In The Social Contract, the controversial French Enlightenment philosopher Rousseau asserted the sovereignty of the people: a government should express the will of its people and allow for the people to possess individual freedom. He also answered the question "What is education for?" with "to enable a good man and a good woman to protect themselves from an unjust one".
Part 1 of this series considered the wider issues affecting education, what education is for, and the prevailing climate in which education takes place. Part 2 considered the promotion of the ideology. This, the concluding part to the series, summarises parents’ rights and offers advice on how to action them. It also addresses a question often posed by parents, namely: how did we get here?
The original view was that transitioning from a boy to a girl or from a girl to a boy leads to a healthier, happier, and more fulfilled life for children who are confused about their gender. Consequently, a protocol of medical and surgical interventions pioneered by Dr Kaltiala, known as the Dutch Protocol, was adopted across the globe. Its underpinning belief was stated as, "If young people with gender dysphoria were able to avoid their natural puberty by blocking it with pharmaceuticals, followed by receiving opposite-sex hormones, they could start living transgender lives earlier and more credibly".
What does the evidence show now? In October 2023, Dr Kaltiala completely reversed her position, citing biased and flawed scientific data as the basis for her original position in her article titled 'Gender Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It'. She goes on to say that it is her conviction that patients were being harmed by their treatment, which she says was based on "outright fraudulent statements about the evidence for the new radical treatment model". The story of Clementina Breen, a 14-year-old whose doctor warned her parents that if her gender was not affirmed, she would commit suicide, is indicative.
Dr Hilary Cass provided the key evidence within the UK. The English National Health Service redrafted its guidelines to remind doctors that children may simply be going through a "transient phase" when they say they want to change sex. The guidelines recommended a clinical management approach to explore all developmentally appropriate options for children and young people who are experiencing gender incongruence, being mindful that this may be a transient phase, particularly for prepubertal children. The NHS-commissioned Cass Review warned that allowing children to socially transition could "have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning" and "better information was needed about outcomes". This report also highlights the uncertainty around the evidence relating to the use of puberty blockers, stating, "The Review is not able to provide definitive advice on the use of puberty blockers and feminising/masculinising hormones at this stage, due to gaps in the evidence base'. It adds, "Given the uncertainties regarding puberty blockers, it is particularly important to demonstrate that consent under this circumstance has been fully informed and to follow GMC guidance".
This guidance appears to be being ignored in some schools.
The Finnish Health Authority also recognised the dangers of giving hormone treatments to young people with serious mental illness. The authors concluded that gender transition should be postponed until adulthood, and "Surgery is not offered to those <18". The guidelines also:
warn of the uncertainty of providing any irreversible ‘gender-affirming’ interventions for those 25 and under, due to the lack of neurological maturity. The guidelines also raise the concern that puberty blockers may negatively impact brain maturity and impair the young person's ability to provide informed consent to the subsequent and more irreversible parts of the Dutch protocol: cross-sex hormones and surgeries.
These recent Finnish guidelines coincide with a large-scale study from the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) in the US on mapping the brain over the human lifespan. The NIMH study confirmed what we already know by intuition: that the brain is not fully developed until most people are in their 20's. Many societies have long recognised that children and adolescents are not capable of understanding the long-term ramifications of their decisions and have made social and policy provisions with this fact in mind. It added that young people whose brains are still maturing lack the ability to make decisions with which they will have to live for the rest of their lives.
Research published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics and accessed via the National Library of Medicine in the US concludes:
Transgender conversion practices neither fulfil a legitimate clinical purpose nor respect trans communities’ understanding of transitude as a desirable form of human diversity… To salvage the practices, proponents would have to show that they are far more beneficial than alternative clinical approaches. The evidence of benefits must be compelling enough to outweigh the prima facie violation of expressive equality in the eyes of trans communities. That burden cannot be discharged on the available evidence. On the contrary, the evidence suggests if not altogether proves that trans conversion practices are harmful, shedding considerable doubt as to whether future evidence could plausibly justify them.
Claims that gender transition reduces suicides is contradicted by every systematic review. Research carried out in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland is revealing. Whilst obviously any young person’s death is a tragedy, careful research shows that suicide, the apparent reason for advocating transition, is very rare, and data from the world’s largest clinic for transgender youth over 11 years yields an estimated annual suicide rate of 13 per 100,000. This rate was 5.5 times greater than the overall suicide rate of adolescents of similar age. It is therefore irresponsible to exaggerate the prevalence of suicide.
Every systematic review of the evidence to date, including one published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, has found something similar to this statement made in an opinion piece published by The Wall Street Journal in July 2023:
The evidence for mental health benefits of hormonal interventions for minors to be of low or very low certainty. By contrast, the risks are significant and include sterility, lifelong dependence on medication and the anguish of regret. For this reason, more and more European countries and international professional organizations now recommend psychotherapy rather than hormones and surgeries as the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth … There is no reliable evidence to suggest that hormonal transition is an effective suicide-prevention measure.
