Lesbian, Gay and Bi Christians and our friends has submitted its response to the Church of England’s consultation on proposed new guidelines for schools regarding bullying. The consultation, affecting 4,630 Church of England schools and 200 church schools in Wales, closed yesterday.
We welcome ‘Flourishing for All: Anti-bullying Guidance for Church of England Schools’, but with reservations.
The proposed new guidance tackles homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in church schools and we affirm the positioning of the guidance as part of a suite of documents reflecting some of the protected characteristics in the 2010 Equality Act.
We enthusiastically endorse the focus on flourishing and the principle of children’s flourishing having its roots in love and security. We welcome the intention to ensure that every child, young person and adult is protected from harm, and has the dignity to live and learn without fear.
Professor Mark Chater, an experienced educationalist and core member of LGB Christians, said
“We think the document is in the main successful in balancing between a number of opposing views on sexuality and gender identity, but the language falls short of clarity in some areas. In a well-intentioned effort to be inclusive, the Guidance has capitulated to a gender ideology which does huge damage to children and families.”
Looking to the future, Mark added: ‘We will be happy to work with the CofE on revisions to the guidance to make it more robust and clear for school leaders, helping them to safeguard children and adolescents from inappropriate pressure and disinformation.’
/ENDS
Key selected extracts from the LGB Christians submission to the Church of England Education Office and Foundation for Educational Leadership
The ‘LGBT+’ Acronym
‘We invite the authors to rethink the use of the acronym ‘LGBT+’ which is used repeatedly throughout the Guidance. Our preference is to avoid collectively addressing ‘LGBT+’ or ‘LGBTQIA’ people, for three reasons.
First, in reality no such group exists, especially amongst children and adolescents, so it makes no sense to talk of an ‘LGBT+ community’ or ‘children who are LGBT+’;
Second, it is an incoherent acronym, forcing together the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity as well as other, less well defined cultural positionings (Q, I, A, etc);
And third, genderism (the belief or assumption that gender somehow supersedes the biological reality of sex) is incompatible with the scientific reality of binary sex characteristics. Genderism – also referred to as gender identity ideology – can erase and harm the reality of same-sex attraction, as the Cass report has shown.
There is incoherence and hidden dangers in the long open-ended acronym. The long acronym is a well-intentioned but flawed attempt to bypass these awkward realities in the name of being inclusive. In practice it has been shown to lead schools and other organisations into confused actions that unintentionally harm children. We know from our membership of cases in schools where children who are (or are perceived to be) L, G or B are bullied, but children who self-identify as T are valorised. Thus, identifying as Trans and starting social transitioning can be a route out of being bullied and might be a denial of a child’s true identity.
We also note that the ‘T’ in the long acronym has the potential to encourage schools in the belief that children and adolescents can be trans. This is highly contestable, and has dire consequences as reported by Cass.
We do not doubt that children can suffer gender dysphoria, can be gender non-conforming, and can have questions about themselves and others; they can also suffer from other forms of identity dysphoria. It is clear that church schools have a particular calling to respond to such suffering with compassion – though without capitulating to any ideology, no matter how strongly it might be expressed or pressed on a school.
We therefore suggest that where phrases such as ‘LGBT+ children’ are used, they should be broken down into ‘children who are (or who are perceived to be) LGB, and children who are (or are perceived to be) gender fluid or gender non-conforming.’ We think that such phrasing avoids taking up a defined position on whether or not children can be trans. We note with approval in a Footnote on p. 24 that there is a recognition of the DfE and Cass caution against social transitioning.’
On Social Transitioning
‘We would like the Guidance to say more about how schools are not obliged to affirm children’s choices of a new name or a changed pronoun, that this is a highly contested sensitive issue, and that affirming children’s wishes in such matters, especially if parents have not been consulted, is likely to do more harm than good. (This issue awaits clarification of the DfE Guidance). There is a growing big push back by parents on this and court cases are likely unless schools do tell parents.’
On Sex & Gender
‘The graphic (p. 54) on reasons for bullying identifies a category called ‘gender’ (2.82%) and we think that this may be an error and the correct term here is ‘biological sex’. In the glossary, we take issue with the phrase ‘sex … assigned at birth’. This is a loaded phrase which concedes too much to an unproven gender ideology, against which schools and children need defending. Biological sex is not ‘assigned’, it is a reality observed in utero or at birth and then recorded.’
Recommended LGB Christian Acticles
- Revd Lorenzo Fernandes-Smal Same-sex attracted Christians are now caught between two competing orthodoxies
- Dr Sarah Rutherford Gender identity captures the cofe: The shameful brainwashing of children
- Rev Mike Starkey Reflections on Inclusive Christianity: Humpty Dumpty Sat on a Stonewall
- Rachel Evans A Scandal for Schools