Report: most UK schools now pushing gender ideology
One in five don't even offer single-sex changing rooms
A new paper from Policy Exchange, published today, should be a wake-up call to schools that have until now blithely endorsed an activist-led ideology on sex and gender. The paper exposes not only the extent of the ideological capture, but the deleterious impact on safeguarding and the rights of parents. The headline findings are stark. Only 28% of secondary schools surveyed are “reliably informing” parents as soon as a child discloses feelings of gender distress.
Let’s just stop there for a moment. Most schools I know wouldn’t let a child change a GCSE option without the agreement of parents. But when children set out on the path to possibly changing gender, many schools might not even inform those parents. A key principle underpinning safeguarding — that we don’t keep secrets from those who need to know — is abandoned at a stroke.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
Meanwhile we learn that four in ten secondary schools have adopted policies of gender self-identification. Such wanton disregard of biological reality has led to experimental — and possibly illegal — practices developing. For example, despite very clear direction from the School Premises England Regulations (2012) — “Separate toilet facilities for boys and girls aged 8 years or over must be provided” — Policy Exchange found that at least 28% of secondary schools were not maintaining single sex toilets. Astonishingly, 19% did not maintain single-sex changing rooms for their pupils.
The distressing findings continue. Last week, World Athletics defended the integrity of elite women’s sports. Transgender athletes who have been through male puberty are now excluded from female World Rankings competition. Sadly, schoolgirls are not getting the same protections. Policy Exchange discovered that 60% of secondary schools allow children to participate in sports of the opposite sex.
Worrying issues were identified in the curriculum. Most schools now teach that people have a gender identity that may be different from their biological sex, and some tell their pupils that people, including children, can be “born in the wrong body”. Meanwhile, 30% deliver the message that a man who self-identifies as a woman should be treated as a woman in all circumstances.
These pseudoscientific beliefs are not only nonsense, they are unnecessary. I have no need for a gender identity, and I am transsexual. As parents we worry what our children might read on social media, but this is happening in their schools.
Reading the report as a teacher, the findings are shocking but maybe not surprising. Schools have indeed been “asleep at the wheel” — as the title of the paper suggests. They may have felt that they were on the back foot, but many went to the wrong people for advice. Third party organisations such as Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence (notorious for its trans youth guidance that insisted “a woman is still a woman, even if she enjoys getting blow jobs”) were never going to offer impartial information. Instead, they pushed ideology into classrooms.
Even Ofsted has been compromised. The paper pointed out that the inspectorate joined the Stonewall Diversity Champions programme and entered the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index. In 2019, Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman spoke at Stonewall’s first Children and Young People Conference.
Children suffer. Some may now believe that they have been born in the wrong body and yearn for cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgeries. At the same time, other children are expected to play along. More than two thirds of secondary schools require other children to ignore the evidence of their own eyes and affirm a gender-distressed child’s new identity.
The message is simple but, clearly, far too many need to be reminded. Sex matters, and safeguarding must never be compromised.
When will it stop?
When will this pernicious lie stop being forced on our children? When will those who facilitate this perversion in our schools be removed from their posts, never to be allowed to influence children again?
Because that is what needs to happen. Our descendants will look at our slothful response to this, and they will wonder what the hell we used for a backbone.
It can only stop when the latest generation of totalitarian goons is swept from office; and that will only take place if we elect a government with the strength and integrity to purge and shrink the deep state. And that is increasingly unlikely because the old social confidence and unity which might have allowed for such a process have been so completely compromised – we are an ageing, childless, risk-averse, semi-colonised society increasingly monitored and policed in our everyday lives and prevented – increasingly by law – from expressing serious dissent. This may very well be the end.
There’s plenty of examples of expressions of serious dissent, including on Unherd. I haven’t read about a police raid on its HQ, have you?
On the other hand, expressions such as “This may very well be the end” are palpable nonsense – in the literal sense of that word.
Instead of wailing and gnashing teeth, be part of the pushback, it’s starting to work.
