Aberdeen teacher complaining about being blocked from teaching LGBT+ to 7 year olds

[poodlemum01]

A primary teacher residing in stonehaven, and seemingly registered with aberdeen council, has posted on the 'scottish primary teaching' facebook group her anger at not being allowed to deliver LGBT+ lessons to her P4 class (which in Scotland will be ages 7-8). She gets support in the comments from John Summers Campbell - the drag queen teacher. Did he not have some kind of legal action / bad press against him at some point? My mind vaguely recalls a tribunal or something....
I'm sure her employer will be delighted at her using her real name, having trans flags on her personal profile, publicly critising them, making the school and SLT pretty much identifiable, allowing other teachers to slag them off and call them bigots. Any Aberdeen residents on this thread?

I use AI as a research tool. In a similar way I would use it as a study tool. I do not use it for writing.

For context, my current masters module is on developmental psychology. This will be 3rd masters, previously they have been education related and I will be applying for a PhD next year. This particular post has been edited, added to and changed several times over the course of today as I’ve thought about each or Caliette’s points and sought to answer them. Her writing often provokes deep thought and I’m trying to raise my game to interact with her great posts.

Quite often autistic people’s writing styles are confused with gen AI. But I can safely say the words are my own :)

My point there though was about children who are introduced to these topics from an early age - for example, from their parents. So before attending school. Does this also cause developmental confusion?

I don’t disagree with you that it’s a contentious topic for schools to attempt to educate on. I agree that there are some children who are particularly vulnerable in relation to this. As I’ve outlined in previous posts, being autistic and feeling as though I was on the outside, I am glad that this debate wasn’t raging when I was at school. Perhaps it may have persuaded me to adopt a position that wasn’t my own. I certainly could see how I may have been persuaded into believing I was non-binary, rather than just an undiagnosed (at the time) autistic teenager.

Thanks for the honest answer. I may have GenAI text on my brain after marking 100+ UG papers all written with GenAI. Its particular linguistic style drove me crazy after about the 20th paper. I thought I saw some of the syntactic patterns in your writing.

Developmentally and pedagogically I do disagree with this:

I also wonder whether we need to distinguish between teaching a child that their perceptions are wrong and teaching them that the world is more complicated than it first appears.

And I think parents introducing the idea before they go to school is odd unless they happen to have someone trans identifying in their family. Why should we teach them the world is complicated? Most of the developmental literature I’ve read is answer their questions about sex, sexuality etc as they arise.

Introducing complex concepts before they ask is confusing and unnecessary and sometimes harmful. One risk is they ignore their instincts (that 10/11yr old girl kidnapped by the trans identifying man in Scotland got in his car because she thought he was a woman) and the other, as mentioned is introducing an idea that becomes fixed in the minds of young autistic children. Especially because they often feel ‘other’.

Not convinced that schools, massively stretched as they are, need to 'teach' about trans identification at all to be honest. Maybe just teach some actual subjects that teachers actually know about.

I think my post poses more questions than it does answers. I’m simply trying to look at it from a slightly different angle.

I’m not claiming that what I’m suggesting is correct. Rather, I’m saying that this is a relatively under-researched area. That’s understandable for a number of reasons: we don’t want research itself to cause harm, and developmental research involving young children is particularly challenging, both practically and ethically.

So, for many of the questions I’m asking, I don’t think we actually have clear answers yet. But a lot of people on this thread are a lot more experienced in this field and might find the questions interesting, so it’s also interesting for me to read the responses. I’m interested in where the evidence leads, even if it challenges my own assumptions/positions.

You do acknowledge, though, that some children will naturally encounter these topics from a very young age. They may have a transgender parent, sibling, wider family member or close family friend. Those children are likely to ask questions, just as they ask questions about anything else in their lives.

So what do we know about those children?

What is the developmental impact of growing up with these concepts simply being part of their everyday experience? Does the evidence suggest confusion or harm, or does it suggest that children incorporate these experiences into their understanding of the world without adverse effects?

That’s a genuine question. If the developmental theory described is correct, you would expect us to see evidence of it in children who have been exposed to these ideas from a very early age. If we don’t, then that might tell us something important too. That’s the beauty about research, all outcomes teach us something.

I’m genuinely unsure what the best approach is. As I’ve said in previous posts, I think if these issues are taught in schools, they should be presented in a balanced, age-appropriate way that reflects the fact there are different perspectives and ongoing debates, rather than presenting one viewpoint as settled fact. I’ve also said previously that I’m not convinced the curriculum, or at least how it is sometimes interpreted and delivered, always manages that balance - specifically for vulnerable children as you’ve highlighted above. That in itself is an interesting take away for this debate for me, a position I hadn’t fully appreciated before, but one that will now sit with me and that I’ll continue to think about.

