Scottish Union for Education – Newsletter No37
Newsletter Themes: a parent’s advice about the RSHP consultation, professionals challenging transgender ideology, and a review of a paper on the ideology’s threat to liberal values.
It is worth noting that if Rishi Sunak was a schoolboy in Scotland, it is possible that he would have been thrown out of class, and thrown out of school, for stating that men are men and women are women. This, as we have noted, is exactly what happened to Murray Allan in Aberdeenshire. This may sound somewhat comical, but we do need to ask how it is possible that we have a situation where a biological fact, expressed by the prime minister of the UK, can be something that apparently goes against the very value system in our schools!
SUE has serious concerns about indoctrination replacing education in Scotland. The promotion of transgender ideology as fact, to even young children, despite the contested nature of this ideology, is one example of this indoctrination. As Rachel Hobbs explains at the end of this week’s Substack, a problem with this ideology is not simply the threat it poses to children, which is real and serious in and of itself, but that it is also a threat to liberal values and indeed to the ideas of tolerance and freedom of expression.
This week we received a letter from a parent concerned about a trans rights activist worker in her primary school, an individual who covered a classroom with Stonewall posters and who now works with primary 2-aged children with special needs. As she notes, despite parent concerns being raised, nothing has been done about the situation. She asks, ‘Where do we go from here? Our school values actually feature the word “respect”. The audacity. Where is the respect for parents saying no to this madness? Why are parents’ voices not being heard?’
Our first article this week, written anonymously by a mother and teacher, explains that one of the things parents can do is to respond to the government’s consultation on the RSHP guidance. Her advice to the government is to take the ‘T’ out of education, take the activist third-party ‘educators’ out of schools, and for once, listen rather than preach to parents.
Over the next few weeks, we will be looking into some of the activism that our children are being exposed to and unpicking some of the weasel words – words like ‘respect’ and ‘inclusion’ – words that are used and abused to set a new agenda in schools. It is worth bearing in mind that when a word is used over and over again and within a specific context, there is an underlying implication that there is a problem. In football, for example, we find so-called ‘anti-racist’ slogans flashing on our screens and at games. One can only conclude that those promoting this seemingly progressive outlook must have a particularly negative view of ordinary football fans. The same could be said about schools and our educators, with their repetitive use of the term ‘inclusive’. Why, we should ask, do the education authorities and our government think that children must have an ‘inclusive’ education? Why must this ill-defined ‘inclusive’ approach be incorporated into the whole curriculum, and indeed, why must it be part of a ‘whole school’ approach, unless they think that the children, their parents, and indeed the communities they are meant to serve, are prejudiced?
We will be examining the weasel word ‘inclusion’ in the weeks to come.
For anyone who missed the SUE event Stuart Waiton in conversation with Graham Linehan, you can watch it here.
We are aiming to raise £100,000 to carry our work forward. If you are able to help please donate to SUE.
Royal Bank of Scotland
Scottish Union for Education
Account Number: 13985715
Sort Code: 831812
And do get in touch with us with your stories and ideas about what we can do to help create an education system that we can be proud of, one that aims to Educate not Indoctrinate: info@scottishunionforeducation.co.uk.
There is no ‘T’ in ‘child’: the Scottish government’s missed opportunity to salvage RSHP education
By a Glasgow mother and teacher.
On 3 August 2023, the Scottish government opened its consultation on the draft statutory document Guidance on the Delivery of Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood (RSHP) Education in Scottish Schools. A simple set of 12 questions (discussed below) correspond to a rather short document; surprising, given the word salads published by our government over recent years, particularly about education.
The draft guidance is clearly served on an activist platter, with a large helping of ‘kind’ words like identity and inclusive. In fact, the word inclusive appears 35 times in the document, leaving little room for old-fashioned words like parent and sex. However, the language of gender is a recurring theme in this draft and as such deserves to be our entrée.
Gender
Gender replaces sex in phrases like gender balance, gender equality and gender-based violence. We know that the last of these should be sex-based violence because ultimately, on average, girls and women are physically weaker and therefore more vulnerable to male predators. But the substitution of sex in favour of gender is to be expected from a government sitting happily at number 46 on Stonewall’s top 100 LGBTQ+ employers list for 2023. They must be delighted to be rewarded for their endorsement of lobbyist language.
