We are a Safeguarding Organisation - Not a Gender Critical Campaign - Safe School Alliance

[IwantToRetire]

We have been alarmed at some of the rhetoric we have seen from some in the “Gender Critical” movement recently. We have therefore published our position as a non-religious, non-political, safeguarding organisation. We shared the following statement on X in February. It still holds true.

We believe conflating same-sex attraction with a fetish or sexual deviancy is an abhorrent position borne from prejudice and we thoroughly reject it. Lesbians are women and are welcome in women’s spaces. Gay men are men and should be welcome in men’s spaces. Social and/or medical transition of ‘gender non-conforming’ children who may grow up to be same-sex attracted is gay conversion therapy.

We would like to categorically state that we do not agree “a lot of lesbians seem to get a sexual charge for presenting as a man and they wear very male clothes”.

We are not a ‘Gender Critical’ organisation. We are not part of the ‘Gender Critical movement’. We are a child safeguarding organisation and we always take a safeguarding first approach. We will not tolerate safeguarding being undermined by anyone or anything.

Please read the whole statement! Available at
https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2024/06/18/our-position-as-a-safeguarding-organisation/

I am confused by this, as they seem to link "gender critical" with some strange ideas about what being a lesbian is, or do they think that being gender critical means you are homophobic?

I have read this twice now, and am bewildered.

Can anyone explain the point they are making?

Very, very

Not sure, but think this might be linked to a current fairly bewildering act of self sabotage where some feminists are criticising others for working with GC people who aren't left wing. It's a purity thing.

I think they're trying not to be embroiled in it.

The statement about some lesbians getting a sexual charge from clothing refers to a comment by Stella O'Malley. She was roundly denounced for the comment by all parts of the GC movement (for want of a better word). I think it was just an ill-thought through off-the-cuff remark in an interview. It most certainly wasn't a gender critical position statement.

Well what is so strange is they originally commented via twiX back in February, and now have chosen, where many more people will see it, to post as a "news" item 4 months later.

Why carry a twitter stupidity onto your web site where most users will come to for their info.

Also, how stupid to label all gender critical feminist based on one remark.

My response on reading it was if they have this little grasp on reality they cant be realiable as a group to provide information.

And or are just random individuals posting what they like.

If they cant get the facts about being GC correct why trust them on anything else.

Could just say its insulting. But actually it is totally unprofessional.

(And also the nuttiness of people who think the tiny group of self advertising individuals who use twitter to boost their ego are important. Genuinely taken aback at this bewildering out to lunch behaviour. )

Thank you for bringing this statement to the wider attention of FWR. SSA are correct and I'm glad they've set this out in clear terms.

I think we are in real danger of sleepwalking into labelling things GC, when they are not. They are safeguarding concerns. GC might be a protected belief but it doesn't trump safeguarding.

We used to talk a lot about safeguarding here in FWR. But these days we don't. I think that poses a risk to children and vulnerable adults. I think we are being slowly encouraged to move ourselves further and further away from safeguarding discussions.

Take strip searching for instance. What is the point of being able to say "I don't think that was a woman who searched me, it was a man" and facing no sanction for that, but being told "tough, that's her legal sex"? This is where GC belief is useless and those pushing it here there and everywhere need to seriously take a step back and think what the consequences are.

If anyone reading this is unconvinced by my example then maybe it would dawn on you when the next Child Q case happens and the female child is searched by an adult male. If you design policy like this, of course it could happen. But if it did, everyone would throw their arms up in horror. Why? I can see the danger now. Because while I might be GC, I know where that ends and the limits. Knowing the limits means I am not concerned about raising safeguarding concerns.

Maybe that's the kind of thing SSA mean.

But OP, why don't you ask them instead of using FWR to trash them?

What ResisterRex said. This thread is completely uncalled for. It's like one of the million anti KJK threads.

Take strip searching for instance. What is the point of being able to say "I don't think that was a woman who searched me, it was a man" and facing no sanction for that, but being told "tough, that's her legal sex"? This is where GC belief is useless and those pushing it here there and everywhere need to seriously take a step back and think what the consequences are.

This seems really confusing. GC belief simply means recognising that clothing, hobbies, mannerisms etc aren't what makes someone a woman or man but their physical sex does.

GC belief doesn't lead to the idea of supporting the ludicrous idea of a legal sex which isn't based in reality.

The whole point of the arguments that have been going on on this board and elsewhere for years is that the man wanting to strip search women can be stopped no matter how he identifies.

I think there are different understandings of the umbrella term "Gender Critical". Yes it originally referred to feminism. But it has evolved.

Maya Forstater's case brought a definition of "gender critical" into law that some people consider is taking us down a path where safeguarding is overlooked.

I think this too - but it's a seriously confusing statement.

This is a purity spiral then. Funny, I thought the other side would be the ones to get whipped up into one first. I could still see a purity spiral being the thing that implodes their reign of bonkers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d70h

What happened in the world of knitting was absolutely horrendous and we really, REALLY would do well to try to avoid fanning the flames of one in our movement. Including posting and commenting on threads like this one. (Yes I know, pot/kettle).