I cannot imagine having to make hundreds of gen AI papers - hats off to you. I will never complain about having to mark early phonics work again :) It can be such a useful research tool, or can help simplify concepts (I’m doing a conversion psychology masters so in the beginning everything was new and overwhelming). But using it to write, is for me just cheating - you are really only cheating yourself out of the opportunity to learn.

None of us identify other people’s sex by looking in their trousers.

There are hundreds of other physical cues that we read to determine someone’s sex. Height, voice, jawline, shoulder width, hand size, facial bone structure, gait and so on. We do this automatically in most cases; we are mammals, it would be astonishing if we couldn’t do this.

It’s no different for children.

I’m astonished to be here defending the notion that we can tell people’s sex without genital inspections or reliance on gendered clothing cues.

Yes, I see. As this conversation carries I am developing my thoughts on those specifics somewhat. My thought process is belie. I’m sure some people will find it controversial but as I understand it in child safeguarding nothing should be off the table and I feel strongly that this point of view should be considered. There are very many thought preventive g traps inherent in trans ideology and I feel that many of us fall foul of them.

You’ve asked a good question. Initially I thought ‘well that’s (hopefully) a tiny group so no need to introduce this topic to the many with all its pitfalls and lack of definitions and facts.’ for their sake.

Then as you raised this group again in your subsequent post I had another think. I thought about the effects learning about this can have on children.

I first thought that these kids will need some sort of special lesson to counteract the often extreme messages and counter factual promoted by trans ideology (female penis, people actually changing sex, daddies giving birth etc) and make sure they are on the same page in their foundational knowledge as the other kids.

I then thought about the evidence of the social contagion element affecting children and them being far more likely to adopt a trans identity when it is introduced by peers or promoted to them by trusted adults than when it is not. For example, schools in Brighton reporting huge numbers of ‘trans’ identifying students across year groups whereas in our area there were 4 across the whole school and even that dropped in the last couple of years.

When we think about the pathway on which a so called ‘trans’ child is placed, which at best ends with a natural puberty that causes severe confusion and distress but the child ultimately matures with no physical harm (but maybe emotional harm) and the worst case when a child is given puberty blockers either by the cowboy private ‘gender clinics’, by rogue NHS activist GPs, or by the NHS determined to ignore all existing evidence of harm and insisting on running a study to prove what we already know. There is then the inevitable profession to cross sex hormones and surgery and a lifetime of ill health and sterility. Not to mention the mental health aspects we know about.

Bearing in mind the serious risks to a child’s long term health and wellbeing, I would propose that a) no child should be taught such a contested ideology that can lead directly to physical harm in the long term in school and b) children that ask questions about it because they have had personal contact or activist teaching from parents should be flagged for possible risk of harm like adopting a trans identity and attempts made to ‘socially transition’ them when they are far too young to understand what they are signing themselves up for.

What does everyone think?

I’m not claiming that what I’m suggesting is correct. Rather, I’m saying that this is a relatively under-researched area. That’s understandable for a number of reasons: we don’t want research itself to cause harm, and developmental research involving young children is particularly challenging, both practically and ethically.

This is also a good point. Why did schools go full on into this, hiring in outside organisations, spending thousands on Stonewall accreditation etc etc when it is so under researched, contested and mostly counter factual.

I know the answer obviously and in no way was it for the benefit or advancement of children. Schools MUST remember what they are there for.

From what I can see, the research on children of transgender parents is still relatively limited (I can find 4 peer-reviewed studies from my searches, so very small case studies and I also didn’t do a ‘deep’ dive, just using my university library database) but it does not appear to show that having a trans parent makes children more likely to be trans themselves. The studies I’ve seen tend to find that children’s gender identity development is broadly typical, and that child wellbeing is more closely linked to family stability, parenting quality, stigma, conflict and support than to the parent’s gender identity itself. So I’d be cautious about claiming there is evidence of harm where the research doesn’t actually show that. Although I acknowledge that the case studies are limited and so I’m also cautious about making generalisations on the back of this.

One of the studies I read was a 2020 paper by Imrie et al; a study of 35 families with trans parents found children had good psychological adjustment, good-quality relationships with parents, and no evidence that the age at which the child learned about the parent’s gender identity was linked to poorer outcomes.

There is also a 2014 review paper which looks into transgender parenting in general. This found “no evidence” that having a trans parent affects a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation development. Which is interesting, as one might assume that having a transgender parent and being exposed to this type of ideology might impact on these things. Again, limited evidence base but interesting points to consider.

I think at a certain age, children are more influenced by their peers than by their parents. So I agree with your social contagion point. I’m not quite sure how you combat this though, as peer influence is strong within a specific age group!

