Advice please - TIM teacher just arrived at DD’s school

[KnottyAuty]

DD reports that the new teacher has asked to be referred to as she/her and Ms Smith. They are obviously male. DD isn’t happy about the power imbalance of potential behaviour points and detentions for non compliance.

I’ve got no idea how to advice DD how to handle this but obviously know from reading here that using this language is a safeguarding problem. Ms Smith should follow the same rules as all the other male teachers. If everyone must use this language, then it looks like the school is unable to tolerate GC beliefs.

Suggesting that DD respectfully avoids pronouns doesn’t seem workable as using the teacher’s name will include “Miss”….

Is there a gender neutral way of referring to a teacher like “Professor”?!

What do I advise DD so she can work within her GC beliefs? And what should I write to the school to say about this?

eta clarification

Thats an irrelevant question neither of us can answer. What we can answer is if, at any point, do males who transition and then identify as trans females, become at increasd risk of sexual offences. The research we have says it is when they transition after imprisonment.

If being trans is innate then they have always been trans. To be at increased risk risk they have to fall into a population group that commits crime at a higher rate - as men who identify as trans do. Five times the rate of other men.

Get your daughter to make up a false accusations. Will be gone years

What do you mean by ‘transition’?

No, the ones I have seen have all been women. Typically teachers in relationships with students. Usually male. One or two female students. One was a stepmother who was sexually abusing her 15 year old stepson.

Transition usually refers in this context to a person who starts to identify as a gender other than what they were assigned at birth in accordance with their perceived anatomy.

How do you know?

What research?

So they don’t have to actually do anything at all?

"Firstly, the title is misleading — this is based on prison data, not crime data, with all of the accompanying problems discussed already. We’ve already seen that incarceration rates for marginalised groups can be ten times higher than the baseline.
Conversely, criminologists find that cis women are treated more leniently than men. It is estimated that there may be as many at 64,000 woman paedophiles in the UK, with reports rising recently to around 600 cases per year, yet only 103 woman sex offenders in total are in prison at the time of this dataset. Studies in the US show that 21% of child sexual abuse is committed by females, despite them only being 1% of the sexual offenders in prison. Surveys indicate prevalence rates of female sexual offenders six times higher than official data. As we saw previously, the UK justice system simply ignored some kinds of sex crime by women until recently.
There is a critical distinction between offending and conviction — the graphic claims that 395 men per million commit sexual offences of any kind, yet surveys find the number of college men who admit to rape is staggeringly high — in the region of 40,000 to 160,000 per million. And that number doesn’t even include any other, less serious sexual offences. Over a million people are victims of sexual assaults per year in the UK. The graphic is wrong by a factor of at least 100x in this regard.
The graphic also maliciously misgenders trans women by calling them “men who identify as women”.
Despite being dated 2023, it uses the figure for sexual crimes of males (11,660) for June 2021 from the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/5bIVF/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1006269/Population_30June2021_quarterly.ods" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">government data. But the figure used for women (103) does not match the government data for females, which says 119.
It does not cite any source for the number of trans women sex offenders, or any breakdown of the types of sex offence. The most likely source I have found appears to be a Parliamentary answer in January 2022.
The graphic also visualises rates (of groups with wildly different sizes) using icons (normally used to display a tally of actual individuals) which is highly deceptive: it portrays 92 trans individuals as if there were 1916 of them, but 103 cis individuals as if there were just 3 of them. “Lying with visualisation” is another form of “lying with statistics” even when the numbers themselves are (somewhat) true.
To exaggerate the apparent crime rate, it also uses the smallest possible population estimate for trans women, only including those with a specified binary (man/woman) trans identity. Many binary trans people opted not to provide this information (and almost 3 million people did not answer the gender identity question at all). From the census numbers it therefore appears possible that there could be up to twice as many trans women than the number used in the infographic — which would correspondingly decrease the incarceration rate.

