My work insisting I refer to a 9 year old as they/them

[TheMadGardener]

I work in a British primary school. Just started new term. Long standing pupil, a girl, is starting Year 5 now so she is 9 years old. No issues until now although parents are quite "alternative/new age."

Headteacher has informed staff that according to the child and her parents this girl has decided to be non-binary. Staff are now to refer to her as they/them and she is now using a gender-neutral shortened version of her name (think Alex instead of Alexandra or Jo instead of Joanna).

I am extremely uncomfortable with this and will definitely not be using they/them - I will be referring to the child by her chosen abbreviation to avoid using pronouns (at least it's a shortening of her real name rather than a made-up name).

Serious question: I thought new legislation discouraged schools from getting on board with this sort of thing? Or is it only they can't let children do it without parents knowing?

I'm finding it very hard to keep my mouth shut on my actual opinions in the presence of headteacher. (Colleagues I've spoken to on the quiet all think it is bullshit too)

Indeed

The use of they/them really confuses me.

Would a teacher be expected to call a child they/them, instead of their name or when discussing with others. For example, in class 3 children are being chatty and not listening. Would a teacher say “Julie, Lexie,They, be quiet and settle down” Obviously if letting another Teacher know that the 3 children were quite disruptive in class, would they say “Julie, Lexie and They” are playing up?

This non-binary nonsense is mind boggling

btw, I’m not a teacher.

That is interesting, thank you, I didn't know that.

I completely accept 'they' as singular when the subject is unknown
'There's somebody at the door/What do they want?
but not when the subject is identified
'It's the man from No 12, he wants to borrow the hedge-trimmer/Tell him that's grand ..'

It wasn’t illegal for women to be actors in Shakespeare’s time. It was just culturally unacceptable, except for some private performances..

Almost synonymous with prostitution.

It’s not that easy and as a teacher you’re horribly cognitively overloaded and it’s another layer of stress to deal with. And the kids sometimes give you a hard time if you screw up.

No, you would still use the name of the child. So it would be, 'Julie, Lexie, Quinn, be quiet' and then 'Julie and Lexie have finished their work but Quinn hasn't finished theirs, but Lexie and Quinn are both eating their lunch now' so not confusing at all 😂

'anyone who leaves their sword will regret it'

looks correct to me - anyone is shorthand for any one of many - so there is an inherent acknowledgement that anyone is an unknown individual and from many - implies a likelihood of either sex, but sex not known, so their is correct.

A lot of it comes down to people lacking real problems to worry about so they start inventing some.

Yes, that's the point; Austen used it when it was correct, but wouldn't have used it when it wasn't in e.g. the Emma example this poster gives.

I was just thinking same. Whilst swimming about in a nice Mediterranean pool. Very aware of my privilege. My husband is reading a book about about the west’s propensity for diagnoses and prescriptions. I wish he’d hurry up because I need to read it.

Maybe because women were not allowed on stage…….

Allowed but vilified. Like Meghan !

Errr… no. No women in Tudor times were allowed on stage. All roles were played by men.

Technically, it's not correct, because 'anyone' is singular so that should really be 'his sword' or (if in this made-up example we have both women and men who need swords), 'his or her sword'. But that's a fairly common solecism with a long history.

But my point was that's the only way in which 'they' is used instead of a singular pronoun, historically. So when people argue that it's absolutely normal and not weird or new to use the plural 'they' for a single person, especially one whose sex is known and obvious, they are wrong.

As for just giving in to what a 9 year old wants because they 'will stick their feet in the ground and stubbornly hold their stance' - do you apply that to everything a 9 year old wants, or just claiming to be NB?

With this, I would just go with it.
Ever heard the phrase "pick your battles"?

If you make a big deal out of it, then it will be a big deal.

You don’t have to give in to make it ‘not a big deal’.

A firm no, move on, make it clear it’s getting zero oxygen. Whatever pronouns the parents want to use outside of school is up to them, but the school doesn’t have to accommodate it.

What makes it a "big deal" is what happens when another child doesn't give in and continues calling Quinn the non-binary child "she/her". As soon as a teacher "corrects" the child it's a big deal.

Which is why I want to know what the school said about children who don't "they/them" this child. Because that's where the rubber hits the road.

No, it just replaced he/she when referring to them.

It's pretty easy. You use it as though you didn't know their gender.

Lots of nb people don't use they/them for fear of retribution and violence, which is sad.

Christ though the number of posts on this thread about one poor kid. The hatred of trans/nb children, and desire for vengeance against them, never ceases to dismay.

I'm sorry, 'vengeance'?
You're going to have to show your working on that one.

What hatred?
Disagreement is not hatred.

But you do know their sex. Seems to me a pretty weird way of going on, deliberately feigning ignorance and entrenching it with a confusing and ungrammatical use of language.

Literally nobody 'hates' this or any other child.

How many posts have you made in this thread, that are about 'this one kid'? If your answer is that your posts are not about 'this one kid' but about the broader issues, then.... maybe have a go at extending that logic.

The hyperbolic responses and clear desire to shut women up and stop them talking never ceases to dismay