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

Ah apologies. There are so many first time MNers TRAs who show up on these threads with exaggerated claims, try to derail discussions, provoke posters in bad faith just so they can screenshot to Reddit. Etc.

To clarify, someone on a primary teacher FB page said MN FWR was discussing the Stonehaven teacher’s FB post and you came to take a look, is that right?

Welcome. Hopefully you can read and engage with some of thoughtful posters who explain carefully and at length exactly why it’s dangerous to lie to young children. There’s already been many such thoughtful posts to read and consider.

My informal experience is with older teens / young trans males. Almost all autistic. Uniformly suggestible. Exposed to the idea of being trans by well meaning teachers (who’ve not fully thought through the wider implications) and in online spaces like discord. Absolutely social contagion. Poor sense of personal boundaries.

Encouraged to go from social transition to taking CSHs almost immediately not appreciating at 18,19, 20 that yes, one day they might well want to father children. Nor told about or aware of the existing research on the other potential side effects of oestrogen in males eg risk of strokes, heart attacks, depression etc. And then over time, some I see slowly dropping being trans, but sadly no longer being able to father having children.

i see a direct line from well meaning teachers in primary having no to little idea of how young literal autistic children will listen and become fixated on the idea they’ve been born in the wrong body.

@Catiette Thank you so much for the kind words :) !

And, ugh prepositions, indeed 😓Like, whyyyyy 😭? Ah well, I've grown used to re-reading some old comments of mine and going, "Oho" 😅

Queer was... interesting. So much arrogance, even using what looks like a royal "we" at times, and yet utterly unable to have any kind of coherent argument. Completely empty, vapid. Really weird.

I found your post genuinely interesting because, unlike much of this debate, it is grounded in developmental psychology rather than politics. I must apologise for the delay in responding, been a very busy couple of days! I have been mulling things over though and working on your questions and points in my head.

I don’t think I’d disagree with the basic premise that young children place enormous trust in adults. There is a substantial body of research on what psychologists call “epistemic trust” – the tendency of children to rely on information provided by trusted adults when making sense of the world. Young children are often willing to accept testimony even when it conflicts with their own expectations, and adult guidance is undoubtedly central to how children learn and categorise the world around them. I believe this is what you are talking about in this post?

Where I become less certain is in the leap from that well-established finding to the claim that acknowledging transgender people or explaining pronouns necessarily undermines children’s trust in their own perceptions.

One of the interesting findings from the developmental literature is that children are not simply passive recipients of whatever adults tell them. Even quite young children evaluate the reliability of information sources, track whether adults are accurate, and become increasingly selective about who they trust. Their learning is far more active than a simple “adult says X, therefore child believes X” model suggests.

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.

Children are constantly taught things that extend beyond immediate observation. They learn that the Earth is round despite appearing flat, that adoptive parents are parents despite not being biologically related, that some disabilities are invisible, and that stereotypes about boys and girls are often inaccurate. Education routinely involves helping children move beyond first impressions without teaching them to distrust their senses.

You also mention children’s ability to differentiate between the sexes. I agree that children notice sex differences from an early age (as early as 6 months they have began to identify male and female faces). However, the research on gender development suggests that children are also highly sensitive to social expectations and stereotypes from a very young age. In fact, 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. They are especially susceptible to this around pre-school age, so between 3 to 5.

That is partly why I hesitate when discussions move from “children recognise sex” to “therefore acknowledging trans identities is harmful”. The evidence for the first claim is strong. The evidence for the second seems much less clear. This may be because the research just isn’t there yet and indeed conducting research on children is time-consuming and sometimes difficult from an ethics perspective - I know that I won’t be able to conduct my masters research project with children as participants as it wouldn’t gain ethical approval. So you may be correct, just we don’t have a huge body of research directly addressing this yet.

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? Or is this a theoretical concern based on how we think children might respond?

Those are slightly different things. A plausible developmental theory is not necessarily the same as a demonstrated developmental outcome.

For me, that distinction matters, particularly when we are discussing what children should or should not be taught.