Promoting ‘inclusive’ language has resulted in removal of useful words like girls and boys and makes us think of those outrageous NHS phrases ‘people with a cervix’, ‘chest-feeders’, and ‘pregnant people’ (Q7). However, our government chose not to reveal their gender-inclusive language choices, probably because, like the NHS, it would be laughable. Although anticipated, the inclusion of some content is a wee bit suspect.
Differences in sex development (DSDs/intersex)
Brownie points to a government that allocates just under two pages to DSDs when only 0.02% of the population are born with such a condition. Why include DSDs at all (Q8)? Is it because it aligns with the typical activist gotcha: ‘What about intersex people?’ If this is relevant to RSHP education – I believe it is not – these two pages should be replaced with the following seven words, not including the recommended reading: intersex people are either male or female (read some Zach Elliott).
There is no reference to other rare conditions. Have DSDs been included to make us think sex really isn’t binary (which it is)? Maybe it’s a precursor to dubious declarations: ‘There are more than two sexes’, ‘Sex is assigned at birth’, ‘You can easily change sex’ or ‘You can opt out altogether and label yourself with the increasingly popular non-binary’. The purpose of RSHP education is not to confuse children about biology (Q2).
Incredulously, the document summary states that although there was a DSD focus group, it was not actually involved in developing this RSHP guidance. You could not make it up. Nonetheless, the irony meter exploded on page 17 with the quote from the United Nations: ‘Intersex children don’t need to be “fixed”; they are perfect just as they are!’ The Scottish government should be more inclusive and apply this statement to all children.
Forced teaming of LGB with T
The notion that an education coterie – or indeed any teaching union, council or training body – can push the narrative of transgender ideology on children is abhorrent. Teaming T with LGB sugarcoats the plot and encourages teachers to subscribe to a belief that children can be born wrong. It is child abuse to tell children they have been born incorrect and that they can (or should) do things to change this, socially or otherwise. Forcefeeding this to children with additional needs is especially damning considering they may be most at risk of ideological capture (Q11).
The T should be removed altogether from RSHP education and all school guidance documents (see Supporting Transgender Pupils in Schools for an eyewatering look at the government’s support for breast binding, teachers keeping secrets from parents, and unfair and unsafe mixed-sex sports and toilets). Yes, the T is an obsession and parents are saying no (and I’m sure other, unprintable, words).
‘LGBT inclusive’ (that word again) education
LGBT education is so important to the Scottish government that they want it spread across curricular subjects. This would certainly make withdrawing your child difficult and could possibly be an ad for home-schooling. Few parents would object to their child learning about Alan Turing (a gay man) in computing or Martina Navratilova (a lesbian) in PE. What is repugnant is the message being delivered, through transgender ideology (the T), that kids can be born wrong (Q9).
This message is not posed from a biological and/or historical perspective: many people damage their bodies believing wrongly they can change sex, regret this, and are called detransitioners. Neither is it suggested from a health perspective: love your body and look after it, it’s the only one you have, and you could be in it for a very long time. No, this government’s brief is that your little darlings could be born wrong. One look at the school resources and signposting in this section – and indeed throughout the guidance – reveals the heavy influence of LGBT Youth Scotland. Nauseating, but not surprising.
Identities
Pushing a notion that we all have identities is activist speak for ‘Be brave and interesting – you can be whoever or whatever you want’. How this impacts negatively on self-esteem and on other children is, rightly so, the basis for much discussion. Identity options are endless, but the memo is the same: ‘Kids, present as something else because you are not good enough – you were born wrong.’ Kids dress up as Spider-Man, but most learn that they do not actually become Spider-Man. The contempt shown by this government for our kids is unforgiveable. The theme of identities should be removed from the introduction (Q1) because gender identity is the antithesis of healthy relationships (Q5).
I would be more interested in knowing the identities of the visitors enlisted to support RSHP education, both formal and informal. We all know that RSHP has been hijacked by third-sector organisations. It is crucial that parents are aware of who visits schools, which groups influence lessons, and what exactly takes place in the less-regulated spaces like lunchtime clubs and youth groups. We want the receipts – visitors, materials and all. Furthermore, what local belief groups should link with our schools (Q6)? Do cults count as belief groups?
