Teacher Leave Them Kids Alone!
This was in response to “disturbing
reports that inappropriate material is being taught in some schools” and a
review is needed “to make sure all children are protected from inappropriate
content in all cases, even if many schools already teach RSHE and engage
parents in a positive way.”
Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan said at the time:
"I am deeply concerned about reports of inappropriate lessons being taught in schools. This urgent review will get to the heart of how RSHE is currently taught and should be taught in the future. This will leave no room for any disturbing content, restore parents’ confidence, and make sure children are even better protected.
The letter makes clear that parents should be able to view all curriculum materials, and that parents can ask to see material if it has not already been shared, especially in relation to sensitive topics. The review will also consider how to make sure all RSHE teaching is factual and does not present contested views on sensitive topics as fact ...
The government is determined to make sure RSHE teaching leaves children equipped to make informed decisions about their health, wellbeing and relationships, in a sensitive way that reflects their stage of development."
On the 19th July, Gillian Keegan informed ITV's Robert Peston the guidance would take longer than expected to be published, but did not give a deadline.
One of the most controversial
matters the guidance is expected to address is what schools should do if a
child wanted to change their name, use different pronouns or change their
appearance, hairstyle or clothes - what is known as "socially
transitioning" - and whether to involve parents in the decision.
The
Education Secretary said guidance will state that children should not change
gender ID without schools having a conversation with parents. “Yes, we
think parental consent is really very important in this,” she
said.
In 2022, a report commissioned by NHS England, found that "socially transitioning" was not a neutral act and may have significant psychological effects, and better information is needed about its outcomes.
There has been an increase in the number of children referred to the under-18s Gender Identity and Development Service (Gids) in England and Wales, especially among patients registered female at birth. There were more than 5,000 referrals in 2021-2022, compared with 250 referrals in 2011-12. In some cases, young patients have been prescribed puberty blockers with little being known about their long term side effects. It called the current service "unsustainable" and that many children referred to Gids have complex needs. It said these can sometimes be overlooked once they are diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" and called for a "fundamentally different" model of care for children.
Following the review, the NHS decided puberty blockers should only be given to children and adolescents as part of clinical research and announced the closures of London's Tavistock Clinic, and their replacement by regional clinics working alongside children's hospitals.
Last year, an NHS report proposed socially transitioning should be considered in certain circumstances only, such as to alleviate or prevent "clinically significant distress."
All fair and reasonable one might think - base responses on medical research; be cautious about letting children "socially transition"; and consult parents.
One might think - unless .....
The Sun ran the headline: Schools will be banned from letting kids change their gender if their parents say no ... Apparently informed by a source inside government, it reported schools will not be able to use the child’s new preferred pronouns until parents give consent. Teachers will be ordered not to recognise a transition within the school gates if the parents do not agree with it. And neither students nor teachers will have to call another pupil by their preferred pronouns if they do not want to. Even if parents do give the move the green light, heads must also consider the mental effects on other children before approving the gender change, following a long period of consideration.
The Guardian announced: "Teachers will be forced to tell parents that their child is questioning their gender even if the young person objects under new guidance for schools in England, the equalities minister has indicated."
It reported that in an interview with the BBC’s Sunday ‘With Laura Kuenssberg’ show, Badenoch said: “We are producing guidance for schools to know how to deal with children who are experiencing gender distress.
Kemi Badenoch said
that the guidance, which is expected to be published this week, will ensure
that parents know what is“going on with their children” at school.
The guidance is to advise teachers that any pupil who wants to self-identify as a different gender should first undergo a period of reflection, "according to reports."
When told it might
be possible that trans students feel teachers are
“outing” them to their parents against their wishes, Badenoch replied: “The
fact is that this is not a trivial thing; this is very different from sexual
orientation and what is right is that parents know what is going on with their
children at school.”
Over at Pink News it's the beginning of the end for children's safety! The article there quotes extensively from an anonymous teacher (convenient) who alleges an anonymous pupil greeted her with distress following these Robert Peston and Kuenssberg interviews and a "leaked report" provided to The Times by a government source.
