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?

Teachers I know and respect, who I know do not agree with any of the gender ideology, taught my daughter that she may not get a period, and that that would be fine.

I had to explain the medical implications to her. Because aged nine or so, she was really thrilled to hear she might not get periods, and that it was possible to be a girl and not have them.

A direct result of what is in the Scottish curriculum.

The Aberdeen teacher had planned a lesson about Pride. That’s evident from the resource pictured in the OP. We know nothing about the content or how it would be approached.

My reply counts for both of your responses - the other person can read this too as you have tagged their post in yours. I don’t feel the need to make the same point twice.

I am sorry that your daughter was taught that.

Again, that’s a singular experience and not what I have experienced - so it shows how nuanced and varied it is.

I wonder which poster he is on this thread.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Time's tight today, so mine may be a bit more rushed and selective than before!

Where I think I differ is that I don’t find it particularly useful to frame transgender identity itself as a mental health problem. To me, that’s one interpretation among several, rather than an established fact. Different societies, medical systems and professional bodies have approached this question in different ways, and even today there isn’t complete agreement on causes, classification or the best way to understand gender incongruence.

Well, quite! My post shared this concern and outlined much the same issues that you do here.

What I do think is well supported is that many trans people experience significant distress, and that distress deserves to be taken seriously.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with this either (although they may question what on earth is meant by "trans" - see my posts again... and, now, my comments below).

Secondly, I think this is similar to how we use other umbrella terms. For example, autistic people can have hugely different experiences, presentations, support needs and views, yet we still use “autistic” as a broad category while recognising that it encompasses significant diversity.

I find this a surprising analogy. Autism's a clinically diagnosable condition. Trans, as you acknowledge yourself, isn't. It's a sociological construct at best, currently, and infinitely more disparate.

As such, you're equating the clinical and research-based "umbrella" of a medical condition existing on a spectrum (I know the so-called "autistic spectrum" is actually much more complex, but am simplifying here to make my point) with a range of presentations, with the sociological and activist-driven "umbrella" of a widely contested phenomenon.

I stand by my earlier statement that I resist any single word that encourages the unquestioning association of males indulging in sexualised cross-dressing with female teens distressed by their developing bodies*. I mean, these are virtual opposites: one's indulging their sexuality, the other's fleeing it. And their needs, and the way in which society responds to said needs, similarly varied, to say the least.

*Note: 1) As my earlier posts make clear, these are only two groups charities like Stonewall have put under the trans umbrella, selected here as two extremes and not as representations of what it commonly means to be trans, 2) That sexualised cross-dressing is a motivation for some transwomen is publicly acknowledged by a range of published authors, bloggers and figures in the trans community

I don’t think recognising those differences changes my broader point that children will encounter people with a range of identities and experiences relating to sex and gender.

No, but any term that melds these groups into one indistiguishable "vulnerable be-kind" does children a disservice by dissolving boundaries that exist for good reason into an ill-understood ethical imperative to subordinate themselves indiscriminately.

However, when we’re discussing society, education or public policy, we often need broader categories in order to have those conversations at all...

Agree, as above.

Furthermore, I’d perhaps push back slightly on the idea that I align with a “this is harmless” extreme.

I was very careful indeed to make the distinction that I'm rather saying that I'm closer to the "harmful" end, and you're closer to the "harmless" end.

I don’t start from the assumption that trans identities, or discussion of them, are inherently problematic.

The problem here is that you've still not explained what you mean by "trans identities". Can you see how, even in umbrella-ing them this way yourself, a clearer understanding of my argument and views on the particular needs of different demographic are being obscured? I never said they're inherently problematic either. Instead, I consistently break the term down into a wide range of types and my different thoughts on each of these.

I’ll end by saying that I believe I’m becoming increasingly cautious about single explanations. One thing I’ve found particularly interesting is some of the emerging qualitative research around autism and gender diversity. It suggests that people may arrive at similar identities through very different experiences, developmental pathways and understandings of themselves.

Is this another argument for the "trans" umbrella invisibilising distinct experiences and correspondingly distinct needs? See underlining... ;)

I’m undertaking a psychology masters, and being autistic myself, I tend to hyper-focus (stereotype rings true for me, I guess).

I want to do the same! Quite seriously! Could I maybe PM you sometime (probably way in the future, if you happen to still be around)?

For example, some autistic individuals describe not strongly relating to conventional gender categories or experiencing gender as a social construct that feels confusing or unintuitive. That doesn’t necessarily mean their experience is the same as someone with long-standing gender dysphoria, nor does it mean there is one universal explanation for either.

Absolutely. I hope you don't mind me saying, but this really is fairly common knowledge among posters here - indeed, a source of long-term interest and concern. You're lucky getting to delve into it more deeply in a Masters, though.

