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.

@MNHQ Please explain publicly which rule did I break in my post to justify its deletion? I do not believe I broke any and it's certainly in the interest of all site users to understand why you decided to delete a post which was in no way:

• abusive
• transphobic
• offensive

But it was critical of all teachers doing a rubbish job like OP's daughter's teacher.

Since when are we not permitted to criticise civil and public servants' performance, please explain as there is a legal basis on which are permitted to do so which takes precedent over whatever your or other users' of this site personal opinions might be. Our children deserve to be taught to a high standard and safeguarded.

Thank you.

No! Nor grooming.

Perfect28

I agree that Transgender Trend have a bias, all organisations and people have bias. The question should be:

"Are they actively and malignantly dishonest?"

I'd say not, they resort to the law and explain properly their views, they don't simply state them and they certainly don't dictate to schools and government departments. Instead, they have used the likes of legal reviews to clarify and explain the actual reality of the EQA and how it should be applied.

Stonewall, Mermaids et al have deliberately misrepresented and lied about what the EQA 2010 say and means and have pressured schools and Government departments to implement their demands, in direct contradiction to the law.

Or Grandad!

I've also been asked if I used to live in a cave when teaching the stone age...

There was a trans teacher at kids secondary who shouted at pupils who got it wrong. They were very male looking so it was understandable. It puts pupils under stress so it is harder to learn. Not great for autistic pupils.

Teachers teach. That the job. When I was at school -primary school teachers didn’t exist outside the class. They didn’t go to the loo, have spouses, go to the supermarket.

In senior school, we didn’t care to imagine their personal life and if you did, oh say for example, bump into your English teacher with his arms around a man in a gay nightclub in town, you both pretended you hadn’t…

Speaking of English teachers and somewhat off topic - we had a slightly odd one when I was in secondary school.
On the one hand he was a good teacher and definitely well liked, on the other hand he seemed a bit too keen on sex topics, including his own sex life (one comment I remember: “Bit tired today, that’s because I went to bed late last night. Well, actually I went to bed early, but not to sleep, hehehe, if you know what I mean, hehehe.”)

I wasn't "trying to argue" anything. I was referring to central tenets of child development theory, which I think are relevant to this very interesting discussion.

Modern pedagogy is about creating a child-centred learning environment. It is not about prioritising the metaphysical beliefs of the teacher. This is Teaching 101 - first week of the PGCE.

Requiring that a child deny his or her empirically observed reality and use language that does not apply to that reality, risks damaging their neurological development, as it disrupts their learning to accurately name and categorise the world around them.

This also has potential safeguarding issues. If a child can be compelled by an adult to call a woman by a man's title/pronouns, or vice versa, then they are more vulnerable to being compelled to deny other forms of accurate categorisation (eg "that naked man you see in the changing room isn't anything to be frightened of - he's actually a lady!" / "This might feel horrible but it's fine, we're just having a cuddle!" etc etc).

It is also potentially discriminatory towards children with ASD or other cognitive/speech disabilities who may struggle more than others with using inaccurate language (although all children prefer accuracy in language and are quite literal, at least until 12 or so).

It is also potentially discriminatory towards children whose first language is not English.

We had a music teacher who was a bit too keen on his sex life - which included sixth form girls. He was ‘encouraged’ to leave - and went to work for a girls boarding school.

This is very much on topic IMO.

There is a balance to be struck in giving adolescents confidence to explore their own sexual orientation (LGB role models are a key part of this) and not oversharing personal information, irrespective of whether the teacher is straight or LGB.

In the examples from the OP's daughter's experience, oversharing seems to be given free reign under the guise of "inclusivity".

There is a balance to be struck in giving adolescents confidence to explore their own sexual orientation

Why is this a responsibility of school?

It’s not

The problem with this is that children tend to ask very pointed questions, not because they're bigoted but because they're curious about how to name and categorise the world around them ("Are you a boy or a girl" would be a classic especially for a young child or one with a cognitive disability). Fascination with categorisation is a normal part of child development starting at about age 6 and leading up to about age 12 (before that is the ontological phase: the 'why' phase which has driven many of us mad with our own children!).