“My mum can’t know I am trans,” Sam (the pupil) cried, begging Jo (the teacher) to email their head of year and say the name they use at school is “just a nickname.”
They continued: “There are so many vulnerable children in education who need so much support, so much help, and this just isn’t something that is frankly needed in the education system, at all ... As a teacher, my number one priority is safeguarding and I can’t really understand how this has anything to do with safeguarding students. It seems to just be safeguarding Tory interests.”
“I can only see it increasing transphobia, increasing the fear around being part of the LGBTQ+ community and making students not feel safe in school. How can students who don’t feel safe at home, whose only safe place is education, how can they see education as a safe place when they have this worry hanging over them?
That’s the thing with guidance, It’s only a guide. It doesn’t tell you where the boundaries are. I can only see this getting worse. If this policy goes into effect, I can’t see it as being a one off incident. It is like one foot through the door. Homophobia and other things will actually rise as a consequence.”
As an LGBTQ+ person themselves, Jo noted how the guidance feels reminiscent of Section 28 and the constraints that legislation placed on both teachers and pupils. “It breaks my heart”, Jo told PinkNews, explaining that Sam and other students spent the weekend “stressed” and having “sleepless nights” over the potential new policy and how it would impact them. “I genuinely have no idea what’s possible net benefit this will have. I can’t see any benefit at all. It’s just going to cause alienation and isolation of the students.”
LGBTQ+ groups quickly slammed the proposed policies, highlighting the danger they could pose to young people. Lukasz Konieczka, executive director of the Mosaic LGBTQ+ Young Persons Trust, told PinkNews there are many reasons a child may not come out to their family. “Family rejection is a huge risk, leading to the young person entering already stretched care system and, in the worst case scenario, so-called honour-based violence. Such badly thought out guidelines will confuse schools and put young people at risk,”
Stonewall echoed these sentiments: “LGBTQ+ children and young people deserve the same opportunity to thrive as any other child, and it is key that schools are respectful and supportive. We understand that the government seeks to create guidance for schools to have ‘across-the-board’ solutions, but this must not be fuelled by yet another cynical attempt to stoke a politically motivated ‘culture war’, at the expense of trans people’s safety and dignity.”
During his near 40 years in local government and health services, Happy Jack had occasion to “draw breath” numerous times. None more so than the sorry tale he is about to recount.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, HJ had acquired a MSc in Psychology accredited by the British Psychological Society. Yes, one can be a psychologist and a Christian! This proved valuable many times, not least in this woeful case.
So, one day, “Thomas”, a 24-year-old man with learning disabilities, was presented to Happy Jack in his role as senior manager, with an authority-wide lead for safeguarding and mental health services. Thomas had requested “gender transition.” The local authority held a Welfare Guardianship Order, so it rested with the council to oversee his health and wellbeing. When Happy Jack met with Thomas’ social worker and senior social worker to discuss this they exuded excitement about going ahead and helping Thomas fulfil his expressed aspirations. HJ will not repeat the jargon used.
Suffice it to say their desire to be at the “cutting edge” (pun intended) of the first case of its kind in the local authority blinded them to the reality of what was going on.
To the chagrin of the social worker, HJ decided to meet with Thomas. HJ was accused of “not trusting their professional judgement” and exercising “top-down control” of decisions. “Yes,” HJ replied, ”that is so!” HJ played the trump-card of his accreditation as a psychologist by the BPS.
Anyway, long story short, over three meetings with Thomas, a charming, honest, and very straight forward young man, it came to light he had something of a crush on one of his male carers at his local Day Centre. He assumed he “must be a woman in a man’s body,” as a man cannot be attracted to another man! He had been exposed to transsexual ideology, thinking and language on a course run by this Day Centre and presented by an LGBTQ+ group.
It's scary that his social workers were so prepared to allow someone with learning disabilities to undergo a life changing procedure with what seems to have been zero investigation into it. How long ago was this?