The existence of diversity within a group doesn’t make me less interested in understanding it; if anything, it now makes me more cautious about assuming a single narrative explains everyone.

Again, in this context, I'd love you to address my concerns (practical, ethical, developmental and many, many other -als) about grouping such disparate types under the single messy, "trans".

Some platforms don’t appreciate debate, or lengthy responses - so my learned norm is simplified language which leads to perhaps overstating my position and ultimately to a lack of clarity.

The please un-simplify post-haste. Posters here are often scary-clever and very highly educated, almost always research-rigorous and absolutely love the nitty-gritty. (As much as I love compounds, even).

Anyway, thanks for engaging.

It is taken directly from the stipulated RHCP teaching materials. Verbatim. I can find the link.

Nice try, but my post was correct - it's not 'all' that kids are taught. If it was, it wouldn't be varied, or nuanced, or anything else of that ilk, and teaching about Pride wouldn't even be a thing - all the teacher would have said is 'trans people exist'.

I meant that it’s varied as in some teachers might teach more, some will teach that trans people exist. That’s the variation. Not all teachers teach all parts of the curriculum equally. There’s a lot of ground to cover, not every E&O is covered in each year as there simply isn’t time.

My point was that based on the comments thread where the OP drew their post from, a lot of teachers positioned themselves as gender critical and so didn’t teach this in their classrooms. So based on this, some children, who are in the classrooms of these teachers, aren’t even being taught that “trans people exist” because these teachers don’t feel comfortable teaching these E’s&O’s. Some teachers were on the opposite end of the spectrum and believed that it should be taught. That in itself points to there being variation. And that’s coming from teachers themselves. That was my point. Not to say that some learners will perhaps experience more than that - I’m not saying you are incorrect, I am saying that it’s not consistent.

Not an Aberdeen Teacher - different local authority

Sorry, Aberdeenshire?

Her last known employer is registered as Aberdeen City Council. Lots of people live in the Shire and commute in.

Sorry I missed it was ‘residing in’ rather than teaching in.

As you are on Mumsnet I assume you have a child who has been through Primary in the last 10 years and if so can you tell me what else your child was taught on top of that because mine wasn't.

You're correct - it's not consistent and it's not true to say that 'all' kids were being taught was that trans people exist. That's what I said in response yo the other poster who claimed it was. That is simply not true - in this case, the teacher wanted to teach about Pride which is far more than 'trans people exist'.
Incidentally, I wonder if as part of that lesson, the teacher would talk about things like lesbian groups and LGB Alliance being banned at some Prides, or gender critical beliefs within it, or the criminal convictions of some leaders, or the fetish stuff, or or any of the other stuff that goes on - or was she planning to skirt over all that and just talk about the pretty rainbow that brings everyone together (which it doesn't, obviously)?

So based on this, some children, who are in the classrooms of these teachers, aren’t even being taught that “trans people exist” because these teachers don’t feel comfortable teaching these E’s&O’s
Which Es and Os relate to trans people? There aren't any.
They were written long before the current ideology became popular
@ThisTwinklyAzurePombear

You’re right that there isn’t a specific CfE Experience and Outcome that says ‘teach about trans people’. The Es & Os were written before the Scottish Government’s LGBT Inclusive Education policy was introduced.

However, since 2018 the Scottish Government has expected LGBT-inclusive education to be embedded across Curriculum for Excellence, and its guidance explicitly includes transgender people as part of that approach. So while it’s not contained within a single Es & O, it is part of current national education guidance.

So it’s an add on to what’s arguably a now more outdated curriculum. I was oversimplifying, apologies.

You can, if you are in Scotland, look up the RHCP materials and see everything on there.

Many teachers choose to avoid the most contentious parts as much as they can, although genderism is pretty hard to avoid as its woven through everything.

Most secondary schools seem to have at least one activist teacher, who goes the full Stonewall.

Which of course is the same in England. It's particularly dangerous for children when these activists become senior leaders and nobody has the authority to challenge their activism and the often safeguarding breaching materials they promote. Isn't it pleasing to see some professionalism in a Scottish school over this issue?
Hopefully in England, the return of professional standards that focus on children's learning, needs, rights and development will eventually put a stop to transactivism in the classroom. But it's going to be drawn out as some of these people are wedged into institutions and unused to being told no.

Think of how much damage one batshit teacher can do. Access to hundreds of children, including all the vulnerable ones. Support from activist lobbyists - we have LGBTYS in Scotland among others, and the equivalents elsewhere in the UK.

And tacit support from mad politicians. A Scotgov that have been told they aren't allowed to have men in women's prisons and are breaking the law, but are going to take some time to think about that because it's 'complex'.

It wont be long before citizens start to mirror this selective approach to the rule of law, I expect.

Absolutely. In a long career in education I've come across a relatively small number of truly batshit teachers. The ones who keep me awake at night are those who repeatedly cross safeguarding boundaries. Seeing themselves as repositories for children's secrets. Cultivating special relationships and being oh so keen on having inappropriate conversations with the young. Their impact is devastating on children and schools.

It's why gender identity has been such a gift to the few predators in education. It promotes breaching safety boundaries (changing rooms, toilets, at one stage even dormitories in boarding schools), targets naive children and adolescents with the "you've likely been born in the wrong body" dangerous nonsense that undermines facts and science and generates an unhealthy obsession with personal identity - as opposed to fostering a child's natural development at their own pace and unpressured by frankly dodgy adults.

It's an unedifying spectacle watching this promoted by politicians who were once seen as responsible.

The trans-identifying men particularly and (including?) the woman-face drag queens really need "trans" kids for their own validation and justification. I can't begin to express how angry it makes me.

I don’t think anyone sane would argue that these teachers who consistently cross safeguarding boundaries should still be in jobs. I myself was victim to a male teacher who used to cultivate special relationships with an older female student, he always had a ‘special 6th year girl’. This was common knowledge and talked about amongst staff. He was notorious for it. I was going through an especially difficult time and he was party to this information. And he acted on it. Other staff were aware and didn’t do a thing. Now, as an adult, he’s actually been caught, charged and struck off - but it took years and numerous complaints. There are unfortunately always bad people, of all kinds and children should always be protected against them. I don’t think this ‘badness’ is reserved for any specific category of people alone. So I 100% agree with you, teachers who overstep the mark like this shouldn’t be teaching. And I can see the point you are making 100%.

Pombear, I hope you don't mind me saying this, but something I find interesting in your posts is a tendency to make quite generalised statements that few would disagree with in a way that can sometimes feel rather discombobulating (gotta take any chance to use that word!)

What I mean is...

These very occasionally indicate a misreading of others' posts, eg.

Furthermore, I’d perhaps push back slightly on the idea that I align with a “this is harmless” extreme.

(See my last response above).

Or, they sometimes appear to imply, I'm sure unintentionally, that others here would, in fact, disagree with you on the (eminently sensible!) statement in question, eg.

I don’t think this ‘badness’ is reserved for any specific category of people alone.

...which may, as such, come across as perceiving an extreme of prejudice that hasn't in fact been expressed. (After all, who would disagree with the above? It's self-evident enough that to say it feels a bit surprising - at any rate, without immediate explanation of its relevance).

All this can also means that these generalisations sometimes seem to be skirting around rather more difficult and nuanced questions, eg.

However, when we’re discussing society, education or public policy, we often need broader categories in order to have those conversations at all...

...rather sidesteps the question of the origins and make-up of the so-called trans umbrella. Ditto, the comments on lesson content don't address the nitty-gritty of what "trans people existing" and "age appropriate" means given the multiple associated issues raised here (the disparate types under trans, boundaries, child development, language, political contention and ethical dilemmas etc.) It would be easy just to say in response to this that age-appropriate simply means avoiding these complexities in place of the simple maxim of trans' people's undeniable "existence" etc.... but it's simply impossible to extricate these questions from how this is communicated to impressionable young minds. And right now, inn this respect, I'd argue that there is a bias that sees certain very key facts and issues as fundamentally unspeakable still. For example, I can say with relative certainty that schools in general (possibly without exception) aren't yet teaching critical thinking about conflicting rights (trans and women's) in this context! And that, to me, is a huge issue.

In short... you've mentioned over-simplifying a few times now, and even suggested on one occasion that this was to help readers here understand you. It does rather seem to be creating some additional scope for misunderstanding at times instead, though. I think, in this debate, the devil's very much in the detail.

I'd be really interested in a response to the details in my arguments against the trans-umbrella - autistic spectrum analogy which you make above.

I'll probably hang around and keep reading, but also may only be back in a few days, so apologies in advance if the latter's the case. Things are unpredictable here right now!

PS

I somehow missed your last, and having read it, am so very sorry you had that experience.

They'll have been taught what "trans" means (which is contested), that trans people deserve protections (no argument there), but also almost certainly what some of what these protections should be (or what's the point of mentioning a need for them... and this, too, is contested).

Without this additional context, "trans people exist" is meaningless. The rest is necessary to it. And some of the rest is inherently complex.

To a degree, the moment you say "trans people exist", a presumption of the unquestioned rightness of immediate validation does come attached.

And I'm not saying here that this is necessarily wrong. I am saying it's really very difficult and something that needs wider discussion.