive and respectful manner."

"The Law
...

Pupils should be made aware of the relevant legal provisions when relevant topics are being taught, including for example:
...
• gender identity"

The nebulous "gender" too, eg paragraph 30

"Schools should consider the makeup of their own student body, including the gender and age range of their pupils..."

More from the document, also refers to gender instead of sex.

Yep, cross post Rex

So that'll be due a considerable re write following the trans guidance consultation. It's still all quite a confusing mess for schools.

What has happened since is that there has been more evidence, the fall of the Tavistock etc, plus the extremely hard work of a number of groups and parents who have been raising these issues repeatedly with the government.

It's due a considerable rewrite now, Warrior. Always has been:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities

"Authorities should take care to undertake their assessment by reference to the protected characteristics set out in the act. They should not use concepts such as gender or gender identity, which are not encoded in the act and can be understood in different ways."

"Myth 8: “I must consider other demographics beyond the protected characteristics.”
Unless there is a clear correlation with a protected characteristic, considering demographics that are not protected characteristics will not help you to comply with the duty. In fact, it could obscure compliance in your supporting records. Examples of demographics that are not protected characteristics include...

•	gender
•	gender identity"

The Tories do need to get this guidance in before a GE though.

The claim gov lawyers said it could be open to challenge is according to Michael Foran, and other lawyers in his mentions, not concerning nor believable as it doesn't mean they'd be successful, all gov guidance is "open" to challenge.

Reversing it would be successfully challenged as it's basically bringing the actual law and characteristic of sex back in as a key priority for all children. Keir was a lawyer too.

Useful lawyer threads

x.com/michaelpforan/status/1739613418204582306?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

x.com/ianssmart/status/1739617335856476367?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Anything is technically open to challenge but it's whether or not it gets past pre-action stage in the first instance.

I agree the government should bring all of this back into line. Maybe if it's just a technical amendment to make something legally compliant, there's a quick way of doing it? Who knows.

Im getting the feeling that 'gender identity' was included and no one, at any stage, dared ask what it meant.

You could say that about half the EA2010.