DeleteIt was in 2011 - around the time trans ideology was starting to peak. To be clear, this was the first step in approving a referral to the specialist gender dysphoria clinic in Glasgow. In . HJ's view, this in itself would have been abusive for this man. Anyone with common sense would have worked out what was going on. HJ's point was how quickly 'professionals' become sucked into prevailing trends.
Delete2011? I had imagined that Jack had retired sometime around when dial up internet was introduced 😁
DeleteRather than being sucked into them, it seems to me that government departments and services are at the forefront of pushing these trends. I wonder what the clinic would have made of it; from what I've read, the expectation seems to be that the person's identity will be 'affirmed' and professionals are afraid to do anything else.
2011 - around the time you were entering secondary education?
DeleteHJ retired from his employment is early 2014. A mixture of exhaustion and a too good to refuse financial package.
A half-wit would have discerned this was not a case of "gender dysphoria" but confusion. Maybe/probably, this is the case in the majority of those who have undergone "transition" as the government reports cited in the head article indicate.
At least when I did my Master's, they weren't recommending treating people with leeches to rebalance their humours, and avoiding exposure to moonlight!
DeleteA half-wit would have discerned this was not a case of "gender dysphoria" but confusion.
So it seems 😁
Now that's below the belt ...
DeleteAre you looking to be banned for insulting the host of this blog? Cranmer would not have stood for such abuse!
😮 I was simply agreeing with you! Honestly, men - they're never happy!
DeleteRich coming from a woman 😂
Delete@ Prof G ... we must make allowances as Lain is has only just reached womanhood.
Delete🤣🤣
DeleteDon't laugh, it only encourages him 😤
DeleteGood for you, Jack. It's a good thing you were firm with the useless twerps.
ReplyDeleteHJ is certain approval wouldn't have been given by the specialists in this field. It saved the council enormous embarrassment as the root cause would have eventually come to light. It did however greatly embarrass the social workers and HJ did rub this in and insisted they undertook training in speaking with and listening to those with learning difficulties ... mea culpa!
DeleteTelling kids they were “assigned” a “gender” at birth must be doing them immense harm. You might as well tell them they were “assigned” a weight, height, and place and date of birth. Why are they afraid of telling kids the truth?
ReplyDeleteThe number of kids deciding that they're trans has rocketed in recent years, particularly among young girls. It's unsurprising when this kind of language normalises that fact that gender is simply a feeling which may or may not relate to the biology one is born with.
DeleteClickbait title aside, this video illustrates what they're teaching kids now. 'When Billy was born, everyone thought he was a boy. But Billy turned out to be a girl'.
https://youtu.be/wzoPZwa4dWo
I think this will only be sorted when the government and perhaps stonewall are subjected to a class action by adults mutilated as children, suing them for not taking sufficient care and caution.
ReplyDeleteMoney seems the only thing that matters today.
It's already started, and I can only see it gathering pace. And rightly so; ideological experiments on confused kids is reprehensible.
DeleteHow about this for a Nigerian perspecitve?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/5nGLfm4jB8A
He's not wrong ...
Delete⚠️* Warning*⚠️ - long post based on some work HJ did a while ago ....
ReplyDeleteThose who espouse “transgenderism” argue that a human person is assigned their gender at birth, based on their observed anatomy. Consequently, when a biological male identifies as female and then has related surgery, they speak of that medical practice as “gender confirmation” vs. “gender reassignment,” because they believe their anatomy now reflects their true identity as a human person.
Transgenderism claims that an individual’s identity as male or female – that is, his understanding of him/herself—can be in conflict with the biological sex that he was assigned/conceived with. A biological male, so it’s argued, can have a female gender identity, and vice versa.
Here is where the snake begins to devour its tail.
Consider a male who thinks his "gender identity" is female. He identifies with the female form because he thinks his gender identity is female. He may even seek to assimilate such a form via surgery and doctor-prescribed hormones. But already we’re running into problems. Our man denies the connection between biological sexual forms and gender identity. He thinks his biological maleness doesn’t indicate his gender identity. But at the same time, he’s seeking a connection between gender identity and biological sexual forms insofar as he identifies with and seeks to take on the female form to match his female gender identity.
