Basildon Council Renames Seven Dwarfs - 'Psycho', 'Bitchy', 'Itchy', 'Bloated', 'Sweaty', 'Forgetful' and 'Sleepy' - During DEI Training Sessions on Menopause
- 7 days ago
- 8 min read
An Essex Council has come under fire having replaced the traditional names of the Seven Dwarfs, like Happy and Bashful, with names such as 'Psycho', 'Bitchy', 'Itchy', 'Bloated', 'Sweaty', 'Forgetful' and 'Sleepy' during their DEI training sessions focused on female biology and menopause.
Presenting female biology in this way is deeply misogynistic and risks turning education and awareness into mockery and derision. Additionally, Counsellor Sam Journet highlighted on Facebook that this offensive training cost £10,000 from taxpayer funds, meaning it was financed by the public.
Reports that Basildon Council employed a “Seven Dwarfs” themed teaching tool under the guise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have drawn criticism for a straightforward reason. DEI aims to make public services more respectful, accurate, and accessible. A resource that associates female biology with insults, instability, or mockery seems to achieve the opposite.
The controversy raises a bigger question for councils, schools and training providers across the UK. How should sensitive subjects be taught in a way that is clear, age-appropriate and inclusive, without slipping into stereotypes dressed up as humour?
Why the Seven Dwarfs framing caused such concern
The reported approach appears to borrow from an old joke format in which the “Seven Dwarfs” are renamed to describe moods or symptoms. When names such as “Bitchy” and “Psycho” are used in relation to female biology, especially in a public sector setting in which standards should be optimal at all times, the problem is not hard to see.
These words carry a long history. They have been used to dismiss women’s pain, mood changes, anger and distress as irrational or unserious. In health settings, many women have reported feeling ignored when symptoms are framed as overreaction.
In workplaces, references to periods, hormones or menopause have often been used to question competence. In schools, girls can face embarrassment and teasing around puberty.
Against that background, a council-backed learning resource that uses slurs or mocking labels does not land as harmless fun. It lands as a reminder of the very attitudes DEI work is supposed to challenge.
The criticism is not that female biology should be sanitised. Pupils, staff and the public need better information about puberty, menstruation, fertility, pregnancy, menopause, hormones and health. The issue is the language used to teach it.
A good lesson should help people understand:
What biological processes involve
Which symptoms can be common
When medical advice may be needed
How to talk about bodies without shame
Why stereotypes can harm real people
A “Bitchy” or “Psycho” label does none of that well. It may get attention, but attention is not the same as learning.
The educational problem is bigger than bad taste
There is a clear difference between using humour to reduce embarrassment and using humour that makes the subject less accurate. Sensitive education can benefit from warmth. A teacher might use cartoons, plain language or relatable examples to help people feel at ease. But the humour must support the learning goal.
In this case, the main risk is that the comic device becomes the lesson. Instead of learning about biological processes, learners may remember a crude set of labels. That weakens educational standards in several ways.
It replaces precision with stereotype.
Terms such as mood changes, cramps, fatigue, hot flushes or anxiety are more accurate than mocking names. They describe experiences without judging the person having them.
It blurs science and stigma.
Female biology is not a punchline. Puberty, menstruation and menopause are normal parts of life for many people. Some people experience mild symptoms, while others experience serious pain or disruption. Teaching should leave room for that range.
It may discourage questions.
If a learner feels that the room is laughing at female biology, they may be less likely to ask for clarification. This matters in any setting, but especially in education linked to health, safeguarding or wellbeing.
It can mislead boys and men.
A good lesson should help everyone understand bodies and health more respectfully. If the teaching frame suggests that hormones make women “psycho”, it reinforces the very myths that contribute to teasing, workplace bias and domestic misunderstanding.
Educational standards are not just about covering the topic. They are also about how well the material helps learners understand it. A memorable insult is still an insult.
Why critics call the approach regressive
The word “regressive” is strong, but in this debate it has a specific meaning. The method appears to pull public education backwards into old assumptions about women and bodies.
For decades, campaigners in education, medicine and employment have challenged the idea that female biology makes people irrational, unreliable or difficult. That work matters because stereotypes shape behaviour. If a girl is taught that periods are embarrassing, she may hide pain. If a worker believes menopause is a joke, they may avoid asking for support. If a manager treats hormonal symptoms as a personality defect, discrimination can follow.
The “Seven Dwarfs” device risks reviving familiar caricatures:
The angry woman as “bitchy”
The distressed woman as “psycho”
The tired woman as lazy
The hormonal woman as unstable
The menstruating or menopausal body as comic material
That framing narrows a complex subject into a set of negative personality traits. It also turns symptoms into character flaws.
This is where the DEI claim becomes so contested. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programmes should remove barriers and improve understanding. They should not repackage sexist tropes in friendlier colours.
A DEI resource should ask whether its language includes or excludes. It should ask who may feel mocked, who may feel seen, and who may feel licensed to repeat harmful labels. If the answer is that women and girls may feel reduced to jokes, the resource has failed a basic test.
There is also a public trust issue. Councils operate in a politically sensitive environment. Many residents already question whether DEI training is practical, fair or well designed. A poor resource gives critics an easy example to point to, even when broader DEI work may be valuable.
