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

As an edge of the debate person, I’d recommend removing the lesbian in trousers section and addressing it as a separate issue if you want to.

Lesbians in trousers are not the key focus of your organisation 😁

Was the betrousered lesbian statement withdrawn? I missed it.

It might be too much detail. OTOH, (as well as being offensive and regressive) it's also potentially a way of creating a narrative that doesn't exist. From there, if accepted as the narrative, similar ideas and notions can become "truth". So yes it should be challenged. I suppose the possible risk to SSA in not putting out a position on it is that people think "these organisations are trying to help children" and throw them in together. That would be harmful to SSA's reputation. (There's another discussion about the extent to which Genspect is beneficial to UK children of course but that's rightly on another thread).

The rest of the changes @2fallsfromSSA make sense and seem to uphold your position as a safeguarding organisation. I think it's illogical that the GC position has not unequivocally been "OK, we won the "right" to say we don't believe people can change sex but obviously this can NOT be the end point. Women and children are being harmed and that's where we need to focus now very clearly".

I get that people think GC organisations are saying that. But with the "legal sex" business - no they are not. They are likely going to take us to a place where more harm and mess happens. See: KPSS position as against Sex Matters position.

That is a detailed area, no doubt. But we really do need to understand the effects and consequences of legal sex. Discussion must be had on that.

Like others on this thread, I'm concerned at how we've watched safeguarding children be eroded, not only as IcakethereforeIam so accurately describes but with open attacks on safeguarding children made by powerful political figures (Cashman etc). Completing the KCSIE consultation highlighted just how easy it's been for trans lobbyists to openly challenge, rewrite and erode fundamental safeguarding principles with the trans captured DfE and Ofsted standing by watching until Cass sounded the alarm.
There's now quite a mountain to climb as schools and other services have to quietly retreat from their 'yes your body can be wrong but a sex change can fix it" position to one that acknowledges the dangers this poses to children. As this thread shows, it's far from over in some schools:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5101400-new-sexualitygender-group-set-up-at-daughters-school-how-do-i-respond?reply=136181083

But what a constructive thread this has turned into. Informative discussion and debate with only one attempt to smear. Thanks SSA for taking an open approach to criticism.

I get that people think GC organisations are saying that. But with the "legal sex" business - no they are not. They are likely going to take us to a place where more harm and mess happens. See: KPSS position as against Sex Matters position.

I have clearly missed some discussion so could you please say which GC organisations are in favour of the concept of legal sex? As I do not support that and want to know if I am funding or otherwise supporting stuff I don't believe in. I had a look at Sex Matters website and can't see it there. Or is this some academic feminists versus grassroots organisations thing?

KPSS set out the legal sex issue here

Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5094418-keep-prisons-single-sex-wind-down?msgid=136167370#136167370

I get that people thinkGC organisations are saying that. But with the "legal sex" business - no they are not. They are likely going to take us to a place where more harm and mess happens. See: KPSS position as against Sex Matters position.

I disagree. I think it's a "Yes, and" situation, not an "either/or" Simply focusing on safeguarding will do very little for addressing, for example, the sex pay gap, or the pin collar ghetto, or the persistent undervaluing of work seen as "women's work" - just to name examples around women's work & wages.

So from that I got that Fair Play for Women are in favour of including males with a GRC as women? I didn't know that. Are there others?

Thanks for the input we have edited our statement and removed the reference to trouser-wearing lesbians as on reflection it did not fit in a positioning statement.

We appreciate it being brought to our attention.

@2fallsfromSSA thanks to you and your colleagues in SSA. I have a daughter in Y1 in England and I fully support SSA.
I think it's absolutely right to clarify your position and perhaps avoid getting dragged in or associated with arguments that are not SSA's primary focus.
Thank you for engaging, and I hope it is useful for SSA.

I had no idea FPFW took that stance! I wonder why?

About "legal sex" and FPFW - I was also unaware. But having read KPSS explain their position on that idea, I find myself agreeing with them.

Same here. Accepting the status quo of GRCs granting the legal status of woman to males is not an intermediary position from which to argue against the idea of males being given legal status as women. It seems more like accepting your opponent’s argument while working to ameliorate it/tinker round the edges.

It would never occur to me that anyone 'gender critical' would be in favour of 'legal sex' as a legal fiction to allow someone to lie about their sex. If there are people who call themselves gender critical who agree with this then I would say it is them that are not gender critical, not SSA, who clearly are.

I am still very confused by this statement, and I am a big supporter of SSA.

This

I agree with KPSS regarding 'legal sex', i still don't understand FPFW's position.

It's notable how SSA is open to criticism and able to change. People who genuinely care about children's wellbeing and safety tend to very much be willing to listen and change things. That's actually an example of a good safeguarding culture.