There’s another way in which the transgender philosophy is logically incoherent: it ends up defining woman in terms of what it means to be a woman. To the question, “What is a woman?”, a transgenderist can give one answer: “a person whose gender identity is female.” The answer can’t be a biological female because transgender philosophy separates gender identity from biological sex. Nor can the answer be female social stereotypes since gender identity is supposedly innate, and thus, it’s supposed to precede such stereotypes. Therefore, female gender identity is the only game in town when it comes to defining what a woman is.
It’s a vicious circle! This view of woman defines the word in terms of woman, inserting what we’re trying to define into the definition. It’s a recursive nightmare.
Headache!
Another problem emerges: to what does female gender identity refer? If it refers not to biological sex, or to societally enforced norms, or to the inner sense of self (lest we end in a vicious circle), then female gender identity seems to refer to nothing. As Robert P. George puts it, “there seems to be no ‘something’ for [the inner sense of gender identity] to be the sense of.” If female gender identity refers to nothing, then it’s unintelligible.
The only way out here is to say there’s no difference whatsoever between a male and female gender identity. But that would exclude many people who are accepted as members of the “trans” community.
Thus there’s a contradiction: there’s no connection between biological sex and gender identity, and yet there is a connection, at the same time and in the same respect.
Double headache!!
This is why they scream people down for asking the question: they simply can't answer it without falling into circular arguments or contradictions. Gender is a construct that's fluid and unfixed, and at the same time it's fixed and one has to transition between genders.
DeleteThis is simply a result of the conflation of biological sex and societal expectations around gender roles. Gender roles are social constructs to some extent: what's expected of a man or a woman varies between cultures and time periods. But not subscribing to those gender roles - or feeling more attracted to roles that are traditionally associated with the opposite gender - doesn't make you that gender. And it certainly doesn't change your biological sex.
It used to be that idea like all girls like wearing pink and playing with dolls was seen as a stereotype, and it was ok for girls to break that stereotype and play with toy trucks. But now, if she does that - she must really be a boy! And if a boy likes pink, he's really a girl! We've gone full circle and made stereotypes into identities again. How progressive.
Yes the logical incoherence is shown in this piece of wisdom from the World Health Organisation:
DeleteGender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time ...
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs.
Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.
Just be who you are called to be without bodily mutilation of chemical intervention!
A question I always ask, how on earth does someone know that what they are feeling is what it feels to be a woman?
DeleteYou can't know, you can only guess. So children are being mutilated on the strength of a guess.
Because , according to the WHO, it is a "deeply felt, internal and individual experience." As it's 'individual, how can it be questioned?
DeleteAs it's individual, how can they say that they are a woman based on it?
DeleteMore WHO bullshit.
Being a woman is like being a man, but with significant upgrades ☺️
DeleteHow would you know this?
Delete@Lain, I think the ancient Greeks got it right.
Delete@ Jack - because I have a highly developed sense of empathy and a good imagination. I can see in men the basic building blocks of intelligent life and I can image what it must be like for them. I think it's probably a lot like that time I got concussion. ☺️
Delete@ Prof - hmm, in what sense?
@ Lain
DeleteDon't express opinions, have babies and do the housework for the men who have important business running the country.
Have babies for the men running the country? What kinda gal do you think I am?! 😳
Delete@Lain:
Delete"Aristotle went further, stating that women were deformed, incomplete males, designed to be subservient to men. As a result, women had their freedom restricted and were believed to have lived in separate areas to men."
And have you shared this new found love of classical Greek philosophy with Mrs. Clive?
DeleteI've had an interest in classical Greece for a long time! I will make no claim to having a lot of knowledge in it however, but have been aware of my little quote for a long time
DeleteNaturally being the man of the house (cough), Mrs Clive agrees (cough, cough) 😁😁😁
Oh, naturally! Of course man of the house, much like the King of England, is an honorary title...