According to Dr Paul McHugh, Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in the US, "affirming children in a false gender can cause real damage", whereas the evidence with regard to what happens if one does not affirm trans identity is clear. He also states that only 12% of boys had persistent gender confusion. Furthermore, all these studies show that at least 80% of children lose their gender distress over time.
And a report by American public health expert Dr Lisa Littman reveals that gender distress appears at or after the onset of puberty, often following online immersion and transgender identity declarations among school friends. It is commonly referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria. The study investigated individuals who experienced gender dysphoria, transitioned, and then detransitioned, with many of the subjects coming to the view that their gender dysphoria was caused by something specific such as trauma, abuse, or a mental health condition. The majority felt that they had not received an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting their transition.
Danish Sexology Clinic consultant Dr Mette Haahr acknowledged "a lack of research" relevant to today’s mostly teenage female patients, and expressed concerns regarding the reasons why these teenage girls wanted to change gender. Dr Haahr commented:
We see that treatment helps young people in the short term. But we lack knowledge about what happens in ten and 20 years. Or when they want to have children. What happens when they fall in love and start to have an active sex life? ... Transgender young people assigned female have, for the most part, no active sex life.
Despite claims that transitioning leads to a happier life and prevents potential suicides offered as a justification for promoting transitioning, evidence suggests otherwise. Here is the average lifestyle satisfaction in the UK "on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 was ‘not at all satisfied" and 10 was "completely satisfied" as reported in research carried out by the Government Equalities Office:
- Overall UK population 7.7.
- Gay or lesbian 6.9.
- Bisexual 6.3.
- Pansexual 5.9.
- Trans woman 5.5.
- Trans man 5.1.
The research found that 40% of trans youth have attempted suicide and at a rate of two to four times the rate of heterosexuals. Additionally, trans respondents had a lower life satisfaction, scoring it 5.40 on average, than cisgender respondents, who scored it on average 6.67. Amongst trans respondents, trans men in particular were the least satisfied, scoring their life satisfaction on average 5.07.
So, there is evidence showing that the transitioning does not meet the intended goals of making children/people happier and that it can cause great harm, but what about evidence that RSE-type programmes have any effect?
Where Is the Evidence That the Programmes Work?
Professor Patton’s written evidence to Westminster analysing the UK experience over the past 3 decades reported that there was:
- No clear relationship between conventional policy interventions (such as easier access to family planning for teenagers) and changes in underage pregnancy or abortion rates.
- No evidence to date that the current parental opt-out of school-based sex education programmes (SRE) contributes to adverse sexual health amongst adolescents.
- No evidence to date that the lack of a statutory curriculum for SRE in secondary schools contributes to adverse sexual health amongst adolescents.
- No evidence to date that the current policy of permitting primary schools to decide whether or not to provide SRE contributes to adverse sexual health amongst adolescents.
These conclusions mirror US research carried out by the Institute for Research and Evaluation; the research similarly concludes that there is little evidence that school-based sex education programmes have any significant effect on unwanted pregnancy amongst adolescents. The research found that:
- Only 6% of the 103 studies on the programmes found any positive evidence of effectiveness.
- Overall, there is more evidence of harm than of positive outcomes from such programmes.
- 87% of the programmes failed in their primary purposes.
- 16% of programmes caused harm.
Instead, the research found a decrease in condom use and an increase in:
- Sexual activity.
- Number of partners.
- Oral sex.
- Forced sex.
- Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
- Pregnancies.
These research findings completely undermine government policy to mandate such programmes and the drive to remove parental opt-outs.
Your Rights, and From Where They Derive
Parents’ rights have been clearly established in The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, and have been repeatedly confirmed by the author and by the key Northern Ireland authorities as addressed below. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland accepts that "It is at the school’s discretion [emphasis added]’ to implement the contents of the curriculum according to its values and ethos".
It is important to note that this is included in the parliamentary record in Hansard:
The Government recognises the sensitivity of the topic and that some parents may wish to teach their child about sex education or to make alternative arrangements for sex education to be provided in line with their religious background or belief about the age at which their child or children should access it. In recognition of that, the regulations also place a duty on the Department of Education to make regulations about the circumstances in which a pupil may be withdrawn from education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, or elements of that education, at the request of the parent.
The Department of Education affirmed parental rights in a letter sent to all Northern Irish school principals. The letter states:
The Regulations also make provision for, at the request of a parent [emphasis added], a pupil to be excused from RSE lessons that contain age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, covering prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion … All grant-aided schools are required to have a RSE policy based on the ethos [emphasis added] of their school, subject to consultation with parents and pupils [emphasis added], that should be kept under review to inform their taught RSE programme.
