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

Absolutely.

I would and still do call myself a "gender critical feminist". But a lot of people whose opinions and views I am aligned with and who I respect, would not.

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.

I'm really confused by this. What GC groups are keen on legal sex being a thing? How would believing that a man can legally be a woman, be a GC belief? If you think men can become women in any way, you're not GC

Absolutely. It's a shame when the natural developments in policy and politics are seized on in an attempt to create dissent. There a massive swirl of political change in society at present and it's a shame (but probably inevitable) when an organisation dedicated to safeguarding children gets caught up in this way.

But it is an opportunity to showcase some of the resources that they offer:

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/resources-2/factsheets/

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/schools-resources-and-policies/

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

I think we agree here Rex. The whole point of the "GC movement" is to stop men being taken seriously when they larp as women. The GRA needs repealing and the concept of a male legal woman binning.

I'm confused about this too. 'Legal sex', as in the legal fiction that law can make a man a woman or vice versa, is not something I recognise as being GC.

I agree with this ^^

I think different organisations having differing focuses is good and shouldn't need to create conflict.
And I think clarifying their position is good.

I think Genspect is more focused on the evidence for the psychological presentation and the treatment models.

I think sex matters have been focused on utilising the law to ensure sex based rights.

I'm glad SSA which is about children and schools is focused on safeguarding. I think they are entirely right to do so and clarify their position.

Time to break out the Venn diagram!

https://deadwildroses.com/2019/10/07/handy-venn-diagrams-the-radical-feminist-position-on-gender/

Everyone in the green circle (Greer, Forstater) is both sex realist and GC. The red circle (the Patriarchy, Religions) are sex realist cultural sex role-enforcers.

SSA care about keeping children safe in situations of physical vulnerability by retaining (reinstating!) sex-segregation based on birth sex not legal sex. If the school makes the girls do home economics whilst the boys do woodwork, that is outside their remit.

Is that it?

Thanks to the SSA for coming on here, that sort of direct engagement is much appreciated.

I think the original statement left a lot of us very confused - that unfortunate remark about lesbians getting a thrill out of wearing male clothing [in fairness, I do like a bit of sharp tailoring, but it's definitely not a sexual thrill, just a sartorial one!] was made quite a long time ago by Stella O'Malley who is in no way a spokesperson for GC-ness, and who withdrew it. And, coincidentally, is the subject of a lot of very critical comments on this thread.

I didn't choose the label 'gender critical', but it has been applied so often that in the end you just go along with it. To me it means critical of oppressive gender stereotypes, and I have no control over what other people claim it means.

I can't get my head around: 'the Forstater case can take us down a path where safeguarding is overlooked.' I can't see any link. What am I missing? The term 'safeguarding' seems to be cropping up a lot in ways that are not entirely clear - the apparently unrelated Forstater case, the LGBA helpline although they directly address the issue of safeguarding themselves..

I believe safeguarding of children is one of the fundamental elements of the critique of the extremes of trans ideology that appears on FWR, so it's difficult to understand why it is now being used to suggest that FWRers, or GC women in general, are complacent about it.

Excellent summary @MalagaNights

@MarieDeGournay safeguarding is probably a central concern for many parents, and this is Mumsnet. and I think, like the Safe Schools Alliance, there are posters for whom it is a single issue and there’s a bit of a purity spiral about it sometimes.

Safeguarding is important but it’s not really the bedrock feminist issue, in my view. It’s actually not always necessarily a feminist issue at all, really.

@YellowAsteroid

Safeguarding is important but it’s not really the bedrockfeminist issue, in my view. It’s actually not always necessarily a feminist issue at all, really.

Agree. The current mess affects safeguarding for women and children, and inclusion for certain religious people of any sex or age and fairness for women.

Yes, framing everything as about 'rights' or 'beliefs' and the EA 2010 ignores safeguarding law, and creates the impression that EA2010 is more important than safeguarding law, and it shouldn't be for children.

I'm very glad SSA are making it clear that they are a safeguarding organisation - there are lots of people arguing about GC 'beliefs' and employment protections for adult women but far fewer that put safeguarding first for all children, not just gender questioning children.

It's ridiculous that Rachel Meade's win didn't address the massive safeguarding failures that denying the reality of biological sex (and making it an unsayable fact as happened to RM) will mean for those who need social services. The regulator was shown as incapable of putting safeguarding above ideological capture and yet, no job losses. Not fit for purpose at all.

Biological sex - the reality of biological sex - is vitally important for safeguarding children. That's the overlap with GC 'beliefs', but it's not a belief issue, it's a matter of fact and reality.

The truth is, safeguarding has been breached so consistently and for so long as a result of gender ideology in schools, that we're almost at the point where safeguarding means nothing. Compelling children to use wrong sex pronouns for another child or teacher is a huge safeguarding failure. It already breaches KCSIE but nothing is done and no-one is held accountable.

Ditto the RSE / PHSE organisations going into schools. One group actually asked children to draw dick pics they'd received FFS. That's clear and obvious abuse - yet no-one prosecuted or barred as far as I can tell. Last I looked the group who broke safeguarding so horrendously were invited onto radio 4.

Thank you SSA for all that you do. Your resources are invaluable as a parent.

SSA is a safeguarding organisation, but it's predicated on the fundamental gender-critical view that humans can't change sex.

