Educational Psychologists recommending mixed sex changing and toilets in schools

[TangerineDreaming]

edpsy.org.uk/blog/2022/just-because-i-think-dwayne-johnson-is-fit-exploring-the-voices-of-young-people-who-identify-as-lgbtqia/

I've seen this blog today on the most mainstream blog site for educational Psychologists.

It recommends that educational Psychologists support using preferred pronouns whenever requested and recommend mixed sex toilets and changing facilities throughout schools..

There is no consideration of The Cass review, no caution around social transition, no reference to the evidence base for watchful waiting, no concern over the hugely rising numbers of trans identifying children or reflection on why this might be, and no mention of the association with autism, and mental health concerns,.

And most alarming no thought to the obvious safeguarding concerns for advising that girls (female teenagers) should share changing facilities with boys (male teenagers).

The advice contravenes the equality act and DfE guidance.

But this is the advice schools are getting from psychologists who go in and advise them. Schools believe they will be giving evidenced based, cautious advice and trust they should act on this.

But this advice seems to ignore all the complexity of this issue and instead has replaced professionalism with an activist position linked to 'lived experience/ trans voices',which equals: just do whatever they say.

They seem unaware of the recent position from the association of clinical psychologists urging a more cautious approach in line with the Cass review. There appears to be no position statement from the educational Psychologists association.

This advice is dangerous and unprofessional and another example of a professional organisation captured by ideology and letting this replace evidence based practice and safeguarding to the detriment of many children.

Giving official advice that they ought to know is illegal.

Also, not often mentioned, but very important to note - the drive for mixed sex toilets and changing rooms is not coming from the schoolchildren.

I am surprised it was published tbh as research is completely flawed from what I saw. They asked a LGBTQ group from one school. Not the whole school. Not a variety of schools. Tosh.

That word "research is doing some heavy lifting there. The methodology was:
I contacted a secondary school within the Local Authority where we work, that I understood had an established and highly thought of LGBTQIA+ youth group. She went and spoke to them* *🙄

There's nothing wrong in speaking & listening to groups of children. But it's not "research" that then translates into changing pastoral care, curriculum & safeguarding policies for all children. That blog displays what's called "professional dangerousness". Weighing in on matters with minimal insight and knowledge with no idea that you don't understand not only the context of children's lives, schools and the law.

This blog certainly has an agenda. Report to the BPS & the AEP (Association of Educational Psychologists).

Why does an educational psychologist need to get involved with social justice for work? Especially, an ed psych who works in early years.

It's happening more and more. Social justice warriors first, professionals second with teachers, doctors etc.

" That word "research is doing some heavy lifting there. The methodology was:
I contacted a secondary school within the Local Authority where we work, that I understood had an established and highly thought of LGBTQIA+ youth group. She went and spoke to them 🙄 "

I'd like to know, if that Ed' Psychologist and any other, that thinks the same, has children of their own, if so, why have they been allowed to keep them? :-/

When I read articles such as this, regarding the safeguarding of young girls in school ( or anywhere else for that matter ) I am reminded of the man who spoke at one KJK's events recently, who said that schools were effectively turning young girls into unpaid prostitutes, there for the pleasure of boys/young men.
I don't think the guy was far wrong!

Agreed EpicChaos.
To suggest that mixed sex changing rooms should be imposed on children is real trans extremism ideology and no professional allegedly qualified to work with children should be engaging in that type of rhetoric. Using undressing children to "validate" the fantasies of other children and adults is vile.

The blog does not give recommendations to schools. The EPs have explored the views of a group of young people and the blog just reports what this group has said. Exploring pupil views is very much part of an EPs role.

There is a podcast called New Discourses with James Lindsay. Some of his views are far too much for me but he does a deep dive over several episodes to explain how teachers and educators became "activists" first and foremost. Fascinating stuff.

They asked a LGBTQ group from one school.

From the article "Challenges: “They call it the boys top set or the girls top set and in general it just doesn’t feel like you belong there”". That does give me the impression of a bog-standard comp.

It calls it 'research' and then suggests 'ways forward', mixed sex changing being one of those 'ways forward'.

This is clearly touting itself as 'evidence' for guidance.

You're right in reality it's just: we asked some people what they wanted and this was it... which any numpty can do, nothing psychological about it, and this is what most EP 'research' amounts to these days.

This is what happens when activism replaces rigour.

The BPS and the Association of educational Psychologists are deep into this activism and will support this agenda of policy based on trans 'voices'.