The same letter makes it clear that the changes to the legislation do not "apply to primary schools".
CCEA is responsible for curriculum guidance for schools and teachers in Northern Ireland. Its guidance for schools states:
The resources provide ideas for classroom strategies and offer schools flexibility in how they approach RSE. This allows all schools to deliver an effective programme that’s in line with their ethos and RSE policy, as approved by the Board of Governors, and ensures that they can meet the wide-ranging needs of our young people.
It is worth emphasising that the amended RSE programme does not apply to primary schools in Northern Ireland and the body responsible for curriculum guidance (CCEA) does not refer to the WHO guidance.
The School Boards of Governors, whilst varying in form and number, have several elected parents, several representatives of the local churches and elected teachers. In many cases the majority of the governors will be members of the local community.
In Summary — Parents Have the Right to:
- Be consulted with respect to the curriculum.
- Know who is on the Boards of Governors.
- Serve on a Board of Governors, which determines the schools’ curriculum.
- Withdraw your child from class. Both of these rights presuppose a parent’s right to know what is to be taught. This is not the case in England.
- Make representations to the Board of Governors.
- Have your child educated according to their wishes.
- Withdraw your child from the lessons concerned.
- Educate their child at home.
"A school’s RSE policy should be subject to consultation with parents and endorsed by a school’s board of governors", so said the Secretary of State in Parliament. In addition, the curriculum must be in line with the ethos of the school as determined by its Board of Governors, on which many parents serve, as a right. A statement of the school’s ethos will be found on its website, and schools’ policies must be in line with their stated ethos.
Parents’ rights in Northern Ireland are set out here and in England here. Of course, rights are of no use unless you enforce them. Parents have a powerful influence on schools because of the formula used to allocate funding to schools which is based on the number of pupils at the school. A pupil is "worth" approximately £4000 per year to a school. Obviously, over the course of five to seven years, this amounts to a considerable loss for even just one child.
Actioning Your Rights
- Ask for a copy of the RSE policy. It would be helpful to ask for this in advance of applying for a place in the school.
- Establish what is being taught to your child.
- Speak to the principal and set out your concerns and objections.
- Ask for a meeting with the Governors.
- Make representations/write to the Governors.
- Establish who the parent representatives are serving on the Governors and speak to them.
- Establish who the church representatives are and speak to them.
- Speak to your MLA.
- Ask to see books in the school library or for the library’s lending policy.
- Ask for the school’s curriculum policy and for consultation arrangements, as well as how any policy fits with the ethos of the school. This should be available on the school’s website.
- Ask how the external ‘specialists’ have been monitored in line with the following Department of Education (DE) advice:
Schools are responsible for ensuring that they check the organisation’s credentials. Schools should also ensure that the teaching delivered fits with their planned RSE programme, their published policy and the ethos of the school. Parents have told us that they want to see the content of any external provision.
- Ask for the content of any external provision, again as per the following DE advice:
It is important that schools discuss the detail of how the provider will deliver its session(s) and ensure that the content is age-appropriate and accessible for all pupils who have not been excused. Schools should ask to see the materials external providers will use as well as a lesson plan in advance.
- Present the scientifically accurate evidence presented in this series.
Final Thoughts
Even if you agree with this programme, expecting it to be delivered by untrained teachers is a recipe for disaster. The impact on developing minds is potentially disastrous, causing confusion and anxiety over gender is no way to bring up children. Is a class of 30 the right place to discuss such sensitive matters? Are teachers the right people? Should a child ever be facilitated by their school to think they were "born in the wrong body"?
Parents and churches are opposed to much of the content, yet a democratically-elected government, elected by those same parents, appears to be pressing ahead by repeatedly referring to scientifically accurate information, yet ignoring the up-to-date science. It is clear that the material does not meet the spiritual and moral needs of our children as required by The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
Too much time and resources are being devoted to such issues at a time when many many children are struggling to read, a skill which will determine their future. As John Locke phrased it: "The business of education is not to perfect the learner in all or anyone of the sciences, but to give his mind freedom". Locke is one of England’s greatest and most influential philosophers. He challenged the idea that authority was divinely inherited by the world’s leaders. It was the people, not the rulers, who were ultimately sovereign.
Conclusion
The central tenets underpinning the WHO-driven Government policy, namely that the policy:
- Is scientifically accurate,
- Requires parental support,
- Should meet the spiritual needs of the children,
- Benefits from trained teachers, and
- Addresses unwanted pregnancies,
are flawed.
In addition, legal and moral issues around sexual activity with minors are not sufficiently addressed; indeed, they appear to be promoted. Finally, the policy carries the potential for great harm to our children and the family unit.
To quote Rousseau once again, "If you ever substitute in his mind authority for reason, he will no longer reason. He will be nothing more than a plaything of others’ opinions".
Just say NO!
