Non Binary Teachers

[WandaWomblesaurus]

My daughter (older teen) has had a total of three non binary teachers across primary and high school.
All were biologically female.
All went by Mx.

I asked her about her observations of them and anything she noticed in common with them as I was curious about how they have affected her education over the years.

"They all try too hard to connect with their students in an inappropriately informal way, talking a lot about personal life and relationships. A lot of talk about gender as would be expected. Sharing stuff about their own personal lives and relationships to the class and asking us about our relationships."

"They hijack the subjects they are teaching putting gender in. So for example we had a relief teacher in an English class giving us a paper about girls saying they are boys and having mastectomies and we were asked to rewrite it in our own words. I wrote on the paper I didn't agree with it."

"All of them have trans flags, stickers, posters saying TRANS IS BEAUTIFUL. Advertising it as a lifestyle choice basically."

"They try and be charismatic by putting on the nb front of 'coolness' and progressiveness but actually they are all quite awkward and square."

"Clothing wise they still all majorly present as women. They might have a short haircut but they wear dresses and makeup and I don't see how they even look androgynous or are breaking any stereotypes."

"A lot of time in classes is spent trying to imprint their opinions on us and they go off topic. They only try and relate to the girls. They don't have the skills to relate to the boys. A couple of the girls in my classes talk openly about having crushes on these teachers."

"The MX is a big thing, they get very snippy if they aren't MX'd, even by kids who are struggling to understand basic things. The pronouns are always seen as more important than the student."

Curious stuff isn't it?
I can't imagine these teachers having power in schools for much longer.

This.

With "I believe" being the key.

However, the caveat to all of this is recognising the impact on neurodiverse and other vulnerable children who will hear a belief as a truth. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of the people who believe that we all have a gender identity recognise that it's a belief.

There seem to be 3 main groups of "gender identity believers", as a general principle from what I can see:

1. The "reject the gender binary"/whisker away from being "GC" type. The main difference being that non-binary identified people have essentially opted out of their sex class, whereas GC people recognise the reality of sex and fight for equality from within rather than without. The activists in this group create safeguarding risks because they encourage children to ignore their instincts about sex-based differences.
2. Opposite sex believers who fully believe that they have an inner soul/essence that "aligns" with the opposite sex. Many will be neurodiverse and/or beginning to develop a same-sex attraction. There are some Malaga Airport types in this group, most likely neurodiverse and/or same-sex attracted. The activists in this group seem to be mainly driven by a genuine fear... which has been whipped up by...
3. Malaga Airport types who fake a belief and narcissistically perform. The activists from this group are the most dangerous. They pull levers in strategic places, befriend adults in useful places and play on people's sympathy.

It's very interesting/jarring to see mainstream beliefs come up against genderism.

As all our curriculum RSHP resources are online in Scotland, you can see it very starkly.

So for the younger kids, there's a good amount of questioning of stereotyping, lessons that boys/girls can do/be anything they want, wear what they want/hair how they want etc.

And then suddenly about age 9 or 10 we start to see nonsense like 'everyone's different; not all girls will have periods!' and the suggestion that some people who are gender non conforming are somehow a special type of person whose sex can magically change.

It falls within the school's responsibility, under statutory DfE guidance, to help children to understand that there are different types of sexual orientation (same sex and/or opposite sex) and that all are perfectly normal. This doesn't mean that teachers should be readily talking about their own private lives. But just as it would be perfectly normal for children to find out that their teacher has a family (the teacher may mention having been somewhere with their children for example), it should be equally normal for children to find out that their teacher has a same-sex partner. They don't need to know any more than that and it would cross the line completely for a teacher to share their personal experience of their journey of discovering their own sexual orientation.
Unfortunately the statutory guidance is currently conflated with teaching children about gender identity. Hopefully this will be decoupled when the new PHSE/RSE guidance comes out. It would be OK to acknowledge it as a belief (in RE perhaps) but it would need to be taught very carefully so as not to co-opt anyone in to the belief.

So for the younger kids, there's a good amount of questioning of stereotyping, lessons that boys/girls can do/be anything they want, wear what they want/hair how they want etc.

And then suddenly about age 9 or 10 we start to see nonsense like 'everyone's different; not all girls will have periods!' and the suggestion that some people who are gender non conforming are somehow a special type of person whose sex can magically change.

This is the belief recruitment playbook in a nutshell. It's the same pattern every time. If you read the children's book "Alienation" they manage to write it all out in one place. Normally it's served up in piecemeal so that those being recruited don't realise what's happening.

With "I believe" being the key.

What do they believe? That mastectomies are part of the NB belief?

That's my concern.

I still am missing Malaga airport from my sticky vocab, we need to update the FWR knowledge organiser.

I'd offer to do it in widget but I don't want to even think what that symbol would be

@Coffee473 double-devil's advocate, I suppose:

Some of my family are/were catholic, too. But I'll not call those people 'father', or 'sister'. I have sisters and brothers. My mother and father are dead. How dare those religious child-abusers arrogate to themselves the titles that rightly belong in my mouth uniquely to my family?

"It is exactly like Section 28. The reason you don’t want children to be taught about it is you think they will think ‘ooh that sounds like a good idea, maybe I don’t feel like a girl either’. Just like in the 90s people thought their children might ‘catch’ gay."

Actually, it is well known that a large part of this ideology involves a degree of social contagion. It's not like being gay at ALL, as that is an innate part of someone and isn't influenced by other people being gay.
The trans trend pulls in people who are maybe struggling with their identity because of autism or other spectrum disorders. Being constantly exposed to the ideology on social media is something new too, because it wasn't a "thing" back in the day.