Additionally, one thing I also wonder about is whether the developmental effects you describe depend upon these concepts being introduced as a contradiction to a child’s existing understanding, rather than simply being part of that understanding from the beginning.

Many children today are introduced to ideas about different families, disabilities, cultures, religions and identities from a very young age by their parents. For some children, learning that transgender people exist or that some people use different pronouns is not a sudden challenge to an established worldview at age five. It is simply part of the world they have always known.

If a child grows up hearing about dogs, rainbows, grandparents, wheelchairs, adopted families and transgender people in the same way, does that necessarily create developmental confusion? Or does it simply become another aspect of human diversity that they learn to navigate?

I don’t know the answer, but it seems to me that this is an empirical question rather than something we can assume. The developmental theory you’ve described is interesting, but I am not aware of evidence showing that children who are exposed to these concepts from an early age experience the kinds of epistemic difficulties you are concerned about. Or at least, there isn’t a vast body of research on the topic, so for me it remains relatively unknown.

Aha, this is my moment. I could only spot one, the use of the preposition "of" in "he opposite sex of what they truly are" (nasty things they are, prepositions in second/third/fourth languages - nasty). But I also felt the chunky noun phrases went a long way to legitimising it anyway, colloquially. Your English is amazing, Seeth - I'd never have realised you weren't mother tongue if you hadn't shared that).

And thanks for your comments - highly entertaining page.

I was loving the irony of Queer's certainty that a trans poster is out to (what was it?) "eradicate trans people".

And of Queer calling you "intolerant" while nastily mocking imperfect (I mean, was it, even? again, just colloquial, really! which is when you really know you've made it in a foreign language) English.

And the deliciously appalled Sorry proffered on the basis that, in Queer's view, you have Exclusive Protected Status as a Second Language Speaker which wins you An Unreserved Apology (that very extravagant courtesy making it all the more clear that the rest of us are still fair game for petty rudeness!)

Ooh, and, reading on... Queer - our proud detective uncovering "glaring crimes against proper usage of the English language" - promptly writing "as the Usual Suspect on MN do". Just beyootiful, that one was! (Which Usual Suspect were they referencing of the five... hmm...)

Honestly, I'd have been mourning the instant collapse of 10 pages of intelligent, mutually respectful debate into the usual absurdity, but this is classic so far. Right! Returning to enjoy more...

Great! So for primary teachers who are still struggling with how to introduce the topic in a neutral way - Some people believe they should be the opposite sex of what they truly are. They change their name and ask the rest of us to use opposite-sex pronouns for them. We can accept to do that or not. Now, jotters out for our next lesson.

That’s what happens when you announce it’s been posted here on the primary teacher Facebook page; people head over to mumsnet lol

Almost like the bat call had gone out.

Goodness. Another poster new to Mumsnet finds this thread!

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the case.

I think that's reasonable - it's a belief that people (children, in this case) have the right to reject a request to accept if they want to, and accept the request if they want to. Neither approach is kinder or more respectful than the other - they are free to choose. Equally, those asking others to believe something that isn't based on fact (no-one can change sex) are free to ask but must respect the right of others to reject that request - it's not less respectful or less kind to do so.

Actually that’s not what the case report stated, they actually stated ‘ In summary therefore, the Panel was content that the evidence available
to is was sufficient to pass the relatively low bar identified in the Galbraith
test in respect of Particulars 1 and 2. It was also satisfied that a reasonable
panel could find the comments in Schedule A to amount to serious
professional misconduct, but that the interaction with the social media
posts in Schedule B would not be likely to be found by a reasonable Panel
to amount to serious professional misconduct. Accordingly, the Galbraith
test was passed in respect of Particular 1, but failed in respect of Particular 1. However, the Panel did not consider that the comments in Schedule A demonstrated that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired, and found that Particular 1 failed the Galbraith test at this point.’

she blamed her husband for having access to her Twitter/X account. As a clinical psychologist her posts were deemed by her regulator, HCPC, to be against their standards. Hence the tribunal. The report was also clear that the teacher had been harassed online by her and that’s how he connected who it was. Nothing to do with the complaint she made. He found out after the connection was made.