Does it though? If you bring in "legal sex" then where does that end?

That is precisely where we can't have belief trumping safeguarding. Be it in a religious school where children are made unsafe due to belief, or be it in wider discussions about changes in the law where the GC groups keen on "legal sex" drown out other views. Whether they mean to or not, to be clear.

As Ereshkigalangcleg says, the Forstater case can take us down a path where safeguarding is overlooked.

Personally I do think that's what's happening. I see why - you can confidently say things knowing you'll be backed up by the law. But it's just saying things. It's not dealing with the core issue. And yes I do think my strip searching example is a good one here. It shows both the limits of belief and the danger of pinning things on that belief. You have to think "what if" and worst case scenario.

I think it's perfectly fine for them to set out what their organisation is about and distance themselves from ideas that they believe are damaging to them and their aims. @2fallsfromSSA if you're around, don't know if you would like to comment?

Isn’t it as likely that SSA are positioning themselves as a nonpartisan organisation so that they can actually leverage some influence after the election?

Personally I do think that's what's happening. I see why - you can confidently say things knowing you'll be backed up by the law. But it's just saying things. It's not dealing with the core issue.

Yes, I agree. And I do also believe that our legal freedom of speech and belief is incredibly important, or we would have no means to challenge anything at all. But the sex fudge, as @ArabellaScott calls it, isn't necessarily enough to protect women and children.

I think sometimes statements to clarify intent and purpose in order to avoid purity spirals and conflation within a movement, can look like a purity spiral.

Presumably this organisation recognises the wide range of beliefs and positions of those who recognise biological sex and are trying to avoid being associated with all of them.

They are a safeguarding organisation, and nothing else. They may have internal variety of opinions on politics, gender roles, and preferred cakes. They agree on issues of safeguarding.

Yes.

Just popping on to say thank you for the tag and bringing this thread to our attention. We are sorry our statement is not clear and on reflection we can see why there is some confusion.

Thanks to the posters who have completely understood our position- we appreciate the support.

We will review and republish this morning.

I agree, but I’m not sure its evolved as such , more like been twisted

which I appreciate is me being petty and not the point of the thread but its just annoying

Thanks for replying @2fallsfromSSA

I've so much admiration for SSA and all the work they do.
While dissent, argument and discussion is important, if an organisation decides that their focus is solely on safeguarding children and they wish to distance themselves from other discussions, that's their right.
Presumably they've felt some pressure to join in with some of the more challenging debates and wish to keep their focus clear. Good for them.
There are enough bad faith individuals trying to create dissent as we see daily on here.
SSA are doing so much good work - don't let's trash them on here.

I agree, but I’m not sure its evolved as such , more like been twisted

which I appreciate is me being petty and not the point of the thread but its just annoying

Yes I take your point, I more meant the understanding of it, often by people who are unfamiliar.

Cross posted with 2falls.

They are clearly making a point about some of the more racist, far right info being shared by GC people on line, particularly on twitter. E.g.

x.com/IamGCWendy/status/1802808341267186102

I'm not interested in getting into a fight about whether or not the tweet I linked is OK, but I agree that to be effective and to be able to continue to work with schools SSA need to distance themselves and make it clear they aren't aligned with this kind of rhetoric.

Good for them.

I am confused by this, as they seem to link "gender critical" with some strange ideas about what being a lesbian is, or do they think that being gender critical means you are homophobic?

I think part of the issue is that the advent of aggressive transactivism alerted a lot of women to the dangers that gender extremist ideology poses to the very fundamental basics of 51% of the population's lives: the attempt to redefine what a woman/girl is. And all that streams from that eg TWAW and assaults on single-sex spaces & services, and the very language that we use to describe ourselves.

These are obvious feminist issues (some of us have been thinking/talking/publishing on them for the last 20 years eg Julie Bindel), but there's quite a gap between long-term committed feminists, particularly those of us from the second wave, and much younger women today who've largely grown up under the guise of "liberal feminism" and "girl power" - mostly without a cogent analysis of the structures of power which work to oppress women and position them as "other" to the default male. Liberal feminism tended to say: "We're all equal now, and I can do what I like. That's feminism because I'm a woman."

Women are waking up now, but a lot of them are not well-read in feminist classic literature and don't have an overview or structural analysis.

There's a wonderful resurgence of the grass roots movement, which is something like the Women's Lib movement that I was part of in the late 1970s, but like all grass-roots movements, there are many (and often conflicting) views.

The focus on the trans issue has distorted things somewhat - I notice this in the discussions in various fora about voting intention in the general election.

I think it would be much more helpful to note that this is NOT an "either/or" situation.

It's a "Yes, and"

We can be feminists and sceptical of gender stereotypes and roles - better known as sex-based stereotypes - and also aware of safeguarding issues.