I'm so sorry but I just don't dare 😞

[ZeldaFighter]

I've seen wording from my child's school that panders to GI terminology, is potentially unclear and contributes to the slow drip-drip of erasure of women and girls.

I started to write a respectful reply pointing this out but I deleted it.

I need the school to support my child now and in the future. I dare not risk my child's well-being and levels of support by being labelled an evil Terf by young "progressive" teachers. I also can't risk being revealed as a Terf because it could impact my job and future career.

I hate having to stay silent, I feel like part of the problem but I don't want to risk the consequences for my family.

I'm sorry.

It's great that there have been women trailblazing this. Thank you for being one of them.

The difficulty is that trying to do so in a school carries real risks that a parent who does so will be managed as a safeguarding risk to their child. The consequences of this within the family could be catastrophic, including getting to a point where the child is supported to ignore their parents' concerns and start an affirmation journey towards irrerversible medical intervention. Taking it slowly and carefully won't fully mitigate this risk but it does bring people along so that if you finally do get reported to Social Services etc, you've got people at the school who are in your corner.

I started from the principle that I knew I would always hit an activist blocker at some point, whether in the school itself or up the chain in the Local Authority or higher. I also knew it would probably/possibly be a shit storm when it happened. Additionally, I knew that most people making the rules aren't activists and are open to reasoned arguments. Choosing how and when to engage isn't just a question of courage. It's about having a clear aim - in my case, keeping my daughter safe at school - and working out the best way to achieve it. This will include knowing when it's best not to say something and wait for a better opportunity.

This.

A lesson I learnt many years online was that people hate to challenge the dominant culture. But that culture often has less consensus and support than you think.

A single, very very reasonable voice, will often gain traction. At first it's private messages supporting you. Then people see attacks made unfairly. Eventually someone else goes 'hang on a second, yeah she's got a point'. And the culture starts to crack because it's clear it has no consensus.

The key to achieving this is to start with focus points which are very difficult to argue with.

You do things like say 'im concerned about why your official policy document refers to gender rather than sex. This is not a legal term under the equality act. The legal terms are gender reassignment and sex. I am concerned because this improper language leaves the organisation vulnerable to legal challenge because you can't be doing risk assessment and equality impact assessments correctly if you only refer to gender. Can you explain why you have made the decision not to follow the law?'

If they then follow up with something about Stonewall training, they open up the conversation to them still being held responsible and having due diligence and the numerous ways Stonewall Law is problematic.

It's about gradually pushing whilst appearing as reasonable as you possibly can in the process. You push on their duties and liabilities rather than being emotive. They can't dodge their duties and liabilities.

Basically use beaucratic and policy documents that conflict with the ideology to hoist them by their own petard

This is good advice. I saw similar on MN once about consultations. It's OK not to do them all just like it's OK to go safety first here OP

This ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️

Op I’ve asked 3 times now can you please clarify what language is being used

You don't have to sound knowledgeable to express your confusion.