Is it not too little, too late? As for Unherd, the powers that be don’t need to raid its offices, do they? It is an outlet, that’s all. It hasn’t changed anything. Here on these and other such threads a few disgruntled and / or far-sighted souls can express the truth as they see it. Meanwhile, the wholesale indoctrination of society proceeds, unabashed and unabated, ruling whole swathes of previously permissible opinion off limits. If you want an example, look at almost any advert; go to any play; watch any contemporary film. Worse still are western society’s death-bed demographics, which mean that most of the people with the strongest possible loyalties to the west – those who directly inherit its identity and traditions – will be a small, embattled and perhaps even persecuted minority. The “push-back” as you call it is no more effective than Dad’s Army’s little Union Jack, jabbing away at Dover. Ah, but we won the war, you will say. Alas, no – America and Russia won the war; we merely endured it.
Your use of the Dad’s Army trope is revealing, ignoring the efforts of the intelligence and courage required to see off the initial threat in 1940 and thus providing a base from which the recapture of mainland Europe could take place.
Without giving your analogy too much credence, i’ll use it to further my point about refusing to give in, as appears to be the case (there were similar calls from some in 1939-40) and therefore providing a platform from which seemingly entrenched institutional attitudes can be challenged and eventually overcome.
Ah, but answer the substantive points – continual, pervasive indoctrination; restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and liberty of conscience; increasing official hostility to such things in principle and – worst of all – the destruction of the family coupled with declining native populations. Do you really see any of these developments going into reverse in the near future? And do you not realise that unless they do, they represent the foundations of a grim future? As to 39-40, I made the point deliberately for a number of reasons which I shall sum up thus: the events of that period eclipsed British power for good, leaving us defeated, bankrupt and dependent – just as surely as France. Her more obvious defeat simply helped us to blind ourselves to our own. It is a complete myth to say that “we” overcame anything as a result of squandering our last strength in that futile war. And its course and conclusion brought us the deep triumph of the Left, the ongoing reverberations of which can be felt today in the follies and crimes of “Woke”. Decline is only registered fully at the moment of Fall – which, I submit, is the condition of European civilisation today. Only a massive multi-fronted Reaction can save us, restoring the status quo ante with the fullest vigour. And I see no sign of it.
I agree with you. I should think that UnHerd is 80% men, average age 60+. Therefore, of no importance to the way the future develops. Like me they can have opinions but does anybody care?
The writers for Unherd almost invariably don’t fit that demographic and have considerable agency in the cultural sphere, so not sure what point you’re trying to make about opinions.
Just so you know – I’m 35, female and ethnically south Asian. I’ve been a member of unherd for about 2 years. I’m often told I might as well be 60+ so there is that 🙂
I’m 38, female, disabled.
I do and so does every woman I know who’s contesting this utter cobblers. Believe me, it really matters to all of us to have your support. It’s more than practical: it helps keep us in good heart. We need you!
Unherd isn’t serious dissent. It has a circulation of maybe a few thousand people scattered across continents.
Which is missing the point. The cultural agency of its writers ripples out into a much wider sphere.
For instance, Kathleen Stock started a recent article by specifying criticisms directed towards her from various sources. That wouldn’t be happening if she didn’t have influence way beyond Unherd.
I do wish people were able to lift their heads and look beyond the most immediate horizon.
Thank God for a sane response. Thank you Steve for that terse and entertaining comment. And to Selwyn Jones: I would point out that, as a woman, I don’t have the luxury of despair and resignation. I’m bloody furious and I’ll be pushing back against this junk until it’s junked. It’s not like it’s anything new. Just misogyny in a frock and lipstick. As we used to say in the 70s: SOS. Same Old Sh*t
All this “as a woman” nonsense! As a person of whatever sex one should hate the disaster which is overcoming our society; and its recognition is the reverse of luxury. Rather it is those among us who wallow in false comfort who are guilty of luxuriating. Can you name one area in which the rising flood tide of insanity has been seriously rolled back in the last five years? Can you confidently identify one political force, one political figure likely to stand successfully against it? When you can, I’ll listen.
Indeed, but one cannot deny the fact that many nations in the West seems to be willfully transforming themselves into totalitarian police-states?
Many of the things happening now would have been considered dystopian science-fiction thirty or forty years ago. For instance who would ever have thought that Roald Dahl’s children books would ever be purged for undesirable language or that women would be receiving death threats for wanting to keep men in dresses away from women sports and changing facilities? That facts could be condemned as right-wing and doctors performing gender-reassignment surgery on teenagers would be viewed as love and kindness? That school children would be told that their history and religion are evil and should be replaced by the open practice of sexual fetishism? That citizens are told by their a state-controlled media that their skin color confers undeserved privileges that need to be stripped away from them?