The glaring omission of parents
Although there are a few references to parents in the document, the largest section is the withdrawal section. Predictably, there is a threatening tone, a warning that the option of withdrawal should be balanced against a child’s right to education and that it can pose significant challenges. Besides, it is stated that parents can only ‘withdraw their children from participation in the sexual health elements of RSHP education’ (p. 8). Parents, get in your lane, there are restrictions to your rights, especially if RSHP education is embedded in a whole school approach (Q4).
A full-page flowchart on withdrawal further serves to spook parents. This process could easily be streamlined and is not sufficiently clear (Q3). Teachers prepare lesson plans with detailed information on materials well in advance. Sharing this with parents prior to the approaching term could support withdrawal with much less hoo-ha. If the Scottish government listened to parents and stop suggesting – even encouraging – the ‘born wrong’ model, withdrawal would be entirely unnecessary.
The key message is that the whole document needs to be jettisoned or rewritten with parents as first influencers (Q10). Parent groups must overhaul the RSHP materials – many of which are inappropriate – and reclaim the planning of RSHP from a lost government (Q12). What is next: Queering the Curriculum?
Your consultation is due in by 23 November 2023. There are only 12 questions, and I’m sure you’ll be able to add more meat to the responses than me. Go on, fill it in, share it far and wide, and don’t forget to spread the message: there is no ‘T’ in ‘child’.
The consultation can be found here.
Introducing ScotPAG
Dr John Higgon is a clinical neuropsychologist.
A few years ago, a group of concerned gender-critical clinicians, mainly medics, set up the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender – CAN-SG for short. It has been, and continues to be, a useful voice for gender-critical clinicians throughout the UK, but perhaps unsurprisingly, its focus has tended to be on Westminster rather than Holyrood. (We Scots, whether adopted or homegrown, will know that UK institutions tend to default to the English perspective, which simply reflects the population figures of the various countries that constitute the UK.)
Some of us CAN-SG members who are based in Scotland found ourselves talking about the situation in Scotland and the need to engage with Scottish institutions, most obviously the Scottish government, about gender healthcare. This became more pertinent following publication of the interim report of the Cass Review, which has set England on a course that looks to be very different from the pre-Cass ‘assess and affirm’ model that seems to have characterised the Tavistock’s approach. Sadly, there has been no Scottish equivalent of the Cass report, and as far as we can see, the Sandyford Clinic has not chosen to take on board any of the learning points from Cass on a voluntary basis. (We tried to ask them about this, but they didn’t get back to us.) The need for a group with a particular focus on Scotland therefore became more pressing, and to that end a few of the Scottish-based CAN-SG members began to meet informally to discuss the situation north of the border.
We soon recognised the advantages of setting up a Scotland-based group in a more formal manner. Our group, which we have called Scottish Professionals Advising on Gender, or ScotPAG for short, came into being early in 2023. You can find our website at www.scotpag.com and on Twitter @ScotPAG.
One difference between us and CAN-SG is that we decided quite early on to open our group up to professionals with backgrounds in education and social work as well as in health. We believe that gender ideology needs to be addressed in all of these settings, because they are in practice so closely interrelated. For example, children who experience gender dysphoria need to be given a ‘trans narrative’ before they will take that further step of seeing themselves as trans.
We take the view that the educational upper echelons have not done their homework about the potential harms that can be caused by gender ideology. Schools are at the forefront of either safeguarding children from this ideology or not. As far as we can see, schools have abdicated their educational responsibilities. Schools have invited activist third-party organisations to develop policies and guidance which promote gender ideology in schools, and they have given the green light to teach students that gender ideology is a truth. These organisations are never gender-critical and always promote gender ideology viewpoints, thereby providing the trans narrative (highly contested though it is) while claiming to ‘help’ children make sense of their dysphoria. In addition to promoting effective teaching and learning, schools really should be focused on supporting pupils to become resilient and emotionally stable individuals. Instead, they are at risk of creating highly damaged individuals and a ruinous impact on families (see the ScotPAG article ‘Is There Evidence of Gender Ideology Indoctrination in Scotland’s Schools?’).
