Dear gender critical people, I understand you are concerned about the safety of women and girls, but please stop misusing the term "safeguarding".

"Safeguarding" does not mean protection of women and girls. It means protection of children and vulnerable adults OF BOTH SEXES.
The Govt provides detailed policy guidance on safeguarding for children and vulnerable adults. Please read it. Training is also available.
Children: gov.uk/topic/schools-…
Vulnerable adults: gov.uk/government/pub…
Safeguarding policies ONLY apply to children and vulnerable adults. They do not apply to adult women unless they are classed as vulnerable adults.
Safeguarding also means protection from all abusers, not just "predatory males". The Govt's statutory safeguarding literature for teachers says that sexual abusers are not necessarily adult males. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
I work at a girls' school. Like pretty much all girls' schools now, it admits boys in the sixth form. There are safeguarding issues for both girls and boys. Some issues, such as FGM, are specific to girls. Others, such as sexual abuse, apply to both sexes.
It would be wholly wrong to regard "safeguarding" as applying only to girls, ignoring the needs of boys at the school.
And since girls' schools not only admit boys in the sixth form but have male teachers, I find it hard to see why trans girls should not be admitted to girls' schools. The threat they pose to other girls is surely less than that of male teachers and sixth form boys.
The excerpt from the Govt's safeguarding literature for teachers that I quoted above identifies sexual abuse BY children as a specific safeguarding issue that all staff should be aware of and know the school's policies for dealing with it.
The requirement for all staff to know about peer abuse and the school's policies for dealing with it applies to all schools, not just mixed sex schools.

I can only think that those howling for trans girls to be excluded from girls' schools bcs of "safeguarding" don't know this.
It's also not clear to me why safeguarding should be a reason to exclude trans girls from girls' schools, when safeguarding can't be used as an excuse for blanket exclusion of boys and trans girls from mixed-sex schools. Double standards, much?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Fractured Cassandra

Fractured Cassandra Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Frances_Coppola

1 Jan
So I have now read Kathleen Stock's book "Material Girls". It is thoughtful, but deeply flawed.
The best part of the book is the philosophical analysis in the first two chapters. After that it sadly degenerates into polemic.
It is also unfortunately littered with ad hominem attacks against certain academics with whom Stock disagrees, and there are instances of outright hypocrisy - for example she castigates trans activists for misrepresenting statistics, then misrepresents statistics herself.
Read 8 tweets
31 Dec 21
Perhaps we should stop reporting "highest FEMALE winner", as if it is somehow remarkable that women manage to win anything.
Jeopardy is a general knowledge quiz show which women are every bit as capable of winning as men. The implication that it is somehow surprising that women can win it is misogynist. And so is the claim that a trans woman winning it is unfair to cis women.
Women's brains are not weaker than men's. Nor are they less capable of learning and recalling general knowledge. There is therefore no need to prevent trans women from competing as women.
Read 5 tweets
31 Dec 21
Mulling over this post on technological obsolescence. The well is a good example, obviously, but so are the brickfields that once surrounded where I live.
Old maps show how, in the second half of the 19th century, the brickfields expanded from their original location close to the banks of the Medway to cover much of the area where I now live.
Census records show that male employment in the Kent brickfields rose from 3,335 in 1891 to 5,119 in 1901, an increase of 54% in just 10 years. Working on brickworks was often a family affair, including children, so total employment was higher.
Read 12 tweets
29 Dec 21
Preventing trans women from entering women-only spaces cannot possibly protect women from domestic violence.

This may seem obvious, but in an interview today a prominent "gender critic" cited domestic violence as a reason to exclude trans women from women-only spaces.
I am now adding "domestic violence" to the list of spurious excuses for violating the protected rights of trans women. Along with "paedophilia", "heteronormativity" and "biology".
In the same interview the gender critic insisted that she would not use trans women's preferred pronouns, because to her they are "men". But pronouns are a linguistic convention which has nothing whatsoever to do with biological sex.
Read 5 tweets
21 Dec 21
The tangled web of sex and gender. Q&A with @shaunjlawson coppolacomment.com/2021/12/the-ta…
(pic does not link) Image
@shaunjlawson This is my first atttempt at extended writing since I broke my wrist at the end of November. It took me quite a while to write, as my wrist is still in plaster. So it pre-dates the Women and Equalities Committee's report published yesterday and linked at the end of the post.
The piece is free to read and everyone is welcome to comment. Comments are moderated, please take a look at the comments policy. I will not debate this subject on twitter.
Read 4 tweets
14 Dec 21
It is fine for Rod Liddle to write a column in a newspaper read by adults. It is not fine to invite Rod Liddle to speak to children in a school, any more than it is fine to show an 18-rated movie to children in a school. I would have thought this distinction was obvious.
There is a second issue too, which is the fact that children in school have no power to decide whether or not they wish to listen to a speaker invited by the head. They are forced to attend, unlike university students who are free to walk out.
For both these reasons, therefore, I think it would be highly irresponsible of a head teacher to invite Rod Liddle - a man who has publicly expressed not only racist views, but also paedophilic inclinations - to speak to children.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(