You might enjoy the replies to what I am sure Sport England thought was an innocuous tweet

[wiltonian]

To save you time, they are pretty unanimous, no dissenters at all

https://x.com/Sport_England/status/1772973661311369496?s=20

If you want a geeky take on it, Sport England, as a public body, has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 not just not to discriminate against protected characteristics but to advance equality...

Is there any way for you to show some of the responses?

I'm not on "X".

Give me a moment or two...

Thanks - appreciate it.

It's pretty much this, wall to wall

This was their original quote:

'A child or young person's gender, ethnicity and age all impact how likely they are to be physically active. Take a look at some of the big talking points from the most recent #ActiveLives Children & Young People Survey.'

Brilliant! 😂

Thank you. it makes me feel that sanity is finally returning to the world.

Just another example of how signing up to Stonewall / gender woo turns an once respected organisation known for integrity and following sports science into a vacuous lobby group promoting the theory of nonsense.

Very sad to see

Brilliant.

@MrsOvertonsWindow Particularly important given the recent government advice on the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty.

"Someone has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process or part of a process to reassign their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. 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. "

Actually, can someone tweet that at them, I can't for work reasons...

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

Have they changed the wording or taken down the message yet? Or are they sat there sulking?

sulking!

They can’t really change the tweet because it’s reporting a survey they’ve undertaken in which they will have used the word “gender” instead of “sex”. Thus failing to consider the characteristic sex (because they don’t really give a shit about women). Of course, most people will have answered as “sex”, as we are all used to doing because gender was simply used as a polite proxy for so long and the majority of people don’t really subscribe to a gender identity as such, and the whole thing will be a data mess.

They needed to be taking their duty under the equality act more seriously when they started developing the survey tool. It’s too late now for this survey.

Isn't the person who reported Rachel Meade now at Sport England?

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2023/11/05/aedan-wolton/

But it's factual isn't it? It's more than likely your gender not your sex that impacts physical activity? I don't think fewer girls play because their sex is female. I'd imagine transgender girls are the same with a minority being transgender girls who excel at sports.

@Changeandagoodrest Even if it is, and for which there will be little evidence if any if you have not asked transwomen separately, the responses to remind Sport England of their duties under law is reasonable.

What?! Are you serious?

Gosh. Every reply so far is sex not gender. Good stuff!

@Boombatty do you think the sex of children is what results in lower physical participation of girls? Or socialization of girls? I am deadly serious in my belief that lower participation in girls is as a result of their gender and not their sex. There's a difference between sex and gender and I'm fairly certain the reasons for lower physical activity in girls is nothing to do with their sex.

Really? You mean periods, for example, don't affect your likelihood to do sports?

I don't get how X works. Why is there someone called Billy Bragg, with a blue tick, who is obviously not Billy Bragg?

@DuesToTheDirt I'd imagine the physicality of periods doesn't no. I don't have the stats but I imagine the amount of girls who avoid sports because of social stigma around periods as opposed to actual physiological impacts is bigger. Do you think fewer girls are physically active because of debilitating periods? Do you really think that when it comes to physical activity girls have less activity because of their physiology?

Really? So do you think transboys are as likely as boys to be sporty? I'd very much doubt it. Who is likely to encounter more problems being active, transgirls or transboys? The latter are likely to be hampered by binders and physically disadvantaged rather than advantaged relative to their wished-for 'gender'.

That's irrelevant... whether it's stigma or pain or the risk of bleeding, periods are relevant only to females - girls and transboys - not transgirls.
Sex, not gender once again.

@ErrolTheDragon I think transgender boys are more likely to be sporty- because they're boys aren't they. I mean come on, the narrative is if you're sporty and not into nails and make up you're a boy. If you're a boy not into sports and like pink you're a girl. That's gender lead bullshit. And that's the same reason I think girls are less likely to be in sports. I don't think boys look at girls and say let's exclude her from playground football because based on her sex I think she's probably shite. It's because she's a girl. It's her gender that's getting her left out. I also think that anyone who thinks girls are likely to be less physically active than boys is because of their sex are dreaming. It's society that's made girls less likely to be physically active- not their sex.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make?

I've known and know a lot of women ( = biological sex) who participate in sport and all other types of physical activity and so far as I know they'd all identify their gender as female.

Are you saying that's unusual?