I suggest that Hannah Barnes' book 'Time to think' may be of use. Lots of stats and meticulously researched.

WRT parents of 'gender incongruent' children, the stat that sticks in my mind is that children who ID as trans are ten times more likely to have a parent who is a registered sex offender.

I’ll have a look, thanks! :)

Yep.

Why is 'trans' one of the three topics under 'a fair and equal life for boys and girls' in the RSHP curriculum?

(The others are: 'stereotypes and equality', and 'being fair'.)

Out of all of the possible subjects.

It's in nursery too. 'ABC Pride' should not be a young child's reply when you are talking to them about the alphabet.

but it does not appear to show that having a trans parent makes children more likely to be trans themselves.

I meant the children who have been introduced to GI by trusted adults including parents or peers. They strongly appear to be more likely to adopt a trans identity than children less familiar with the topic.

The studies I’ve seen tend to find that children’s gender identity development is broadly typical, and that child wellbeing is more closely linked to family stability, parenting quality, stigma, conflict and support than to the parent’s gender identity itself.

If these studies are looking at the ill defined, highly contested concept of ‘gender identity’ (we still haven’t managed a testable definition on this thread so our discussion is largely flying blind) then it would be unlikely that the studies would find otherwise, regardless of the truth. There are countless observed examples of clusters of trans identity within family and close social groups. I personally know of an LGBTQ activist influencer who now has 2 out of 3 young children with a trans identity.

I think at a certain age, children are more influenced by their peers than by their parents. So I agree with your social contagion point. I’m not quite sure how you combat this though, as peer influence is strong within a specific age group!

I would suggest that peer over parent influence is limited to certain non foundational, more trend driven social issues.

Combating this would involve teachers not reinforcing the counter factual messages as propagated by the activists and peers and ensuring that lessons, particularly biology and PHSE are 100% fact based - not implying as pp mentioned that boys might have periods (this has also been reported elsewhere as lesson content). It would also involve no ‘social transition’ of students as this also creates peer pressure and all sorts of other issues.

Finally no ‘preferred pronouns’ for teachers as this is not only counter factual (‘he’ refers only to a male person and vice versa, ‘they’ only refers to a singular person if you genuinely don’t know their sex and they are not present) but is very likely to create division as some of the more diligent children will in so many cases take it upon themselves to police the language of their peers and enforce the ‘wishes’ of the adults especially in the absence of the teacher concerned - we rarely use pronouns in the presence of the subject as that is regarded as rude.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/19/time-to-think-by-hannah-barnes-review-what-went-wrong-at-gids

'The statistics are horrifying. Less than 2% of children in the UK have an autism spectrum disorder; at Gids, more than a third of referrals presented with autistic traits. Clinicians also saw high numbers of children who had been sexually abused.

Studies will always have a bias, even when they set out to be as reflective as possible - the researchers can’t remove their own bias when interpreting the data. I acknowledge this. I think my point is more that there’s still so much we don’t know and so much work to be done, so we can agree on that.

I respect your opinions on this. As said before, I don’t have the answers and sometimes like to play devil’s advocate in the debate. I am still really grappling to form my opinions, so all of these perspectives I am listening to and mulling over.

I have to also say that this has been very informative for me and I am sorry I haven’t used this platform before. Most platforms shut down conversations, but I haven’t really felt disrespected or not listened to - so I thank you all for that. I think a lot of the time each side does more harm than good when we don’t listen to each other. I wouldn’t call myself a trans activist, just open to learn and equally I wouldn’t call any of you ‘bigots’ - we all just have differing views and can learn from each other (hopefully). I apologise if any of my comments have led people to believe that I am trying to be combative - I’m really not :)

That is quite horrifying.

I’m not very good at working this sort of thing out, but as a starter would it be fair to say that given that data, a child adopting a trans identity should be counted as a red flag behaviour for sexual abuse?

Also, I think that we should be taking even more care not to expose autistic children to gender ideology.

Back in the day there were autistic children. If there was an innate condition called ‘trans’ that disproportionately affected autistic children, they would have been similarly represented in the tiny number of largely male children presenting at gender clinics in the 90s. As far as I know they were not in the male group and definitely not in the female group. In the very short span of 20 years the cohort is completely different (actually less then 20 when the more recent explosion of female gender clinic attendees occurred)

The reasonable explanation imo, as has been mooted many times, is that children with autism are attracted to the quite simple tenets of gender ideology that ‘solve’ their persistent sense of not fitting in. They conclude that they are literally in the ‘wrong’ body. Then comes a long journey of ‘goals’, puberty blockers, x sex hormones, binders, ‘top surgery’ - all in pursuit of the aim of achieving ‘my true self’ and therefore happiness and belonging.