These children then present to healthcare settings where the same narrative has been adopted, and thus adolescent unhappiness becomes gender dysphoria, and gender dysphoria is seen as evidence of ‘being trans’. From there, it is a short step to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. We know that care-experienced children are greatly overrepresented in the gender-dysphoric population, so the narratives (again, these are essentially gender ideology narratives) that are found in social work settings are also relevant. So, ScotPAG is keen to see a step change not only in the area of health but also in the areas of social work and of school education – and, for that matter, education of healthcare, teaching and social work professionals. It is hoped that, by working on these three areas at the same time, we can see real change in the way gender and gender dysphoria are conceptualised.
We are a newly formed group and still feeling our way to some extent, but our initial aim is to get a clearer picture of what is happening in Scotland in the areas of health, education and social work. We intend to do this through the simple expedient of keeping our ear to the ground and fostering contacts with relevant people, but we may also use freedom of information (FOI) requests and letters to relevant authorities to try to build up a picture of gender ideology in Scottish public services. We will be publishing our findings on our website.
It looks like this is going to be an uphill struggle. An FOI request to the Sandyford Clinic in October 2022 was ignored, and we are still awaiting a response to our subsequent letter, sent in July of this year. We are, however, making useful links with journalists and MSPs, and interested parties will be able to visit our website, where they will be able to see letters we have sent and responses, or lack thereof, that we have received.
Once we have a clearer picture of how gender-related issues are being handled in the areas of health, education and social work, we plan to challenge poor practice, as we see it, and offer a gender-critical alternative based on evidence and science. We believe that gender-critical voices should be heard alongside gender ideologists when public policy is being formulated, and bringing about that change will perhaps be our most significant challenge.
I know that some trans activists will see ScotPAG as another ‘transphobic’ group that is intent on making life difficult for trans people. It shouldn’t need to be said, but for the record, I view myself as an ally of trans – or, perhaps more accurately, of gender-dysphoric – people. I appreciate the pain of gender dysphoria, and I hope that professionals in the fields of health, education and social work will always be sensitive to children and young people who struggle with these issues. Where I differ from trans activists is in the approach we should take to alleviate this distress. I have, of course, been described as transphobic for not sticking to the gender ideology line, and that is simply par for the course in the current climate. Despite this, I’ll be continuing this work, not to make life more difficult for gender-dysphoric individuals, but quite the opposite – to ensure that they receive evidence-based care and treatment that will give them the best possible quality of life.
Review
Transgender ideology: A new threat to liberal values (IEA Perspectives 3) by Marc Glendening (Institute of Economic Affairs, free to download)
Rachel Hobbs is a teaching assistant in England.
The transgender debate has taken us down a strange, meandering path under the guise of ‘inclusion’. One that ends at an existential precipice which demands the removal of free speech, detachment of human consciousness from the physical world, and the destruction of liberalism.
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) have produced a paper outlining wider underlying aims of the transgender movement that are not always apparent.
It is a sober reminder that the topic is not, as some would like to hope, a marginal matter to do with accommodating equal rights for a small group.
Those who have still not grasped it regard the debate in individual terms about accepting how people wish to live, which is how it is presented, and something most do not have a problem with.
However, conflict arises when ‘rights’ become infringements on others and a programme for sweeping conceptual changes that start to alter liberal society profoundly.
The IEA outlines that transgender ideology places precious tenets of democracy in peril. This includes the rational world, rejected in favour of a postmodernist dystopia separated from absolute truths, which can therefore only be based on coercion and crude political power between competing groups.
Sounds dramatic, but I have to concur. The IEA argue that transgender ideology is really, within its political aims, an attack against the philosophical political traditions of western societies. ‘Transculturalism’ demands we all adopt a new ideologically embedded form of speech and thought (p. 21).
The report highlights the damage incurred, via public policy, to erosion of civil liberties. This includes not only the threat to single-sex spaces for women and girls, but more centrally, the potential elimination of a distinct female category altogether.