Get the report from HCPC

I’m generally concerned that so much focus has been put on ‘bathrooms’ that masculine looking women are now going to be quizzed, questioned and bullied by using their biological bathroom. It’s already started happening

Is it? TRAs keep bringing this up, but it doesn't actually seem to be happening at any higher rates than before?

Huh, true, we don't put it like that for other beliefs.

Okay, so:

Some people believe they should be the opposite sex of what they truly are. They change their name and ask the rest of us to use opposite-sex pronouns for them. We can accept to do that or not.

Simple, to the point, and accurate. Perfect for both kids and adults.

You don’t have to but it’s taught that people use pronouns and it’s respectful. Of course many people decide not to use pronouns and that’s also respectful. I’m generally concerned that so much focus has been put on ‘bathrooms’ that masculine looking women are now going to be quizzed, questioned and bullied by using their biological bathroom. It’s already started happening

"...your SLT need to be educated about legislation... I'm appalled at how you've been treated..." From the screenshots in the op.

Not how I'd expect a Head or Deputy Head to speak about other identifiable school leaders on an online forum. Precisely how I'd expect a transactivist to speak.

From the archived interview with Dr Woodhouse, a parent with children at his school, (link below) it appears that after reading his online support for "Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) " suggesting trans-identifying children could transition at school without parental knowledge, she contacted the school to check whether this was in fact school policy. She requested anonymity to protect her daughters from consequences. Naples-Campbell was told of her questions and then apparently made a series of allegations about her, including her online comments both to Police Scotland and her professional regulator. Police Scotland said there was no case to answer and after some years, her regulator, the HCPC dismissed all the allegations against her after dragging her through a fitness to practice tribunal.

I'm sure he would tell a different story but inevitably, all his allegations were dismissed by the police and the HCPC. It's a regular occurrence for women (and men) to be doxxed online, threatened and reported to every possible body for daring to speak about safeguarding children and women's rights in a manner that does not comply with transactivist demands.

archive.ph/GpzN2

To be honest, I would remove the 'for some unknown reason' and just go with 'some people believe...'. I think of it along faith lines - some people truly believe that Jesus is the son of God, but we wouldn't say 'for some unknown reason some people believe...', we simply acknowledge some people believe it. However, we don't expect people of other faiths or no faith to believe that or go along with that belief (or even pretend to) in order to be kind.

Sounds good so far!

Of course, I'm still waiting for @CuriousQueer to come back and tell me which bits of this are inaccurate. Unless they meant the Be Kind part 🤔?

Well, yes: when you teach children that they have to use the wrong pronouns around trans people, you effectively teach them to lie. You teach them that trans people are a special category of people with whom they are supposed to deal through untruths. I don't see what good can come of this for the children.

So, if we scrap the 'be kind' imperative clause, we'd arrive at something like:

' "For some unknown reason, some people believe they should be the opposite sex of what they truly are. So they change their name and ask the rest of us to use opposite-sex pronouns for them. We can accept to do that or not.'

I can't imagine anyone objecting to that?

Respect works both ways. Of course trans people are not going to be 'erased', but using wrong sex pronouns should be an invitation, not a summons - and children should be able to decline that invitation without fear or prejudice.

Is that happening? The teachers and schools I know are teaching that trans people exist, that respect is important, that we treat people how we would like to be treated. I’m confused why we have a fascination about trans people in schools when they are a minority, yet part of, the community.

Awww😍 !! Thank you! Ou plutôt, merci!!

Votre (ton?) Français est peut-être un peu moche, mais il est compréhensible :)

True, but that doesn't mean we have to teach children to lie around them either.

Je suis vraiment desolee. Cette personne est encroyablement grossier, et votre Anglaise et mieux que quelques qui l'ont a son langue premier.

(Je suis aussi desolee pour mon Francais moche. )😂

It is all meant to be about respect but that isn’t happening. We can’t erase trans people from society.