That is damaging. Bad DEI does not only offend the people it misrepresents. It weakens support for better DEI.
What expert opinion suggests good practice should look like
No responsible educator would say that every lesson on biology must be solemn. The stronger expert view is more balanced: sensitive topics need clarity, respect and a clear learning purpose.
Science educators tend to favour accurate terms, careful sequencing and age-appropriate detail. A lesson on puberty should introduce correct body vocabulary and normalise questions. A session on menstruation should explain the menstrual cycle, common symptoms and when pain is not normal. A workplace session on menopause should cover possible symptoms, reasonable adjustments and respectful communication.
Equality specialists would add another test. Does the material challenge bias, or does it repeat bias? If a resource uses language that has long been used to demean women, it needs a very strong educational justification. Shock value is not enough.
Safeguarding and PSHE specialists would also focus on psychological safety. Learners should not feel singled out, shamed or exposed. The classroom, training room or community setting must be a place where people can listen without fear of ridicule.
A useful expert standard is simple: sensitive teaching should make the subject clearer, safer and more respectful for the people most affected by it.
By that standard, labels like “Bitchy” and “Psycho” are hard to defend. They may be memorable, but they are not neutral. They carry judgement. They also invite repetition outside the lesson, where the context is lost and the harm becomes more likely.
For councils, this should prompt a practical review process. Any learning material on sex, biology, disability, race, religion, gender or sexuality should be checked by people with subject knowledge and by people likely to be affected by the content. That does not mean every resource must please everyone. It means obvious harms should be spotted before a lesson reaches the public.
Community reactions show a deeper loss of confidence
The reported Basildon case has drawn strong reactions because it sits at the intersection of several public anxieties: council decision-making, children’s education, gender politics and the meaning of DEI.
Some residents and parents are likely to see the material as plainly sexist. Their concern is not only offence. It is that public institutions should model better language than playground insults. They may ask why such a resource passed review, who approved it, and whether the people affected were consulted.
Others may see the controversy as proof that DEI has become confused or performative. For them, the lesson does not show inclusion. It shows a public body using the language of inclusion while failing to apply common sense.
There may also be people who defend the approach as a light-hearted way to discuss awkward subjects. That response should not be dismissed entirely. Many adults did grow up in environments where puberty and periods were never discussed openly. Humour can reduce tension. It can help people start a conversation.
The problem is that humour must punch through stigma, not punch towards the group being discussed. A joke that depends on calling women “psycho” does not reduce stigma. It makes the stigma easier to repeat.
Public bodies should take community criticism seriously without turning every objection into a culture war. A better response would include:
A clear explanation of how the material was chosen
A review of the language and learning aims
Consultation with qualified educators and equality specialists
A commitment to use accurate, respectful resources in future
An apology if the content fell short of expected standards
That kind of response would not weaken DEI. It would strengthen it.
Better ways to teach female biology and sensitive topics
The alternative to poor humour is not dry, joyless teaching. There are many ways to make sensitive education engaging without using sexist labels.
One option is scenario-based learning. Instead of cartoon insults, learners discuss realistic situations. For example, a pupil has severe period pain and is unsure whether to tell a teacher. A colleague is experiencing menopause symptoms and needs support at work. A parent wants to explain puberty to a child but feels embarrassed. These scenarios build empathy and practical understanding.
Another option is myth and fact teaching. This works well when stereotypes are common. A facilitator can present statements such as “period pain is always mild” or “menopause only causes hot flushes”, then guide learners through accurate information. The method is memorable because it challenges assumptions directly.
Visual aids can also help, as long as they are accurate and neutral. Diagrams of the reproductive system, hormone cycle charts, symptom trackers and plain-language glossaries can make biology less mysterious. They do not need to be graphic to be useful.
For younger learners, anonymised question boxes are often effective. They allow pupils to ask what they need to know without public embarrassment. For adults, small-group discussion can work, provided the facilitator sets ground rules on respect.
Some of the strongest teaching uses inclusive, direct language:
“Some people experience mood changes before a period.”
“Severe pain should not be dismissed as normal.”
“Menopause can affect sleep, concentration and temperature regulation.”
“Different people experience these changes in different ways.”
“Respectful language matters because shame stops people seeking help.”
This language does not hide biology. It teaches it more clearly.
The lesson for councils is about judgement
The phrase Basildon Councils Seven Dwarfs Lesson Why DEI Education Draws Criticism captures more than one local dispute. It points to a wider problem in public education. Good intentions do not protect bad materials from criticism. If a resource is sexist in effect, it cannot be rescued by calling it inclusive.
Councils and schools should be able to teach female biology confidently. They should reject both prudish silence and crude stereotyping. The standard should be higher than “people will remember it”. People also remember being mocked.
A better DEI approach would start with three questions:
Does this material improve understanding?
Does it treat the people affected with dignity?
Would we be comfortable if learners repeated these words outside the session?
If the answer to the third question is no, the resource probably should not be used.
The real aim should be education that is accurate enough for science, sensitive enough for wellbeing, and respectful enough for public trust. That is not political correctness. It is basic competence.
Comments