To be gender-critical, I'd say you need to believe:

1. Humans can't change sex.
2. There is no such thing as an inner sense of gender identity - but even if there was, it shouldn't be allowed to override biological sex in situations where we usually differentiate between the sexes.
3. Biological sex matters and is important.

People with gender-critical beliefs tend to have a wide range of political views, but they all hold those three fundamental beliefs.

so it's difficult to understand why it is now being used to suggest that FWRers,

It isn't, it's not about FWR. It's about disagreements with the direction some people are going in, which go both ways.

Wasn't it framed as a 'belief' because that was the only thing the court could rule on. I know, every sane person knows, that you cannot change your sex. That is a fact.

I take on board that safeguarding has been overlooked...perhaps not the right word. Maybe the shenanigans the genderwoo brigade have gotten up to in schools, on helplines, in the NHS are wrong because they are inappropriate and, sometimes, particularly regarding children, genderwoo/GC notwithstanding. If gender ideology had never been a thing, the dice game, playdoh genitalia, the Family Sex Show would still be wrong.

You'd think the so called Trans community would also be up in arms about some of the stuff they've been co-opted for as an excuse to show perverted stuff to kids.

Too often when called out on it they state LGBT+ inclusion for activities that are dubious. The Scottish guy defending giving taxpayers money to a porno explicitly said they're okay with behaviour that would shock the mainstream.

I'm totally confused by this discussion. But just jumping in to thank you, RoyalCorgi, for a simple and clear outlining of gender critical beliefs- what they mean for me, anyway.

Thanks for coming on and commenting SSA

Personally, I don't call myself "GC" and I only used to talk about holding "GC beliefs" because it was legally protected. When I found out that it was also legally protected to say that I don't believe everyone has a gender identity, I found this far more useful:

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?t=L1MAeU_L0TRfQkNsREgXYw&s=19

I want to centre a) safeguarding in schools (SSA does this brilliantly) and b) stopping the promotion, and enforcement, of genderism and genderist beliefs in education, healthcare and general policies/legislation. The two go hand in hand.

Ereshkigalangcleg thanks

Thank you all for your comments. We are reflecting at the moment and your comments have sparked some discussion in our group this morning. We have made some edits to our statement and added this addition:

"We support the repeal of the GRA and strongly refute the concept of legal sex on safeguarding grounds. Will not support any compromise position that centres rights over safeguarding. See Tanya Carter's interview for the Future of Legal Gender project in 2022 which gives more detail on our position on the concept of legal sex."

We are concerned about compromises being suggested and we want to firmly state our position that we will not support anything from any organisation, GC or not that does not follow safeguarding first principle. We hope that our statement has done that.

In reference to the comment that was highlighted about lesbians in trousers, on reflection for a strategic position there is perhaps too much detail, however we stand but we said by our orginal tweet which challenged this comment and we were disappointed that this comment was not more widely challenged.

So what do you all think? Does it strengthen or detract from our position? If people feel that it detracts and is confusing then we will remove it.

Also happy to take on board other comments if people still feel our statement is confusing.

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2024/06/18/our-position-as-a-safeguarding-organisation/

Bonfirelad you are absolutely right about those two issues going hand in hand. This is why we are calling for a public inquiry because there has been a systematic dismantling of safeguarding across all sectors:

"I want to centre a) safeguarding in schools (SSA does this brilliantly) and b) stopping the promotion, and enforcement, of genderism and genderist beliefs in education, healthcare and general policies/legislation. The two go hand in hand."

I'd take out the "lesbians in trousers" bit. Adds nothing and confusing to people who aren't closely following the debate.

I've been misgendered. I'm off to call the police 😉😂

Thank you for everything you're doing in all of this. I have no doubt that there are many parents (and teachers) who feel the same gratitude as I do for all of the heavy lifting that you have done to get these issues raised up the public agenda.

I've been talking about conversations with schools on a different thread but I'll loop back to it here, as it's directly relevant. I found it really difficult to have an "in" to share the SSA work with my daughters' school. From any school's perspective, every organisation that isn't "officially approved" is a potential "political lobby group". This was made considerably worse by the (hopefully to be replaced) RHSE guidance that effectively directs schools in to the biased hands of "specialist LGBT organisations" for their curriculum materials. I'm pleased to say that I did find a way to share your work with the school but it took time to get there.
Having a clear statement about the purpose of the group makes good sense and helps with these types of conversation. It sounds like this thread has provided an opportunity to tweak the positioning of the statement so that it hits the mark as intended.

Yes I apologise for the accidental misgendering 😂

I really need to wear my glasses more...

Thank you for the feedback, I'm glad you found a way in to your school. The hope is when people actually read our resources they see we are coming from a SG perspective.

This thread has been very helpful.

Thank you again for the interaction, SSA, I know you are a much-appreciated group and I hope everything here has been constructive.

In reference to the comment that was highlighted about lesbians in trousers, on reflection for a strategic position there is perhaps too much detail, however we stand but we said by our orginal tweet which challenged this comment and we were disappointed that this comment was not more widely challenged.

The original lesbians-in-men's-clothing comment was made quite a while ago, so it's odd it was on your recent radar at all; and it was very widely challenged at the time, and the woman who make the comment, and then withdrew it, has certainly been very very challenged on this thread. I'm not sure SSA needed to wade in in defence of lesbians-in-men's-clothing, but hey, thanks for thinking of us