Compare and contrast with the other side and their debate shutting down cries of 'transphobia' / 'discrimination'. You don't try and shut down reasoned debate if you care about child safety and wellbeing.

Brava SSA. It's a difficult environment to operate in and SSA aren't getting the big government grants to do this, I think it's very much volunteers giving up time they don't really have (@2fallsfromSSA you can correct me if I'm wrong here!).

Parents care about their children and more and more are willing to stand up against the erosion of safeguarding in schools, so I hope SSA will go from strength to strength as the grassroots safeguarding first organisation our children desperately need.

Well said Dougal. This is an emergency with what's happening to children. It's been so disappointing that Sunak called this bloody election before the government had implemented the changes to protect children that they'd actually enabled by being in thrall to transactivism.

I want to second what @dougalfromthemagicroundabout and @MrsOvertonsWindow just said.

And to say thank you @2fallsfromSSA

We really appreciate all your support. @dougalfromthemagicroundabout - you are right. SSA is run by a small group of women volunteers. We have no funding but some lovely people do donate money which pays for the website and our expenses so we can travel to meetings.

There's a difference between being in favour of it, and recognising what the current legal position is. Given that the wording of the GRA is "for all purposes" (except for the specific exceptions in the act like inheriting peerages etc), if FPFW had argued that everyone should be completing the census according to their birth sex, they might've lost.

@2fallsfromSSA I really don't think it's a good idea to have a statement on your website that you're in favour of repealing the GRA. While it may play well with certain sections of your audience, for ordinary parents who aren't up on all the arguments surrounding this area it will turn off some of them as they'll see it as you wanting to remove people's rights, and will definitely give schools that are Stonewalled up to the eyeballs an excuse to ignore your resources.

Just because SSA say they’re a safeguarding organisation doesn’t mean that they actually are. Their website does not reveal who they are and consequently I don’t trust them. What are their credentials? They say they’re experts in safeguarding and yet how would anyone know? They certainly don’t act like experts in safeguarding. They’re notorious for not answering emails. If they do eventually answer, they just send links to concerned parents. This isn’t safeguarding, it’s sloppy. They call people out in public- that is, by definition, anti safeguarding. Safeguarding is a real thing, it’s not just a word to throw around X and Mumsnet. It seems fairly obvious to me that SSA are a group of amateurs who think they know more than they do.

God this thread is confusing.

GC beliefs for me are based in sex meaning biological sex and that maintaining the primacy of sex over gender identity is vital for women’s safety, dignity and fairness.

Maintaining (a) the primacy of sex over gender identity and (b) sex being biological sex, is the bedrock of safeguarding girls and women. These things are utterly interlinked.

To address some of the points raised in the last few posts:

We are not a helpline and whilst we help as many people as we possibly can, we cannot respond individually to every email we receive. We are a small team of volunteers and our mission is to empower parents to tackle their schools and advocate for safeguarding to be prioritized by the government. We have produced resources and guidance to help support parents but sadly cannot help everyone individually, it is not our remit and we do not have the time or funds to do so. Our auto response does explain this and we do try to get to as many emails as we can. I may have said on this thread but we are unfunded and we do everything we do in our own time, juggling around jobs and families. We feel our whole website explains who we are and the content demonstrates the breadth of knowledge and expertise about safeguarding we hold within the group.

I can understand why people feel this thread and our statement is confusing. We simply wanted to state our position as a safeguarding organisation. I agree with your definition of GC @greenatthetop but there is sometimes conflict around the issue of "rights" and we wanted to clarify where we stand on that. We are not a "gender-critical" organisation. We are a safeguarding one and we support those principles. However, when conflicts arise we will take a safeguarding-sfirst approach.

On the topic of the GRA @dunBle thank you for your comment, it has always been our position that the GRA undermines safeguarding. Tanya's interview linked further up the thread and in our statement outlines our position on this but we probably need to spell out on what basis the GRA undermines safeguarding and we will do so.

we probably need to spell out on what basis the GRA undermines safeguarding and we will do so.

This would be really helpful.

When I take information in to the school, I'm very conscious that it mustn't come across as politically motivated or from a lobbying position.

I also agree with dunBle that it risks creating a barrier.
Until public awareness of autogynophilia grows to a significant enough level, there will be a strong enough support from the public for the GRA and its use for the "dignity" etc of a "tiny, marginalised minority". Any challenge to it risks coming across as a step too far, potentially putting the rest of the messaging in to the "hate group" bucket.

Unfortunately Bonfire Lady my school already includes SSA in the same 'hate group's
category as Transgender Trend, Bayswater Support Group, Sex Matters, WPUK etc. it doesn't matter how moderate/squeaky clean or otherwise you are, the hate group label is applied.

Having said that, I really admire SSA and think their approach and ability to respond to feedback is fantastic, especially as they are just a small group of volunteers.