DeleteSomething I saw just a few days ago (possibly right here at Crannóggy Island? Don't remember) that sums it up in a nutshell:
ReplyDeleteAnyone who doesn't know what sex they are is mentally ill. .
This is the most leftie woke ssd situation going. Really it's an indictment of both trans and euthanasia
ReplyDeletehttps://mol.im/a/12349523
Sad not ssd!
DeleteThat's so tragic, Lord have mercy.
DeleteI noticed on her medical notes: 'is aware she can contact me again for her ongoing journey for an assisted death'.
Future historians will look back on this period and despair. Presuming we make it to the future, of course, which doesn't seem entirely likely at this point.
Dying With Dignity, says procedures are 'driven by compassion, an end to suffering and discrimination and desire for personal autonomy.'
DeleteSays it all.
I have just this moment learnt a new word, “detransitioner”. Living in a non-English speaking country, I quite often find myself needing to catch up with new trends in language.
ReplyDeleteI found the word on the Unherd website, in an article by Suzanne Moore attacking a New Statesman article by Jacqueline Rose, who was in her turn attacking something Richard Dawkins had written. Of those three names, Richard Dawkins is the only one I have any familiarity with.
Suzanne Moore’s article is rather long and rambling, but there are good bits in it, such as this, in her twelfth paragraph: “… detransitioners who can never experience parenthood or sexual pleasure.”
https://unherd.com/2023/07/why-did-jacqueline-rose-erase-women/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=a080725c22&mc_eid=0a06594733
An interesting article from a Jewish perspective here,
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a liberal-reformed Jewish view, not a Orthodox position. HJ encountered this on another blog where a commentator (a lesbian in a 'marriage' to another woman) was promoting "queer theology".
DeleteHere's HJ's reply:
"The Talmud is not Holy Scripture, nor does it read Scripture through the lens of revelation of Jesus Christ. The Mishnah makes all sorts of imagined claims. The mystical texts of the Kabbalah are also dubious as sources of God’s revelation.
Now to the substance. Ask an Orthodox Rabbi – not a reformed or liberal one.
What the rabbis were in fact addressing were birth defects and other physical aberrations, to understand how the affected individuals should observe Jewish laws that differ for men and women.
The phenomena described in the Talmud are mischaracterised by those who promote modern notions of gender identity.
Transgender advocates latch on to one singular phrase, “Rabbi Yossi says, an androgynous is a Creation of its own” [Bikkurim 4:5], yet do not finish the sentence: “and the rabbis could not prove conclusively if he is man or woman.” In other words, this discussion of a minority opinion makes clear that the determination is an objective one, to be made by a neutral judge. The individual’s subjective self-perception is irrelevant; the only question is how he or she was created by God.
There no recognition of “gender identity” in Rabbinic literature, but aberrations that are neither desirable nor a human choice; rather, they are unfortunate physical defects which under Judaic law must be addressed. ‘Gender’, as conceived of in modern thought, was not even a concept in the Talmud separate from biological sex. It is not founded in Judaic tradition.
Judaism teaches that God created male and female so that they might partner with Him in creating a next generation. Bottom-line – surgical and pharmaceutical interventions do not render a woman able to produce sperm or a man able to conceive, gestate, and deliver a baby. Indeed the Torah itself very clearly forbids cross-dressing (Deut 22) and castration, understood to apply to men as well as animals (Lev 24:22),
Orthodox Judaism teaches that it’s far better for a person to come to embrace what Divine Wisdom has bestowed upon each and every one of us."
The reply he received in response: "I prefer liberal Judaism."
In the exchange between 雲水 and Prof G, our learned friend seems to be overly approving of the Greeks. It seems that at that time the Greeks were something of a byword among surrounding nations.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading The shadow of Pax Romana by Tom Holland, it appears that the Romans got on in ways that are quite shocking to us today. But they did have their limits: many years ago I learned that there existed a word congraecare to describe goings-on that even the Romans would not countenance in public.