Gender identity data, 2021 Census, England and Wales
The breakdown by age also suggests a larger population of trans people as younger generations, free of Section 28, feel more able to come out — which could also affect the apparent incarceration rate, especially since violent crimes are strongly skewed towards young people:
Press enter or click to view image in full size

Percentage of population with a trans identity, by age, 2021 Census, England and Wales
It also uses numbers excluding children under 16 for trans people, but total population numbers for everyone else, further distorting the proportions since about 17% of the population are under 16, and young children would be under the age of criminal responsibility. Thanks to ShantiPixie for pointing this out.
So, the data have multiple likely biases, several of which change the result by a large factor in the ballpark of 4x, 6x, 10x, meaning the graphic could be misleading by a factor of 20x, 30x, 40x or even more.
Even setting that aside, what do these numbers mean in a practical & political context? Firstly, you are more likely to encounter a cis woman sex offender than a trans woman one — even using the heavily biased figures above. Secondly, 99.9% of trans women are innocent; none of this statistical scaremongering remotely justifies any restrictions on rights."

https://medium.com/@davidallsopp/bang-to-rights-d5eab85d9a2

What is transition ?

Is it clothes ?
Is it makeup ?
Is it a hairstyle ?
As all of those go away in the shower

Is it hormones ?
Is it surgery ?
Neither of which are required to get a GRC

If someone says they are trans they are trans though. That’s the only qualification.

So yes we do have a large number of ‘trans people’ convicted of sex crimes compared to their total population.

For roles where male people are in contact with female people in vulnerable positions, male people are DBS checked.

For access to publicly accessed and unmonitored single sex provisions, there is no way to DBS check male people. Hence the blanket ban based on male risk profile of committing sex and violent crime and based on privacy and dignity.

Or the truth could be that some men do exploit transgenderism for their own gain, and these men are typically prisoners convicted of violent offences. They are not genuinely trans.

"Billy is not a real transsexual. There are three major centers for transsexual surgery... I wouldn't be surprised if Billy had applied for sex reassignment at one or all of them and been rejected... Billy hates his own identity you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual."

But then that leaves told for people who are genuinely trans and for them, it may indeed be innate. I don't have those answers.

https://medium.com/@davidallsopp/bang-to-rights-d5eab85d9a2

What has section 28 got to do with trans?

How can you tell if a man is a genuine TIM? Is there a code? Some special mark? Do share.

All people are DBS checked when in contact with vulnerable people.

I guess we either mean something different by chef, or we know different schools.

Do you really not understand the Ramadan food analogy?

Your point was, roughly, that compelling Ms isn’t a problem because it doesn’t harm anyone, even if the person being compelled disagrees.

That’s not usually the line we take to compelling others to do things they see as harmful even if we don’t.

Compelling eating against someone’s beliefs crosses a line, in my view. Compelling speech against someone’s belief does so too, in my view.

Neither depends on whether I (or you) see harm in it. They are the ones being compelled: theirs is the belief that matters.

The definition of "gender reassignment" in the context of the Equality Act 2010 is disconcertingly vague: intention seems to be sufficient. That said, to establish that discrimination has taken place, direct or indirect, requires a bit more vigor, and the concept of a 'comparator', which I would not claim to understand fully.

My position remains: children should not be compelled to say what they know to be false. This includes the use of, e.g., Miss, Ms or Mrs for a man.

Saying a prefix to a name because the school compels them to say either miss or sir isn't the same as forcing someone to eat against their religion. Or making them fast if they're not Muslim.

A chef is someone who works in a professional kitchen like a restaurant, as part of a brigade, usually with training and experience. Like commis chef, sous chef, chef de partie etc.

Not someone who works in mass catering at a school. A few of my family work in private schools and even they don't have a chef.

The research provided by users here to support the fact that trans women are generally at increased risk of sexual offending.

So you are saying some men may exploit trans to be able to access women and there is no way to tell who these men are?

If you are going to quote you should link to where the quote is from or it is meaningless.

No man is DBS checked when he invades single sex spaces where there are vulnerable women.

Which research is that?