Teaching gender identity in schools

[LadyHester]

DH is a governor in a local secondary school. Today he went on a learning walk, which included a visit to a Y10 Ethics class where the children were being told that being a ‘girl’ or a ‘boy’ was not something that could be determined at birth.
Is this even legal?

I had an enlightening chat with a young trainee teacher (secondary) the other day.
From what she was saying things are as bad as they ever were. And she says things are worse than when she was at school less than a decade ago. She attributed it mainly to the widespread use of smartphones.

So DH is going to ask ask for the scheme of work to get some context. He thinks the subject was Philosophy and Ethics (y10) which seemed slightly weird to me (I have an education background, he doesn’t) so he’s got some more general questions to ask about examined or non-examined subject, how the curriculum is devised, etc. which should make the enquiry less pointed.
Many thanks for the chat and resources here - it’s been really helpful.

So no definition then.

If it’s Year 10 and a gcse subject he should be able to get the board and the syllabus easily then look online for the content. I think Edexcel and Aqa are often freely downloadable.

Well it's definitely a definition.

But whether it makes sense or not very much depends on whether someone believes that gender identity is a truth or not.

Personally, I have a different explanation for why there are sex-based expectations and limitations, so the Stonewall definition means nothing to me.

It doesn't make sense as a definition though.

A person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else (see non-binary below), which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

Male and female are sexes, not genders, so to make sense, you have to read this as:

A person’s innate sense of their own sex, whether male, female or something else (see non-binary below), which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

Or alternatively, if you are accepting male and female as 'genders':

A person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else (see non-binary below), which may or may not correspond to the gender assigned at birth.

Otherwise there needs to be an explanation of how one's gender might be expected to correspond to their sex. And also an explanation of what exactly is meant by 'gender'.

It doesn't make sense to me either.

That's exactly why I would much rather it was taught as belief not fact.

TBF it would be preferable if it wasn't taught at all as part of the curriculum (there are no standard lessons for any other belief, such as Christianity) but if it has to be taught, framing it as a belief would be better. Did you see my own explanation of gender identity from that perspective (screenshot earlier in the thread)?

If its an ethics class it will be a debate so one side will be putting one side forward and others debate for the opposite

Is it not a circular definition?

If someone's gender identity is their innate sense of their own gender, does that tell us anything at all unless that person can also explain what they think a gender is?

To me, "gender" is a set of stereotypes which society chooses to attach to men and women, which may vary wildly depending on the time or the culture (for example, I doubt whether Elizabethan society or modern day Orthodox Jews or Sikhs would agree that long hair is something women have). "A gender" is not something individuals have unless you are using the term as a polite synonym for sex, e.g. "I had a private scan at 16 weeks to find out my baby's gender" in which case the person's innate sense of which one they are is really neither here nor there, because they objectively are one and are not the other.

Do they also debate whether the earth is flat?

Yes, it's completely circular.

Now that I've unpicked so many layers of gender identity (and concluded for myself that I don't have a gender or a gender identity, because it's not something I believe in), I never use the word gender at all. I have no use for it and can describe how I see the stereotypes that are created within society without this word. For example, I'm acutely aware of the choices that were laid out in front of me from childhood based solely on my sex. From the moment I was born and early childhood this was both explicit (e.g.dresses and dolls given as gifts, being put in to netball class in primary school PE rather than football) and implicit (e.g. an assumption on what I would prefer to do in Guides - which meant the programme of what we did was radically different to what the scouts did). My understanding of myself is that my personality, my sense of being me, formed on the foundation of which of these expectations and limitations I chose to accept and which I chose to push back on. But I don't see the result as a gender identity. For me, there is no such thing as gender and the social construct is simply the culture that has grown around the expectations limitations that any particular society has deemed to be associated with each sex.

I did use the words sex and gender as synonyms in the past. But having seen the damage and confusion resulting from this conflation, I never do any more. The only exception that I've been making until recently on using the word gender in my every day speech was for "gender-neutral toilets", solely because the only benefit for having them (as far as I can tell) is for people who have a trans identity to use as a third space (assuming of course they would do this... a whole extra topic in itself) i.e. that term makes sense for anyone who believes in gender identity and they are the only ones who need this facility. However, I now call them unisex facilities. At least I'm trying to remember to. Because I don't want to ever conflate sex and gender as words.