So, to take an example of a man compelling children to call him Mx - some children wouldn't just do that compliantly. They'd want to know why, what Mx is, why a man wants a title that sounds more like a woman's title, whether that makes him a man or in fact a woman, if he is a woman does he have boobies, etc etc...this is how a child, especially a young child, would typically go down that road of exploration.

It's hard to answer those questions in a 'pro-trans' way without bringing one's extremist metaphysical beliefs into play and pushing them onto the children. Especially since these beliefs have no root in empirical reality, so cannot be backed up with empirical evidence, which is the usual and best way for young children to learn.

This is why compelling young children to use inaccurate language risks leading them down a path where they are having age inappropriate conversations and being asked to adopt false realities that risk damaging their neurological development.

But people who are transgender/non-binary ARE part of that child’s empirical reality. Whether you like it or not, they are not going away. Children will come across it- in real life, on social media, on TV. So you trying to ‘protect’ them won’t work forever. Better that they have the issues explained to them by a trusted adult, or maybe that they realise through experience that trans/non-binary people are nothing to fear, normal people going about their day job.

I find your insinuations that there is a link between transgender/non-binary and child abuse very offensive actually.

And as I have said repeatedly, no one is being compelled to do anything. It is not school policy, anywhere, for students to be punished for using the wrong name. As many people have said, kids use the wrong name all the time- I’ve been called ‘mum’, ‘sir’ and all sorts of other things. Nothing wrong with teaching them that it’s ok to have a preferred name.

All of this just makes me think of the madness around Section 28 back when I was at school.

The ‘trusted adult’ is part of the issue

An adult who is in a position of authority shouldn’t falsify biological statements and say they are neither male nor female as it’s not correct

And sex based pronouns should back up that biological reality

A student calling a male Sir should not have reason to feel embarrassment - which was mentioned earlier

If an adult is employed by the school to teach my child then I class them as a trusted adult.

Sure and that’s why we need guidelines to safeguard children from non fact based ideology

Yeah, I mean if teachers want to discuss their bespoke identities, they need to leave children out of it. Children and teen aren't (or shouldn't be) their peers so they need to set up navel gazing club where they can chat about the importance of pretending that biological sex isn't a thing with other adults and get their validation that way. Pupils and students are a captive audience for teachers. They shouldn't have that trust abused.

How is this treated when someone has a title that derives from a religious office? If someone is called 'Father' or 'Lama', for example? Surely we'd treat it in the same way? In my view its very similar. I teach my kids to be polite to people no matter what their beliefs. I also teach them critical thinking.

I'd say that so long as the teacher prefaces their answers with 'I believe' that is acceptable?

So - 'why are you called Mx' could be answered by: 'I believe that my inner feelings matter more than reality and that I am not classifiable by sex'. Or some other phrase.

'I believe in gender identity mattering more than sex'.
'I believe that changing my title will help to fight sexism'.
'I don't want to be seen as female'

etc

Belief in 'gender identity' over sex is a belief system. It's quite niche and only a minority subscribe to it, but I'm still willing to be respectful of it, just as I'm willing to be respectful of various religious belief systems that I don't share.

No. There are plenty of things that children will come across on social media or, eventually, in "real life" which are not appropriate for the learning environment.

Furthermore, in modern education, metaphysical beliefs are not typically taught as facts (and this is a good thing). They are explored as belief systems only (unless that's clear from the parameters of the school, e.g. we can expect that a Catholic School would teach the virgin birth as fact and parents have that reasonable expectation when they send their children there. In secular schools, parents can opt their children out of RE/PSE if they don't want their children exposed to a particular metaphysical belief).

There is no equivalence between Section 28 and the trans movement.

But people who are transgender/non-binary ARE part of that child’s empirical reality. Whether you like it or not, they are not going away. Children will come across it- in real life, on social media, on TV. So you trying to ‘protect’ them won’t work forever. Better that they have the issues explained to them by a trusted adult, or maybe that they realise through experience that trans/non-binary people are nothing to fear, normal people going about their day job.