Transactivism demands shortcircuiting of public consensus on collective matters, including free speech, belief, and the deconstruction of biological sex as something society as a whole must endorse.
The IEA urge that people need to challenge the state and big business in their continued pushing of transgender ideology, if we are to resist radical repercussions.
Furthermore, political decisions which have encroached important boundaries (gender ideology within schools; ‘trans women’ (i.e. men) entering women’s spaces such as hospital wards, refuges, and changing rooms) have been made with no consultation of the electorate.
Ultimately, IEA argues we must wrestle the narrow lens of debate from a misleading, individual rights–based narrative, steered by the trans lobby, and shed light on its underlying ambitions – namely, to collapse the fundamentals of how society operates – if we are to hold malignant forces at bay.
The queering of a political theory
The tension between the right to one’s view, the recognition of objective truth, and curtailment of freedoms has never been so great.
The IEA reminds us that pre-political transvestites and transsexuals (usually only ever a minority of men whose sense of identity was at odds with their gender) simply wished to live their lives a certain way, with the former tending to cross-dress and the latter wanting to be accepted more convincingly as women via surgery and medication. They did not desire to curtail others’ freedoms or impose ideology.
We now have a powerful lobby pushing for extreme changes in society. Modern-day transgenderism, as a political movement, was influenced in large part via academia, by the borrowing, or some might say outright hijacking, of Frankfurt School–derived critical theory – something once reserved for politics students – taken out of context and transformed towards ‘queer theory’.
The hypothesis is based on a view of the world being organised through ‘structural power’ maintained by elites and including ‘oppressor categories’ who sustain privileged status through ideology. Within this, communication is seen purely as a medium of social control, rather than for transference of knowledge.
Deconstructionism
Transgenderism took this theory and added in biology as a ‘construct’, not helped by some radical feminist theory back in the day, which proposed that both gender and sex were concepts.
Within this came forth the argument that transgender people can only have their ‘inner identities’ remedied by engineering a new consensus on sex and gender as socially constructed (rather than remaining a personal, very niche belief).
Its ideology, however, combines the physical (that which exists objectively, in this case, the body) with the abstract (subjective self-perception, or identity based on feeling) (p. 13).
As the paper argues, this cannot work and is a dangerous departure from science as well as a rational society. Ultimately, one type of physical identity cannot simultaneously be another type of entity (p. 13).
Further, when transgender doctrine articulates, as imperative, the right to ‘self-identify’, this is not an individual matter at all, because everyone has to endorse that personal perception.
Here is where free speech and freedom of belief are at stake via ‘hate crime’ legislation directed at any ideological critique. It is a demand that we all subordinate our own powers of judgement to that of the ideology.
The IEA asks, how far should we be made to affirm others’ self-image? And how does this work for further material categorisations of identity, now including children mightily confused and some identifying as animals, or for weight, height, ethnicity or age (all real lawsuits based on ‘self-ID’ – the stuff of nightmares that has arisen within our fall into the ‘inner self’).
Some are more equal than others
The report also highlights the hypocrisy within transgender dogma, revealed by its end goal of fighting ‘power structures’ to replace them with their chosen coercive ideology.
This reveals its true motive as simply a power grab to become the dominant structure and use social power – the very things it claims to be against.
‘We are to fall into line with the approved identity group and its demand for validation. It is a conception of freedom for the favoured category of persons that requires the imposition of a specific set of social conditions.’ (p. 14).
The end of free speech
IEA points out that supporters of transgender ideology do not intend to win what they know is a problematic debate, and instead simply try to stop it happening.
Opponents are swiftly labelled as bigots in the face of cynicism about gender or bodily mix-ups. IEA correctly identifies such people merely as whistleblowers who wish to safeguard the most vulnerable (most notably, children).
Nevertheless, recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ of those who have vocally opposed the ideology is on the rise. IEA believes this will only get worse under Labour, the next likely government, which recently vowed to bring in further legislation for LGBTQ+ ‘hate crimes’ around transgenderism. What this constitutes is not clear but in future could include ‘misgendering’.
A new world abyss
IEA asks us to understand transgender ideology as a product of a wider postmodernist ambition which disregards objective truth and deems it to be something oppressive (p. 18).