Yes. It gives kids skills of critical thinking

To be clear, are you saying they DO get kids to debate whether the earth is flat? Or that you think they SHOULD debate whether the earth is flat?

In my school kids choose controversial topics to debate. We have in fact had that one

Interesting.

Well in principle I would have no issue with kids being told,"whether someone is a boy or a girl is not something that can be determined at birth: debate this position" in the same context as them being told, "the earth is flat: debate this position". Because in that context there is no assumption that the statement is true.

I would have an issue with kids being told "whether someone is a boy or a girl is not something that can be determined at birth" as though this were a factual statement, when it is not.

Which of those two things is more likely to have happened in the school the OP's husband was visiting?

Any debate about gender identity would have to be really carefully framed I think (although I'm not suggesting it's a bad idea) because there are layers to it: a) we all have a gender identity versus we don't (where the "we don't" is based on the "counter belief" that sex is immutable) and b) should gender identity (belief) be accommodated in education? If so, as truth or belief?

Obviously b is a moot point because this is already decided. According to the current DfE guidance, it should be and it is considered to be a fact.

A debate about whether or not the earth is flat is a great idea but there's a clear understanding that everyone really believes it's not. So the second layer about accomodating it in education would never kick in.

A good (if perhaps uncomfortable) analogy to gender identity debate would be a debate about the paternity of Jesus. To give it the two layers: a) Jesus is the son of God versus he's not (where the "he's not" is based on the "counter belief" that a conception without sperm is impossible) and b) should a belief that Jesus is the son of God be accommodated in education? If so, as truth or belief.

Again, obviously b is a moot point because this is already decided. According to the current DfE guidance, it should be and it is considered to be a belief.

I think most people (including Christians) would find it implausible that anyone would want biology lessons which accommodate the idea that most conception involves sperm but it is possible for a conception to be different.

Unfortunately that's what is being achieved by teaching and accommodating gender identity belief as a fact. Children are being taught to reject the biology that underpins the difference between two sexes, in favour of a man being someone who identifies as a man and a woman is someone who identifes as a woman, where their actual sex is irrelevant.

According to the current DfE guidance, it should be and it is considered to be a fact.

I think that's putting it a bit strongly. The guidance says this:

Pupils should be taught the facts and the law about sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity in an age-appropriate and inclusive way... Sexual orientation and gender identity should be explored at a timely point and in a clear, sensitive and respectful manner. When teaching about these topics, it must be recognised that young people may be discovering or understanding their sexual orientation or gender identity.

... but it doesn't explicitly say "you must teach gender identity as a fact". Surely there is leeway here to teach the "fact" that some people believe in it and others don't, especially if we have to teach the law in this area (God help us). The law doesn't even define gender or gender identity.

The guidance saying that young people may be in the process of discovering their sexual orientation or gender identity rather pre-supposes that it's an actual thing.

@HipTightOnions , @noblegiraffe that's very true. I'm happy to be corrected on that.
It's not explicitly stated and there is wiggle room. But it's the implicit message that it's fact (my bold below):

When teaching about these topics, it must be recognised that young people may be discovering or understanding their sexual orientation or gender identity.

This suggests that they have one. So signposts towards it being a fact.
It would take a brave teacher to introduce it as a belief if they didn't have the school leadership's backing to do so.

I lose track on the number of of posts I read on MN where I think, yes, that's it, exactly! How lucidly expressed. Only wish I heard the like on TV opinion pieces, Newsnight, and the like. Thank you, @BonfireLady .

It would take a brave teacher to introduce it as a belief if they didn't have the school leadership's backing to do so.

Then they need to challenge the school leadership. Can they explain what the "actual thing" actually is? Have they thought about the rights of GC pupils?

It might be painful, but it can be done. We now teach gender identity as a belief, not a fact.

That's so encouraging to hear that your school teaches it as a belief. Amazing stuff! Yes, hopefully GC teachers will get support from the school leadership to adopt a similar approach to meeting the current guidance.

I spotted a fail on my previous post. This is what I meant to put in bold:

When teaching about these topics, it must be recognised that young people may be discovering or understanding their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Or this is perhaps even clearer:

When teaching about these topics, it must be recognised that young people may be discovering or understanding their sexual orientation or gender identity.