And if you don't think social contagion is true, have a look at the MANY reports of this from "formerly" trans people (mainly teens) online who bitterly regret ever getting caught up in the trans movement and who now realise their problems were not because they were trans, but because they were desperately trying to be anyone other than they were.

It also explains the massive rise in people identifying as trans, far beyond what one would expect. There are 4 trans children in my daughters very small year group. Three of them are have other problems.

I firmly believe, as do many others, that there IS a very real element of social contagion.

Those of us who were at senior school during section 28 - nah it’s nothing like that at all.

I trained and started my career when section 28 was in existence, and no it's nothing like that.

Something innocent like a yellow bobble hat?

I trained and started my career when section 28 was in existence, and no it's nothing like that.

I grew up in the 90s and I beg to differ. All of the rhetoric: “it’s not natural! It’s dangerous! Children will be brainwashed!” is exactly the same. And I’m not alone in thinking that, just Google it. Plenty of mainstream media articles saying the same thing. It has all been done before.

Rather than gnashing teeth and wailing about biology your time would be better served discussing ways to reconcile women’s rights with trans/NB rights. Denying it won’t stop it happening.

Leaving this thread now, I’ve wasted far too much of my sick days on it!

Plus, at what point does using a title that is generally conferred on a religious person by others of that faith become cultural appropriation? If I say 'peace be upon him' after I say 'Mohammed', is that not actually mouthing words that I'm not really entitled to say? I've never been quite clear if it's more polite to share in saying prayers to a god I don't believe in, or to refrain from doing so.

But this is in the setting of attending a church service, of course.

A non-denom school should not have these issues coming up. Teachers are not priests or religious leaders.

gnashing teeth and wailing about biology

Ah, there we have it.

Rather than gnashing teeth and wailing about biology your time would be better served discussing ways to reconcile women’s rights with trans/NB rights. Denying it won’t stop it happening.

I'm not sure telling women their rights are as good as lost anyway so they may as well submit is really working, tbh.

Ah biology that pesky old thing

Maybe they could discount gravity whilst they’re at it

Agreed.

I'm all for pluralism, where people who identify as non-binary or trans are free to do so... as long as they don't insist that their belief needs to be accepted by anyone else e.g. transwomen playing in women's sports because they believe (or say that they believe) they are women. But the impact of this belief, and the way that it is compelled as a truth, is too great. I am a vehement non-believer because of the harms that come from this belief.

Too many autistic and/or same-sex attracted girls are being pulled towards the idea that non-binary liberates them from sex-based stereotypes... and then many go on to "realise" that they "feel" more like a boy, because of their practical clothing choices and general discomfort with their changing female bodies. Owing to social media and its associated social contagion, binding then amputating breasts and taking cross-sex hormones becomes a desirable and integral part of that journey.
This comes back to the point that social transition, even to a seemingly "liberating" non-binary identity, is not a neutral act and can lead to irreversible harm. This belief causes harm.

I grew up in the 90s and I beg to differ. All of the rhetoric: “it’s not natural! It’s dangerous! Children will be brainwashed!”

This is what I mean, section 28 was this and was horrific . But there's no harm or 'regret' for massive surgeries when you are gay! As as ppl have pointed out, gender identity is 'contagious' whereas being gay simply isn't.

Most secondary schools could point to a group of girls who've all come out together.

Alll the detransitioners have said they were influenced online or rl groups. That it was a trend, a community.

And as no one knows what NB is, no one can ensure and wave it away as a harmless belief to share with children as it could mean they believe in physically harmful body modification

The social contagion aspect of gender identity is evident over and over again.

It's not scientifically evidenced. Same sex attraction is scientifically evidenced.

Dysphoria is evidenced by MH but no other substantial test. Brain scans have shown patterns aligning with body dysmorphia and sometimes same sex attraction.

It's a socially driven trend. Belief if you wish.

Same sex attraction cannot be compared to gender identity and the argument about denying gender identity is like section 28, which was about same sex attraction, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

As there is evidence of physical long term harm to children and adults who weren't challenged enough with their ideas about changing gender and had no gatekeeping around changing their bodies.

Being gay doesn't entail any of that.

And again, what is NB?

• It's not scientifically evidenced. Same sex attraction is scientifically evidenced.

Meaning non binary is not scientifically evidenced

If it was a socially driven trend with no evidence of physical harm, like being a goth, there wouldn't be such a push back.

I actually see types of gender identity in girls as being the latest type of anxiety / aesthetic driven self harm akin to eating disorders and other types of self harm, as well as dangerous plastic surgeries etc.
or some sort of Peter Pan complex.

www.teenvogue.com/story/liv-hewson-profile-nonbinary

While growing up in Australia, Hewson tried to untangle their feeling without tools, but it “ate at” them. When puberty arrived with its bodily changes, they developed a “really nasty” case of anorexia.

Through recovery, Hewson realized the eating disorder was in part a result of gender dysphoria — “a discomfort with and alienation from my body, and a need to control it or be in charge of it or shape it.”

At that same time, around age 16, Hewson began learning about feminism and queer history, “reaching for information and community wherever I could find it.” They started to feel things click into place.

Social contagion resulting in self harm.

If you want to talk about section 28 akd homophobia how do you feel about girls being taught lesbians being able to have a penis. Boys being told Men having vaginas. And straight couples self identifying themselves under the lgbt.

Gender and homosexuality can't really co exist can they.