For years I’ve heard from the same old people that this is just a phase; it will pass over soon. The fact is that we should never have got to this point in the first place.
Lifton’s Thought Reform provides a good description of how we got here and where we may go next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism
Precisely. And yet people imagine that changing and reversing this condition of things is somehow a matter of “positive” attitudes and crowd-funded change! What naivety! Even if a right wing or anti-woke administration is elected, the deep state will frustrate it at every turn – see Trump. If that fails, then the supra-national deep state takes over – the international organs of law and finance are brimming over with persons who are perfectly aligned with the Orwellian nonsense to which you so deftly allude. And no, this is not primarily a generational matter, even if the most indoctrinated people are to be found among the young. It is a matter of ideology, its irrational roots in humanity’s perennial temptations towards self-hatred, and its terrible grip around the major pressure points of modern life. We are entering into the first decades of a new Dark Age, because the guardians of Enlightenment flinched and failed. And the sooner people realise this, the less miserable they might be.
I think that all of the relevant government people in the UK – the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Assembly, UK Parliament – see that the voting age will soon change to 16. (It is already 16 in Wales and Scotland and KS has said that the UK will follow when Labour is elected).
The rather old people in the parties of the assemblies are trying to vie with each other for the attention of young voters. They want a future for the young and if that’s what the young want, that’s what they’ll get. As old people, they are discounting their own relevance in order to get short term votes. I think they sincerely believe that this is what young people will want.
Probably, young people do want this because their primary school teachers are saying that it is good. When you are 6 years old you tend to believe your teachers. Parents will have one of two opinions – they don’t care or they are horrified. I know of parents who deliberately send their boys to school in pretty dresses. Clearly, from the point of view of the parents, they think that the boys will have more chances in life as women. The way has been prepared by the feminists. It is too late for the children.
The biggest problem we have, of course, is when old rapists claim to be women and the police agree with them.
Yes it is so horrible & underhanded the way the christian right is grooming young men to be sexless dorky dressed Incels.
Keep an eye out for a new political party coming soon, that want to protect womens rights to sex-segregated safe spaces, and the health and safety of children against this cult ideology.
Single sex toilets and changing rooms are requested/ demanded by the “trans” lobby fronting for what it really is. A perverts charter.
“Dont tell your parents ” Classic paedophilia.
I hope prison time and massive fines are levied once the tide changes against these purveyors of filth and paedophilia which are damaging children.
Every day we meet people who are home schooling their children. We always ask why? And it’s because people are horrified by what is being taught in regards to gender ideology.
What I find most appealing is that all this has happened under 12 years of “Conservative” rule. Of course now I and many others would vote for any party who stood to put a stop all this. And I mean any.
Who will that be then? After all, Starmer doesn’t know what a woman is and the Liberals wrote the manual.
There is a really big assumption here (and I am not questioning Debbie’s facts). That schools and their staff should become directly involved in personal mental health issues.
What a teacher should do is contact the parent tell them what they are observing and hearing and leave it with them and offer supportive connections and record the details.
Neither I nor my children when we were educated viewed teachers as social care workers.
As regards teaching children about social nuances in society that should wait until the children are at least fourteen/ fifteen and it should be comparative not in the form of encouraging or opening counseling. Much like you can teach religious education comparatively.
Support groups and counseling should not be part of the school function.
Teachers should alert staff parents of complex issues and there it stops. Let alone any narrative entering the school curriculum.
We seem to, in a generation given teachers first the role of social workers and then allowed interested parties to step in and “help.”
Adolescence is like wading through a fog, and a fog we eventually come out of. No teacher should enter into that confusion. They should simply identify children who find the fog confusing in an important way.
I think I’m right in saying that teachers are legally bound to follow a Safeguarding procedure that sets in motion a chain of events if they have a concern about the wellbeing of a child. That may not involve talking to parents if there’s a risk the parents may form part of the threat. None of which contradicts your comment, but it’s just part of how teachers’ jobs are considerably trickier than they were when I was a lad.
No sane parent would want a young girl sharing toilet space with a bunch of leering 15-year-old blokes. At that age, in a group, most blokes are d**k-heads. Plus, practicalities – given biological realities, blokes can use urinals. Women can’t. As a result, if toilets are to be shared by males and females, it’s either: (1) girls will have to walk past lots of blokes with their penises out while she’s en route to a cubicle; or (ii) all urinals will have to be removed and replaced by cubicles, thereby creating massive queues to pee which would have been at least 50% reduced of urinals could be retained.