Psychologists as a profession have come to view themselves as social justice activists and therefore were ripe for the Trans ideology which attached itself to that.

This is how the Tavi was able to function as it did and why creating new regional centres is going to be challenging.

Most clin psychs and ed psychs are uncritically onboard with the trans ideology and they're the ones now being looked to for advice to schools and parents.

"From the findings of this research we have created a webinar for schools along with the corresponding language document."

What's the purpose of their webinar and accompanying documents Neolara if not to recommend / advise schools about certain courses of action?

"Most clin psychs and ed psychs are uncritically onboard with the trans ideology."

Am wondering why you think this?

"What's the purpose of their webinar and accompanying documents Neolara if not to recommend / advise schools about certain courses of action?"

I don't know as I haven't seen the webinar. Have you?

I was responding to your comment that "the blog does not give recommendations to schools" by pointing out that the blog specifically recommends curriculum / pastoral care changes like mixed sex changing /toilets.

To be fair, they don't actually say mixed sex instead of male and female - there is room in this recommendation to suggest a third space.

I am however surprised at the unquestioned assumption that it's good for a child's mental health to get everything they want. The suggestions are not to manage expectations or to advise children to reflect on the needs of others, at all.

Because I am linked to both professions.

Because of the assumed affirmation only bias within professional forums and discussions, because of the lack of public profile in discussing the evidence base nationally, because of the content of cpd offers, because of what happened at the Tavi took whistleblowers rather than professional debate, because of the uncritical involvement of psychologists around gender confusion in referrals to camhs, because of the biased research in professional journals which is primarily the LGBTQIA voice stuff like this blog, whole journals of this without consideration of evidence base, because of the lack of research and journal articles by practicing ed psychs on the rise of rogd in girls or association with autism etc, because this is in line with the BPS at present who are all over LGBTQIA 'voice' and 'experience' as the rationale for practice.

This blog is representative of the position of the professions at this time and the advice being given to schools.

Social activism has replaced psychological theory and evidence based practice.

They do recommend mixed sex changing.

Even if there is also a single sex option can we really no longer see why schools should not allow mixed sex changing in any circumstances for secondary school pupils?
Or have we totally lost our minds??

Rhetorical question, as apparently we have lost our minds when professionals are actively recommending this to schools.

Do you mean this bit? "The final theme identified from this research was about the changes the young people who participated wanted to see in education. The young people’s ideas for change were:

Environmental changes in school to include unisex changing rooms and unisex toilets (throughout the school)"

If so, the writers are not recommending this themselves. It sounds like they are just reporting what the you people want.

They were one of the first captured institutions, very sad and not that unusual in history. Obvious really that boundaries, control etc is needed but we've gone so far they don't see it. I think it comes from a wanting to help. But the solution doesn't help. Because trans doesn't exist, you are just you. Gender is stereotypes not a job description.
Because John Reimer wasn't trans we've forgotten what we learnt from Money. And that the medical tech just isn't there.

Neolara be careful with the phrasing - mixed sex changing/toilets is emphatically not what all young people want, even if that opinion was expressed by a particular group

If that were true it would just be a load of shite just reporting what a group of kids said.

No psychology involved in that.

That just requires recording a group and writing it up. That's just reporting that anyone literate could do. Dressed up as psychogical 'research'.

But it's not that.

The assumption of the'research' position is that 'lived experience' of individuals is paramount to constructing reality, this is elicited through focusing on the 'voice' of people with a certain experience, and this experience must be attended and responded to as valid.

Therefore the 'ways forward' are things for schools to do in response to the 'voice' these clever psychologists have elicited from these marginalised people.

This ontology is only maintained through ignoring any actual reality or conflicting evidence as this would be an oppressive construct as everything is a social construct and a struggle for power.

This bit of pathetic 'research' is a typical example of the post modernist mush that passes as research what then passes as professionalism.

Worrying!

"They do recommend mixed sex changing.

Even if there is also a single sex option can we really no longer see why schools should not allow mixed sex changing in any circumstances for secondary school pupils?

Or have we totally lost our minds??"

They don't recommend mixed sex changing, they recommend unisex changing rooms and toilets, which could easily be single occupancy.

You could meet these needs by providing some single occupancy unisex toilets, that had room to change in, without taking away anything for women and girls. We don't want children (who are essentially victims of this) uncomfortable in a single sex changing room to feel bad, what we want is for girls to have a single sex changing room. Let them have third spaces, individual, these are kids after all. They shouldn't take it personally when someone thinks differently to them, but they clearly do.