Except that when they get to the end, an increasing number of young people find that it hasn’t fixed their problems and has created a whole raft of new and horrendous problems.

@CornishDaughteroftheDawn very much agree on the need to protect autistic children. The danger of a fixed idea and then black and white thinking makes it very difficult to have a nuanced discussion about rights and health implications. And as often autistic people have a strong need for justice, once converted to genderism, these young people often become the trans warriors believing in the cause.

As I’ve said in previous posts, I think if these issues are taught in schools, they should be presented in a balanced, age-appropriate way that reflects the fact there are different perspectives and ongoing debates, rather than presenting one viewpoint as settled fact.

@ThisTwinklyAzurePombear while people including young people may be mconfused about their sexuality or experience body or gender dysmorphia, biology is a settled fact including that humans cannot change sex. That is a fact wouldn’t you agree that should not be lost in any discussion. We wouldn’t dispute gravity. That needs to be everyone’s starting point and then offer support for distressed teens with gender dysmorphia.

Sorry for being so slow replying when you went into the level of detail above, Pom. I'm enjoying your posts, too. I recognise things have moved on now, but a few thoughts...

One of the interesting findings from the developmental literature is that children are not simply passive recipients of whatever adults tell them...

Yep, children definitely push back from very early on. I guess I presented the process a little playfully (the zenith of childish pushback: the ogre that is... KEVIN!) But I think we all know an adult of two who's proud to share that their first word was "NO!"

I also wonder whether we need to distinguish between teaching a child that their perceptions are wrong and teaching them that the world is more complicated than it first appears...

There have been some really interesting responses to this - I liked the argument showing how your examples can all be pinned down in a closed, age-appropriate definition, in a way that "trans" can't.

I'd add another distinction, although I'm still thinking about this one... All your analogies (round earth, adoptive mum etc.) build on a fundamental, stable truth ("the earth is round, but appears flat", or "visible disabilities exist, but there are hidden kinds"). In contrast, "trans" leans towards destabilising reality (the influence of pomo etc.).

Similarly, your analogies expand not only understanding, as above, but also vocabulary - an ability to name and describe with certainty - whereas "trans" instead dilutes extant words into contested and politicised issues, and ultimately removes wholesale a child's previous ability to name sexed humans - "woman", "girl" etc.

One of the biggest concerns raised by developmental psychologists is often not that children fail to recognise sex differences, but that they absorb rigid ideas about what boys and girls are supposed to be like.

You're preaching to the choir on this one here!

That is partly why I hesitate when discussions move from “children recognise sex” to “therefore acknowledging trans identities is harmful”... So you may be correct, just we don’t have a huge body of research directly addressing this yet.

This is, I think, an unintentional misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Something similar has come up a few times now. I've tried to clarify in some detail in a range of ways in other posts. Basically, though, I'm not saying “therefore acknowledging trans identities is harmful”, and never have. Way too reductive! I am looking closely at the ways in which "trans" is conceptualised and communicated (ref. eg. the breakdown of the trans umbrella)

Perhaps the question I’d be interested in exploring is this: is there evidence that simply teaching children that some people are transgender, or that some people use different pronouns, produces the developmental confusion you describe?

I feel that that's the experiment currently being undertaken in much of western society. With regard to this, I did wonder if there was a slight inconsistency in your acknowledgement that "I won’t be able to conduct my masters research project with children as participants" and your "the question I’d be interested in exploring is this: is there evidence that simply teaching children that some people are transgender... produces developmental confusion?"

What I mean is, you seem to be using this question to suggest that the two options here (of teaching this / not teaching it, as you present it above) are balanced or neutral in terms of potential harms, while simultaneously implicitly acknowledging there is more potential for harm in one, if only in the ongoing uncertainty, and reflecting on what (harm? no harm?) we may yet uncover.

I acknowledge I'm playing devil's advocate here a little, and may also have misunderstood you - sincere apologies if so.

Basically, I guess, given the lack of knowledge and the kind of ethical concerns re. kids you mention above, my instinct is to err on the side of caution in the sense of what is shared and how it's shared. I really like a lot of Seethlaw's ideas on this.

I don't know how to quote only part of a post but this is wrong:

"I started P1 at age 4.5, so I would have been 8 at this time of year in P4. My point is that pupils START their P4 at either 7/8 years old. They'd only be 9, as a pp suggested, if they'd been kept back a year."

All the March / April / May / early June birthdays will be nine at this point in the school year, plus those with Jan / Feb birthdays which were deferred entry. In my kids school virtually every Feb birthday defers. So at least a quarter of the class will be nine, and maybe closer to a third including deferred entries.

It's simply not true to say that only those kept back a year would be nine.