Neither option makes any sort of safe-guarding or practical sense.
How dumb are these people?
And in regards to changing rooms … how many girls are going to be willing to do PE if they have to strip down in front of lads? Back in my day, we weren’t overly keen stripping down in front of other girls, let alone the lads!
Having a sexualised conversation without keeping parents in the loop is straight up grooming.
Women will lose. What are they going to do about it? The sisters have fought for all kinds of rights like maternity leave. I would bet with anyone that the transisters will also ask for maternity leave. Sounds stupid? Just wait and see.
Primary school teachers teach this without complaint. Where are the unions? This is like the old adage about things happening because people do nothing. Whatever the criticisms of the French, it won’t be as easy there.
Institutional abuse of children is seemingly endless.
*take these jabs even though Covid won’t seriously impact you
*be deadly scared of climate change
*be any gender you wish – it’s our little secret
WooHoo! The future looks bright in the west.
I advocate a voucher system for parents to chose their children’s school. I would only send my children to a school, which doesn‘t push any crazy political agenda, most likely a religious ( in my case Christian) school.
Don’t they groom young men to be Incels ?
Awaiting for approval
Reply to Stephanie Surface
Don’t they groom young men to be Incels ?
No, I went to a Christian school and then went on to have many girlfriends afterwards.
Ms. Hayton – I am just some middle aged family man but you surely have my respect both as a rational articulate thinker and as a transgender woman… for whatever it’s worth… Godspeed…
There is a problem with out of control gender ideology but simply shouting at it won’t work, and clearly now, the most strident voices have over reached themselves and are now in retreat. There will be a re setting of the boundaries, but we won’t go back to where we were before. I really wish that people would reference their claims so they can be independently checked, as I’ve reached the stage where I won’t believe anything second hand.
The gender movement isn’t really in retreat. This report exists but nothing much will be done. The next report will show more schools supporting this ideology, more schools with no separate sex spaces and more schools with no restrictions on sports teams.
The Cass report into the Tavistock clinic has politely but very firmly slated it biased thinking. Organisations are abandoning Stonewall’s diversity champions programme in their droves, The charity Mermaids is not long for this world, organisations that facilitated gender change are being sued for alleged misjudgments, the SNP is in trouble over its gender self-certification scheme. It certainly looks like an ongoing reset. I fervently hope the pendulum doesn’t swing too far back, and that people recognise the rights and worth of trans people but I think they have been ill served by the worst of the hubris generated in their name. I wonder if part of the motivation for the trans author of this piece is resentment at being expected to silently fall in behind people who shout loud and presume the right to speak in her name.
I’m afraid this piece has a strong whiff of “the biter bitten”; particularly “I have no need for a gender identity, and I’m transexual” which seems so self-contradictory as to defy interpretation.
We can be uncomfortable with our sex without the need for a gender identity.
Beautifully put. I’ll use that. Thanks!
I really do not understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that you do not ‘need’ a gender identity, or that you do not have one? Perhaps we (you , me and Ben A) have different understandings of what a gender identity is. Please enlighten us.
Don’t understand why you’ve got downticks. Well said.
I’ve been wondering about the provision of up/down-ticks. They clearly skew threads on social media. So why are they here at all, if they don’t necessarily indicate something meaningful?
I agree. Could seriously do without them, but I think most new source websites need them to tailor their articles to the views of readership. Unfortunately, this risks forming journalistic echo-chambers.
If somebody has taken hormones over time it will alter their physiology, there is some evidence it can alter neurology if it goes on long enough. Some changes brought about by the hormones can be physically irreversible, e.g, detransitioners who are now back living as girls but have permanently lowered their voice because of the time on testosterone effecting their throat muscles.
Then if you add in the surgeries, if that goes to the point of removal of sex organs that is obviously a drastic permanent anatomical change. None of which has any aspect of identity to it, it’s all empirically observable changes to the body. Either you’ve had the medical treatment and attendant physical changes or you haven’t.
In fact, if you’d asked me what made somebody “trans” ten years ago in the distant days of 2013, that’s what i’d have said. And “gender identity” would not have featured as a concept.
That’s also what old school 1970’s/80’s era “transsexual” meant – that you’d had the hormones and the “sex change op” as it used to be called. All physical, not based on having magical inner girl feelings.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe