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?

As a woman, I have to say that I find it very difficult to articulate what it means to be a ‘woman’.

Thats a worry. What hope do the children have if grown women don’t know or can’t describe what they are?

Maybe as Arabella suggests, everyone needs to go back to basics. Women are adult human females. Girls are young human females. Stereotypes do not define your sex. There is only one way to be a woman or a girl and that is to be born female and survive for a sufficient length of time.

Defining what a woman is has only become "an issue" since certain men suddenly decided they were women. Once they were allowed to gaslight children and tell them that sex change was possible and desirable for those experiencing pubertal angst, the floodgates opened and confusion / delusion filled the air.

This is heading into metaphysical discussion about souls

Strong agree, up to...

I can imagine a similar approach being appropriate when younger children encounter trans people. At that age, it may be as simple as explaining that some people live differently, some people use different names or pronouns, and that we should treat people kindly.

As a kid, I was taught, if I got lost, to go to a policeman/woman, into a shop, or to find a lady, ideally with children. We all know why that was: statistically speaking, she'd be 98+% less likely than a man to be a threat to me.

Just think about that for a second.

98%.

The lesson you describe dissolves that safeguarding boundary totally. I mean, it's a pity we had to think that way, but it wasn't a moral condemnation of all males - rather, it served the absolutely invaluable function of keeping children safe. It will, quite simply, have saved lives. No doubt.

Yet suddenly, anyone can be a "he" or a "she, a "man" or a "woman". After all, we should treat people kindly! And it's kind to remember that a man in conventionally feminine dress could well to be a "she". And that a man presenting as a man who nonetheless says he's a woman deserves our kindness. That old recognition with which we all grew up, that a male entering the ladies was something of which to be wary? It's not very kind to think like that in these more enlightened times, children, now, is it?

And all the while we're teaching this, you and I still know, as adults, that (based on the fairly substantial current data we have), the statistical risk I cite above hasn't changed. It's in no way influenced by gender identity.

So who are we really being kind to? And who are we being unkind to?

Kindness is always going to be an offering or concession made by someone. Are we right to demand it of children to this stark a degree? Without their fully understanding what they're conceding? Is it worth it? Has anyone even thought to ask?!

Whatever you think about this, the reality - that what I'm typing is unsayable in some (many? all?!) schools should, I think, be a source of serious concern to us all. And, that to me, is a further indication of something being very wrong with this ideology. The people as a group? No. (See above re. umbrellas and complexity etc.) The ideology? Heck, yes.

I don’t have all of the answers for this, but for me, perhaps involving skilled people from all sides of the debate to create a balanced curriculum would be optimal. That way all sides of the debate are covered and taught. No one single ‘agenda’ is pushed. This takes time and resources. So perhaps the whole thing should be placed on pause until the appropriate training can take place.

Back in agree-mode, especially re. the above.

I think the issue is simpler for younger children, as the language and intent is simpler.

Ah, disagree. We can teach it in a simple way, but that doesn't mean it's simple. I outline the potential issues I see with your "some people live in different ways and use different pronouns" (paraphrase!) above.

And that, on reflection, perhaps the more complex questions shouldn’t be addressed until we are able to do so safely, in a trauma informed way, so as to mitigate risk.

Disagree again, for similar reasons.

Basically, if we're not addressing the complex questions, that means we're addressing the simple ones. But I hope I've convinced you above that the simple ones aren't in fact simple, but rather simplified. Big difference. Not least as any process of simplification requires a degree of certainty - "This is what this means!" Indeed, often to the point of misrepresentation (a bone of contention between me and GCSE chemistry - I thought I was rubbish at it because I simply didn't get it - in fact, I was seeing through bewilderingly illogical over-simplifications that others simply accepted as gospel). So certainty requires a degree of bias, one way of the other... which takes us back to your "some people use different pronouns", which favours a particular approach - validation - that conflicts with the caution that I think many here would urge in younger year groups in contrast. The caution, in fact, that many here would say is teaching "safely, in a trauma informed way, so as to mitigate risk". AKA, arguing for the exact same outcome as you... but using the opposite approach.

And while one of these approaches has taken hold nationally, the other is simply anathema - a sign of bigotry, for that matter.

I mean... dangerous over-simplification much? 😉

I hope that makes sense - having to type furiously fast and won’t have the opportunity to edit as I’m needed!

Thank you. It was really interesting. Hope you're having a lovely holiday.

Thank you - that's so lovely (and reassuring!) to read. I have to work increasingly hard on my own frustration, to be honest. Not on this thread, but definitely a few recent ones (you may be able to guess!) It's not easy, and I think the Aargh! factor has slipped through a few times recently (sarcasm's usually a clue - lowest form of wit and all that, but sometimes it honestly feels like there's nowhere left to go with the kind of "debate" we see). I do wonder where I'll be after another 5 years in this game, though. I've so much respect for those who have been around longer than me. And those for whom it's been much longer?! How are you guys still standing?!😅

To be a woman is also to spend a lifetime wrestling with "the understanding of what it means to be a ‘woman’", whether consciously (feminists) or unconsciously (all of us, on some level).

It's only recently that, as opposed to that battle simply meaning you're a woman and a free-thinker / feminist / individual (FFS) etc.... that it's instead somehow come to mean, "Hm! I may not be a woman after all? What, after all, is that mysterious and ineffable thing called woman?"

This is excellent in explaining the concept.

https://www.sevanoland.com/uploads/1/1/8/0/118081022/thereisnounmarkedwoman.pdf

ETA: Just got to Seethlaw's post using "ineffable", too! Exactly! For goodness sake, when did it become in some way problematic for adult human females to have the same right to a noun of their own that cows, hens and vixen enjoy? No one's suggesting that the negative connotations of those three animal words in fact mean that cows, hens and vixen are in some way ineffable or closely bound up with their other associations (eg. that they're all inherently... er... bitches - see what I did there?) How come "woman'"s social and cultural connotations are suddenly being taken so seriously, not least when they're, frankly, similarly problematic in many respects?!

Hm. Link fail. If curious, Google Deborah Tannen "There is no unmarked woman".

Excerpt -

(Woman) No. 1 wore string sandals with medium heels; No. 2, sensible, comfortable walking shoes; No. 3, pumps with spike heels. You can fill in the jewelry, scarves, shawls, sweaters -- or lack of them.

As I amused myself finding coherence in these styles, I suddenly wondered why I was scrutinizing only the women. I scanned the eight men at the table. And then I knew why I wasn't studying them. The men's styles were unmarked.

The term “marked” is a staple of linguistic theory. It refers to the way language alters the base meaning of a word by adding a linguistic particle that has no meaning on its own.

The unmarked form of a word carries the meaning that goes without saying what you think of when you're not thinking anything special. The unmarked tense of verbs in English is the present for example, visit. To indicate past, you mark the verb by adding ed to yield visited. For future, you add a word: will visit. Nouns are presumed to be singular until marked for plural, typically by adding s or es, so visit becomes visits and dish becomes dishes.

The unmarked forms of most English words also convey "male." Being male is the unmarked case. Endings like ess and ette mark words as "female." Unfortunately, they also tend to mark them for frivolousness. Would you feel safe entrusting your life to a doctorette? Alfre Woodard, who was an Oscar nominee for best supporting actress, says she identifies herself as an actor because "actresses worry about eyelashes and cellulite, and women who are actors worry about the characters we are playing." Gender markers pick up extra meanings that reflect common associations with the female gender: not quite serious, often sexual.

Each of the women at the conference had to make decisions about hair, clothing, makeup and accessories, and each decision carried meaning. Every style available to us was marked. The men in our group had made decisions, too, but the range from which they chose was incomparably narrower. Men can choose styles that are marked, but they don't have to, and in this group none did. Unlike the women, they had the option of being unmarked.

"but sometimes it honestly feels like there's nowhere left to go with the kind of "debate" we see"

Yes. The lack of respect for women, for children's safety, for the rights of others and the relentless bullying of everyone - especially women - makes it a challenge to retain the pandering compliance demanded by transactivists.

It's only since we started saying no, heading to the courts and making such a bloody fuss that we're making progress. And it's only by exposing the behaviour of the bullies - like the earlier mentioned dq teacher - that their power can be dissipated. Sunlight and all that.

Exactly.

Except, you know, I usually see "sunlight" in that context and get a nice sense of clarity. But saw it just then and felt myself recoil and my body temp increase by a few degrees. Crazy weather...

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It scours untruths.

Scour?

Now I have a feeling of sunburn.

No, nope, hang on... that one's real.

I have sunburn.

Bugger.

(Sorry, bad day, very tired - and hot and mildly burnt. Will head off before embarrassing myself further. Agree re. the sunlight, Arabella. Very firm believer in it, despite the above).

Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I think your distinction between something being simple and something being simplified is an interesting one, and probably a fair challenge to my original example.

Where I think I perhaps differ from you is that I wonder whether we are approaching these questions from very different starting points. Much of your analysis seems to examine the assumptions and implications contained within phrases such as “some people use different pronouns” from an adult perspective. In other words, what view of sex, gender, identity and society is being implicitly communicated.

What I am less certain about is whether young children are engaging with those concepts at that level.

To take your example, when an adult hears “some people use different pronouns”, they may immediately connect it to wider debates about self-identification, safeguarding, sex-based rights, language, social norms and competing ideological frameworks. A five-year-old is unlikely to be doing any of those things. They are far more likely to hear something much simpler: “Oh, that’s what that person likes to be called.”

That doesn’t mean the wider debates do not exist, nor that the assumptions embedded within language are unimportant. Rather, I wonder whether the apparent lack of neutrality lies partly in our adult understanding of the issue, rather than in the developmental understanding of the child receiving the information.

Perhaps another way of putting it is that children do not begin with fully formed views on sex, gender and identity and then interpret the world through them. They gradually construct those understandings through experience. At a young age, their concepts of both sex and gender are relatively basic. As educators, we simplify all sorts of complex realities in order to meet children where they are developmentally, adding nuance as their understanding grows. I appreciate this doesn’t answer the question about how to approach teaching older children. I don’t have an answer for that, but it helps to explain why I feel the way I do about teaching younger children. Perhaps with older children, the answer is a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the existence of differing perspectives and equips young people with the critical thinking skills to evaluate them.

I think this is also where your safeguarding example loses me slightly. My own experience of childhood was somewhat different. I wasn’t taught to seek out a policewoman specifically if I was lost, but rather a police officer, a member of staff, or another trusted adult (usually one with children) who could help me. The safeguarding message I received was less about categorising people by sex and more about recognising appropriate sources of help. That doesn’t negate the statistical realities you refer to, but it does make me question whether acknowledging that some people are trans necessarily requires abandoning safeguarding principles entirely. My parents surely weren’t the only parents in the world who taught their children this, so that experience you described isn’t universal.

Similarly, I am not entirely persuaded that kindness in this context must be understood as a concession made by one group to another. We routinely teach children to treat people respectfully despite differences in appearance, disability, religion, culture or family structure. I’m not sure that explaining why somebody uses a different name or pronouns necessarily requires children to surrender something fundamental about their own understanding of themselves.

I do, however, agree with you that there is a risk whenever questions become difficult to discuss openly. If children are going to encounter these issues—and I think they inevitably will through family members, friends, television, social media and wider society—then they need adults who can engage thoughtfully with their questions rather than simply shutting them down.
That is partly why I remain uneasy about both certainty and simplicity in this area. I agree that the training isn’t currently there. I agree that the debate is ongoing. I agree that educators need to tread carefully, if at all just now without adequate training and a purposeful curriculum. Where I think we differ is that I am not yet convinced that the answer to that problem is to avoid the topic altogether until perfect consensus exists. Perfect consensus may never exist. Some parents will actively teach their children and engage in complex issues. Others may feel less confident doing so, may avoid certain topics, or simply may not have the time or resources. So who do these kids turn to when they have questions on these complex issues? If children cannot ask questions of trusted adults, they will often seek answers elsewhere. Increasingly, that means the internet, social media or their peers. None of those are necessarily reliable sources of information, and some can be actively harmful.

I suspect where we genuinely diverge is on whether a statement such as “some people use different names and pronouns” is a reasonable developmental simplification, or whether it already commits the child to a particular worldview. For me, it feels more like an age-appropriate description of something a child may encounter than an attempt to settle the wider philosophical debate.

In any case, I agree with you that these questions are far more complex than they are often presented as being, which is probably why I remain somewhat cautious about how they are taught and by whom.

As a kid, I was taught, if I got lost, to go to a policeman/woman, into a shop, or to find a lady, ideally with children. We all know why that was: statistically speaking, she'd be 98+% less likely than a man to be a threat to me.

Good point @Catiette . Off the top of my head, I can think of two well publicised examples where a female child has believed that a man presenting himself as a woman was safe enough to go along with. One resulted in a 12 hour kidnap ordeal where she was held and repeatedly raped and the other also resulted in rape.

There are two possible explanations I can think of. Either she genuinely mistook the man for a woman in which case there is a definite issue when child safeguarding and trans/public transvestism interact or she has been taught (equally feasible given the timing and location) in school that a man in a wig is really a woman and must be treated as such.

I would agree that the general message for children in need always was as you describe and the messages many children are receiving in school that ‘transwomen are women’ or the normalisation of public transvestism or trans identifying men creates a problem for children.

The reaction I always find telling in trans activists is when their reaction isn’t ‘omg, I see what you mean - this clearly needs more thought and preventative action, what can we do about it?’

Instead, they continue to argue the point and become ever more gymnastic in their attempts to justify their original position that it’s definitely not a problem.

Agree 100%. Also great posts from @Catiette and yes, in one of those cases where the man-presenting-as-a-woman who committed the crime of kidnap and rape IIRC the Judge actually commented that him being 'dressed as a woman' may have been a factor in why the child had got into the car with him.

And I think, given the absolute hatred and bullying of those who stick to recognising others' sex even when they want to obscure it, it's just as likely, probably more likely having seen photos, that this was a 'be kind / don't be a bigot' response as a 'this is really a woman' response. If it was a 'be kind / don't be a bigot' response the child will likely have been educated repeatedly that this is the correct response.

There is a less important point about pronouns. They are not grammatically, structurally correct in terms of English. It is extremely confusing to children to say 'here's a part of language where we apply this rule' and then say 'but except for special people, but you can't tell who they are, but you must always just do what they want you to'. That's really disruptive to normal development and correct use of language. What other grammatical rules are optional? Spelling if you're dyslexic? Grammar? Maybe we can all just define words ourselves and cease to be able to meaningfully communicate (this is in fact what the TRA argument is for - see their definitions of 'male', 'female' and 'genocide')

Pronouns are sex-based and based either or direct observation or prior reporting. Upending that is disruptive to children learning English.

Names are different - names are already individual and unique parts of language you need to learn for each person. Pronouns are not and should not be. There is nothing wrong with being of one sex or the other, it is not something that should be obscured and it would be good safeguarding practice and showing appropriate safeguarding curiosity to ask why it would benefit anyone to obscure it. It's obviously not in the children's best interests to do so.

it's just as likely, probably more likely having seen photos, that this was a 'be kind / don't be a bigot' response as a 'this is really a woman' response. If it was a 'be kind / don't be a bigot' response the child will likely have been educated repeatedly that this is the correct response.

Crucial point. It wasn't 100% clear from judge's remarks whether he meant the girl got into his car because she thought he was a woman, or because she knew he was trans.

The latter would point to the very real risk of telling children explicitly and implicitly that trans women are categorically not a risk.

Indeed. And frankly, it's only become mysterious to people because of a powerful male-led movement pretending it's mysterious.
And shoehorning trans stuff into primary schools is a perfect way to start embedding the 'it's so mysterious' idea. It really isn't at all mysterious.

So a lot of men claim they have some ineffable, indescribable inner quality that actually makes them women.

Most women examine their psyche, find nothing, and assume, what?

1. This ineffable essence is a figment of men's imagination,or
2. These men are lying, or
3. Women without the ineffable essence of woman are defective in some way.

Unfortunately a lot of women alight on three.

Accustomed to the endemic societal gaslighting that goes along with being female, they assume their failure to positively 'identify' with arbitrary sex stereotypes means they are a strange kind of lesser woman, or 'non binary'.

From Judge's remarks. (I STRONGLY caution reading them as they are very upsetting, graphic descriptions of Andrew Miller/Amy George's crimes, CSA.)

'The mode of abduction itself is also in my view a significantly aggravating feature, if any were needed in such a case, and here to speak plainly I am referring to your female presentation as you invited your victim into your car. One only has to ask oneself the simple question: would an 11 year old girl have willingly entered your car had you presented as a man? The answer is that obviously she would not. Your intentions were wicked and predatory, and clearly involved a substantial component of planning. Indeed, the mode of abduction utilised by you in my opinion entirely supports that proposition when it is seen in the context of your whole conduct in this matter.'

https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2023/10/18/hma-v-andrew-miller

Very true. FWR is a solid 1 with a cynical attitude to the claims, recognising that many are 2.

Actually, I find it difficult to identify with being a “woman” in the sense you’re describing, not because I have any doubts about my biological sex, but because gender is a social construct and social constructs are often difficult for me to understand as an autistic person.
I know I’m female. That’s straightforward. What I struggle to articulate is the idea of an internal, subjective feeling of “womanhood”. When people ask what it feels like to be a woman beyond biology, I genuinely don’t know how to answer.
That’s one reason I find these discussions interesting. Some people seem to have a very strong internal sense of gender identity, while others don’t appear to think about it much at all. I don’t assume either experience is universal.
And importantly, I don’t conclude from that that I’m somehow a defective or lesser woman. I simply recognise that the concept itself is difficult for me to grasp and describe.

That's the entire point, though. You're a woman and you don't "feel like a woman". So where do men come from, insisting that they can be women because they "feel like a woman"? There's no such thing as "feeling like a woman" that all women feel, so it's not any kind of marker of womanhood.

Pronouns are sex-based and based either or direct observation or prior reporting. Upending that is disruptive to children learning English.

This fairly innocuous sounding ‘they just want to use different pronouns’ creates instability in rules and confusion on quite a fundamental item for children.

Children are taught (and deeply absorb through everyday existence) that you use a particular word ‘she’ for a woman and ‘he’ for a man.

They are then told that for some men they should use ‘she’ (or Miss) or some women are ‘he’ or some men and women required the totally ungrammatical and confusing use of ‘they’ but there are no reliable corresponding visual cues for this (other than the blue hair maybe). The children know that this is inconsistent and illogical and there is no good explanation for it.

Older children are sometimes told that if you don’t or can’t use these incorrect words it could have dire consequences for the person requiring them.

I find by general observation there is often an underlying tense atmosphere around trans people as the true believers keen to enforce usage of required words. Some children will pick up on this atmosphere and similarly internalise the stress. I’ve seen it with my (older) DDs who were horrified the first time I pointed out to them that ‘transwomen’ were men. This was in the privacy of our own home.

They had totally absorbed this message that at was a thing that Must Never Be Said.

They were quite relieved when I talked it through with them and explained the truth and that the messages they had received from not a particularly trans activisty school were wrong and harmful to them.

Sometimes I think that teachers immersed in delivering lessons and lesson plans etc forget that children learn so much by the behaviour of adults. There are too many adults in schools who have allowed their activism to get the better of them and they are using their position as an indoctrination channel rather than considering what is best for the children.

I also think that some adults mistake a lack of immediate reaction or pushback from children as evidence of no harm done. I’m sure we are all aware that is not necessarily the case and kids can’t always identify harmful behaviour on them by adults.

It only takes one activist in a school to create a very unhealthy climate.

Thankfully my DDs have thought and listened and understood and are free from the horrible shackles that trans ideology puts on their freedom of thought.

My personal answers to this:

'I know I’m female. That’s straightforward.'
That and being an adult human being are all that is required. This is because a woman is an adult human female. No more, no less.

'What I struggle to articulate is the idea of an internal, subjective feeling of “womanhood”. When people ask what it feels like to be a woman beyond biology, I genuinely don’t know how to answer.'
I only know what it feels like to be me. I don't think that there is an internal, subjective feeling of “womanhood” that all adult human females share. We do share experiences based on our biology. Being a woman isn't a spiritual state. How someone feels is not what makes them female or not, and a feeling doesn't change your age or species.

That’s very interesting.
I too can only say what it feels to be me.
I don’t feel any less of a person because I can’t articulate it, it doesn’t bother me at all. I just find other people’s expressions of ‘womanhood’ interesting, as I don’t have one to share. When you grow up as an outsider, you just assume that everyone else knows something that you don’t so I find your perspective enlightening.

When you grow up as an outsider, you just assume that everyone else knows something that you don’t

That's an assumption TRAs specifically prey on. When they go, "If you don't feel like a boy/girl, that means you're some kind of trans," a lot of kids who feel just like you, who feel like outsiders, assume that those TRAs know better, that they know something the kids don't know, and they fall into the trap of thinking they MUST be trans, even though they are very much not.

That's why the idea that there exists some kind of "feeling like a man/woman" feeling is a very pernicious one that must be eradicated: because it leaves too many kids who don't feel it vulnerable to arguments that there must be something different about them, when in fact they are perfectly normal in that regard.