I do agree with this. Children need to be taught - objectively - about different faiths and belief systems. So just as they learn about comparative religions and political views, they can be taught that while most people believe that there are two sexes, some people believe that inner feelings over-ride biological sex. Some people believe in cake-gender.

In fact I think it's very important for children to learn that there are people with illogical or outlandish beliefs, and that they learn how to live with them, treat them politely, and can expect respect for their own belief/s/lack of belief in return.

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.

It does not follow that just because a teacher wants to be referred to with a certain title means they will use it to “set up a navel gazing club” or talk about their personal life. We have more important things to do, like getting on with the curriculum! Teachers are adept at shutting down personal questions and moving on. @ArabellaScott has given some good examples of the kind of things a teacher might say.

All of this just makes me think of the madness around Section 28 back when I was at school.

It's a really false analogy. And demonstrates you don't understand the differences here. That was about being gay. About having a same sex relationship. You had children in classes had single gay parents who couldn't be mentioned. Gay teens feeling dirty and shunned for who they were attracted to.

What is non binary? I've never seen a clear definition. It's not a clinical diagnosis. So it's a belief or a trend.

Belief is tricky as one can't impose that on anyone, but they do with the they thems. And what do they actually believe? They don't have a sex? Or they don't have a 'gender?' It's a gender identity?

Most of us don't have a gender identity as we don't conform to gender stereotypes.

The further issue is that it's increasingly a trend/ belief that is leading young female actresses to get aesthetic mastectomies. Breastfeeding is barely ever discussed in school. Rates in the U.K. are horrifically low, and it can be seen a a form of self harm.

Do these teachers subscribe to this? Would they talk about it? "Promote" it? Is that appropriate? Same sex attraction doesn't involve these drastic surgeries and medications (some nbs micro dose hormones)

How do we define this NB idea/ belief?

Because of all the above, parents are very right to be concerned. No other recognised religious belief has the potential to cause such harms, bar FGM practices. Which is, as you know, police.

There also appears to be, across the board in many professions, a loss of professional standards as soon as the label of 'under the queer umbrella' is announced.

I genuinely would find it (and have) easier to work with a trans man than someone who claims to be non binary. I have and they were extremely professional.

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.

No it's not.

What is the physical harm to realising you're gay?

There are physical harms involved with being non binary and trans and it's not something that should be self declared without medical supervision.

If NB isn't about medication, it's just a lifestyle, just the same as the rest of us. But allowed to participate in pride and seemingly talk a lot about relationships in over familiar and inappropriate ways, based on the OPs experiences.

You are just proving my point. What does it matter what that person’s individual beliefs about gender are?

As long as they teach your child the curriculum, their personal life doesn’t matter to you.

Have you not thought that there may well be children in the class with parents or siblings who identify as non binary?

So - 'why are you called Mx' could be answered by: 'I believe that my inner feelings matter more than reality and that I am not classifiable by sex'. Or some other phrase.

This response might be appropriate for a group of teenagers. It would not be appropriate for a group of, say, 8-year-olds. They wouldn't understand it. They might be helped to understand it, if you broke it down into basic biological terms, although you might end up having to reference genital anatomy (in response to questions). This risks leading us into a safeguarding issue.

Additionally, the problem is that the trans movement is not rooted in empirical reality. There has to date been no peer-reviewed scientific paper of any kind which seeks to demonstrate credibly that "inner feelings matter more than reality" when it comes to sexual biology. (This is why trans belief is completely separate from homosexuality and no equivalence can be drawn with Section 28.)

Therefore, trans beliefs should not be presented to children as fact. And children should not be expected to adopt language which entails adopting a metaphysical belief as fact.

I agree with you that trans beliefs could be taught in PSE/RE classes, alongside Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. But it would have to be done in age appropriate ways. World religions can be taught without recourse to sexual anatomy, sexual surgery, sexual activities, etc. With the trans belief it is not so easy, depending on the age and temperament of your class.

Above all, it's about creating a child-centred learning environment. Telling a group of primary-aged children that 'I believe that my inner feelings matter more than reality and that I am not classifiable by sex' is not creating a learning environment centred around the child.