It implicitly suggests that they will definitely have a gender identity and may just currently be discovering it. It's a subliminal steer towards the belief that we all have a gender identity.

Something like this might have been more helpful:

When teaching about these topics, it must be recognised that young people may be discovering or understanding their sexual orientation, or if they may have a gender identity.

@duc748 thank you for saying it was lucidly expressed. When I say it IRL, the bit where I say "I don't have a gender identity" is where I get pushback. Not universally, but reasonably often. I'm still trying to figure out how best to express that bit and I wonder if this would be the biggest challenge for any schools which were successfully teaching gender identity as a belief.

@HipTightOnions does this bit get difficult? My experience is a mixed bag but where I do get pushback it can be summarised as follows:

Adults(who have clearly stated that they believe that sex is immutable, that TWANW):
But why would you not identify as a woman?
Me: because I don't need to. I just am one.
Adults: well I'm with you on everything else but that is my identity. I identify as a woman (or I identify as a man - if I'm talking to men).

My 12-year-old (who is very emotionally intelligent, is very GC and has friends in her wider circle at school who are trans-identified... and is either genuinely confused or winding me up!?!):
So if you don't believe in gender identity, does this mean you don't believe you're a woman?
Me: of course I believe I'm a woman. I just don't identify as one. I just don't identify as anything at all.
Her: so you might be a sheep then?
Me: of course not. I'm a woman but I don't believe in gender identity. I'm a woman because that is my sex.
Her: well you're not making any sense. You either believe you're a woman or you don't.

My 14-year-old (who is autistic and still going through distress about puberty in relation to all of this - we have an open dialogue and I take it at her pace. She's actually far more GC than she realises she is but she's still not sure she's a girl):
I don't want to talk about that.
Me: OK. Fair enough. I think about it as similar to how I'm an atheist but I'm not going to tell you whether or not you should believe in God.
[She does believe in God and my kids only recently found out I didn't when they asked me directly.]

@HipTightOnions are there any similar difficulties that come up in your classes when you introduce gender identity as a belief or does it never get this deep in to the subject? I've dropped this particular point - why I don't identify as a woman - completely with both my daughters (in favour of other conversations around the subject). I should say, we only got in to it this deeply because they were asking me questions about all of it. My approach is to encourage their critical thinking skills, not tell them what they should think. For example, we all had a great together about whether JK Rowling was transphobic or not. Their start point was yes (because of what they had heard), their conclusion was no.

@BonfireLady
Looking at your discussions, you don't seem to have asked them any questions. I realise these are summaries and there may be a lot more to them when they happen, but perhaps you should start asking more questions. That's what I do when people make bold assertions which don't make sense to me.

So to anyone who insists that everyone has a gender identity, I'd ask what they mean by 'identity'. In what way do they 'identify' as a woman (or man/boy/girl)? What would they do differently if they identified as the opposite sex?

I've yet to get a coherent answer from any gender believer to those questions. Online they just refuse to answer, or describe a lot of stereotypes followed silence when they realise that they've confirmed that gender identity is just stereotypes.

Yes, just summaries.

The conversations are generally pretty long (not with my own kids - these are piecemeal and in relation to something specific e.g. when quite a few sports bodies were changing their rules around women's sports) and irrespective of what the conversation opener is, I do ask that. And yes, there is just a silence or stereotype-based answers. Depending on who I'm talking to and what the purpose of the conversation is, I may then ask if the person would like to hear my perspective. I make it very clear that I'm not trying to push my own belief as a truth. Obviously I think it's a truth, or else I wouldn't believe it 😁
I sometimes refer to the analogy of the earth being flat or round when it comes to sex immutability being a truth to me: I've never walked all the way around the earth just to see if I ended up back in the same spot but I've seen enough evidence that suggests to me that I would.
May take on it is very much not to challenge the belief but to challenge the impact of the belief (in gender identity) being compelled as a truth.
The impact in the school context is that it's providing an establishment-led context from which vulnerable children are being pulled in to a pathway of making irreversible changes to their bodies. By schools teaching it as a truth, it's also doubling down on parents who are trying to stop any bias impacting their children in this way because it's teaching children that their parents are ignorant and transphobic..... which then leads to many concerned parents being cut out of the loop. So while I welcome the changes that have been made to allow parents to access the teaching materials, there is so much more still to be done to safeguard children.
.