This is a project which wants to separate our consciousness from the material world:
It opens the door to an anything-goes, fantastical worldview… Those who opt for this approach seek to achieve, via their supposed victim status, personal and political power. They can demand that their fellow human beings adhere to ever more detailed and intrusive demands. (p. 18)
We can see, through the continuing push for ‘embedding’ of transgenderism across establishments, even primary schools, there is something much more pernicious going on.
The movement denies that language can reflect reality as it cannot explain away observable fact unless it stops us stating it (hence the seizing, for example, of pronouns and scientific language). It wants to remove the foundations of society’s beliefs to fit dogma. As IEA states, this is a criterion for moulding a new world order:
If there is no recognition of our right as individuals to pursue and share with others what we believe to be objectively true, then there is no way for us to democratically and peaceably navigate how we should live as a political community. (p. 22)
In the end, our polite acquiescence to removal of freedoms surrounding language, speech and belief will come back to haunt us. Allowing transgenderism to cross over from the personal to the political, and societal, will erase the essential separations between reality and abstract, across all areas of life, for everyone.
News round-up
A selection of the main stories with relevance to Scottish education in the press in recent weeks, by Simon Knight
Dave Clements, Turning up and turning out. Why is it getting so hard to keep kids in the classroom? 30/09/23
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12581867/A-national-scandal-Thousands-pupils-excluded-amid-epidemic-violence-Scots-classrooms.html John Paul Breslin, ‘A national scandal’: Thousands of pupils excluded amid epidemic of violence in Scots classrooms. 02/10/23
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/30/revealed-uk-government-keeping-files-on-education-critics-social-media-activity Anna Fazackerley, Revealed: UK government keeping files on education critics’ social media activity. An Observer investigation finds DfE tried to cancel conference with ‘unsuitable’ speakers – and experts who criticised state education policy had online posts monitored. 30/09/23
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/oct/09/upending-the-genre-the-childrens-author-rewriting-the-rules-of-sex-ed Caspar Salmon, ‘Upending the genre’: the children’s author rewriting the rules of sex ed. A new trio of books for kids focuses on consent, kindness and curiosity. Author Cory Silverberg explains why we need to rethink talking with young people about sex. 09/10/23
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/oct/06/disruptive-behaviour-in-english-schools-worse-since-covid-says-outgoing-ofsted-head?CMP=share_btn_link Sally Weale, Disruptive behaviour in English schools worse since Covid, says outgoing Ofsted head. Amanda Spielman says children are walking out of class, or registering but not attending lessons. 06/10/23
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/23/gender-critical-civil-servants-compared-nazism-whitehall/ Steven Edginton, Gender-critical civil servants’ views compared to ‘Nazism’ in diversity meeting. Members of civil service group targeted for their views on women’s rights and belief that biological sex is binary and immutable. 23/09/23
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23840192.anti-racism-education-scottish-schools-not-feared/ Garratt Stell, Why anti-racism education in Scottish schools is not to be feared. 08/10/23
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/05/seven-year-olds-with-very-poor-reading-skills-doubles/ Louisa Clarence-Smith, Seven-year-olds with poor reading skills double in number since pandemic. Cohort of 6,000 pupils tested by the National Foundation for Educational Research found disadvantaged children remain months behind peers. 05/10/23
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/04/trans-daughter-holly-richard-branson-phase-child/ The Telegraph, I wanted to be called Josh as a child, says Richard Branson’s daughter Holly said she was grateful for parents understanding when she went through ‘boy phase’. 04/10/23
Thanks for reading the SUE Newsletter.
Please visit our Substack
Please join the union and get in touch with our organisers.
Email us at info@scottishunionforeducation.co.uk
Contact SUEs Parents and Supporters Group at PSG@scottishunionforeducation.co.uk
Please pass this newsletter on to your friends, family and workmates.
Excellent analysis of that horror show of the RSHP consultation. The lack of engagement or acknowledgment of parents (outside of someone who gets in the way) is striking. The whole thing is a mess. It was pointed out to me (and now I cannot unsee it) that everything scot gov does comes with the assumption that parents are shite at their job. Its absolutely shameful and ultimately will harm children.