Language Corrupts Thought
'Gender Agenda' conference raises red flags by abandoning statutory safeguarding practices.
This week, on the 28th September, a conference entitled, ‘The Gender Agenda’ was held by Birmingham City Council’s Safeguarding Advisor to Schools, Jon Needham. The information sent to delegates described it as, 'a conference to explore the inclusion of transgender people in Education, Faith Communities and the Workplace’.
Considering the role Needham fills, you could be forgiven for thinking the conference might have included some elements of safeguarding, but alas, no. What did unfold, appeared to be a wholesale effort to educate everyone in how to be inclusive for the sake of people who feel their ‘gender identity’ is different from that of their sex. From the outset, the scene was set, showing a list of awful statistics and a couple of quotes about how grim life is for such young people. Contradicting the standard advice from The Samaritans (who sadly have been captured by the transgenderists), the statistics displayed appeared to oversimplify the contributing factors for (attempted) suicide by presenting it only as a direct result of being ‘transgender’, or at least being bullied for being ‘transgender’.
Co-host and evangelical Baptist minister Steve Chalke, spoke of the recent news that the UK, Russia, Hungary, Poland and Turkey, had been labelled the most ‘transphobic countries in Europe’, which is fascinating, considering there have been no recorded murders of such identities in the last three years in the UK, indeed, between 2008 and 2017, there thankfully only nine murders . Nevertheless, those who were presenting were clear in their speeches, that ‘violence’, murders and death threats had been major issues and this was why we all need to be educated.
First up to speak, about the ‘faith’ element, was Rachel Mann - an Anglican priest who identifies as a woman, and who ‘transitioned’ in the early 1990’s. Mann encouraged us to, “dare to speak up for the emergent languages of trans people” before going on to sermonise about the “riches of non-binary” and compare transition to being like that of “death and resurrection, the casting off of the old life, the discovery of the new, inscribed in their very being”. Mann also describes, “those who would destroy us and diminish us” to “hurling…hand grenades”.
Here, we begin to see two distinct themes emerging: firstly, an insistence that people with different identities are at constant risk of extreme violence, whether physically or online, then related to this, the idea, it is our language which feeds the violence and therefore needs changing. As Mann suggests, we are the ones who ought to change our language and “dare” to follow the ‘emergent languages’ that are emanating from trans communities. This might normally sound fine - after all, we know language evolves over time in order to best serve the society and culture of the day - but a cursory glance at the way in which people engage online, demonstrates how gender critical women, who try to stay calm and challenge the way sex is being erased in favour of gender, are subjected to a litany of violent statements aimed at shutting them up. More so, an entire language has been created to smear women as, TERFs, feminazis, anti-trans and far-right bigots. But of course, this is not the emergent language Mann is referring to, rather, it is the one of obfuscation - of sex, sexuality, gender and identity.
Up next was Bishop of Liverpool, Paul Bayes and like all of the other speakers, with his pronouns on display. Bayes talked of the importance of being an ally and promptly referenced Shon Faye, who once told a woman online to “enjoy [her] erasure”. Later on, Bayes reiterated the idea of ‘violence’ online in ‘trans spaces’ where disagreements happen, “where people take what they think is the truth and they use it like a blade to hurt and to wound people”.
Once again, the use of violent imagery and war-like language guilt-trips people into believing there is an urgent need for change. We are told to deal with our ‘privilege’ and correct ourselves; to let the children lead us, the adults, who know nothing of the ‘lived experience’ of the ‘trans child’; it’s even inferred that to fail to change would be to place lives at risk. The chief aim was to persuade us to think, if we don’t believe young people from the start, something bad will happen:
Identified only by her first name, Krystyna, representing trans-identified children’s charity Mermaids, implored us to believe and “listen to young people…let them lead”, and explained that “they’re not following a trend”. She raised the issue of the Tavistock case along with the Fraser Guidelines and Gillick Competence, as if to lend an air of knowledge to children’s decision-making capabilities; with regard to children opening up to staff at schools, Krystyna also said, “schools can’t break that confidence” (and inform parents), without any thought for the safeguarding processes staff should be adhering to.
Female, CJ, talked about her transition journey and said she remembered thinking, “either I’m an alive man or a dead woman”. CJ went on to tackle any claims of girls who might be transitioning as an “escape route” from being ‘unattractive’ and poured scorn on the idea, claiming, “it’s a bunch of rubbish…I can’t see why anyone would put themselves through this” (despite the fact, many desisters have talked about this problem).
Rachel Williams, of the Proud Trust, pleaded with school staff, saying, "this has been said all the way throughout…your starting point can never be that in your school, you haven't got any trans or non-binary people...you have. They just haven't got the language to tell you that yet. So please, please, think about being pro-active."
Note that in every single instance here, the ‘transitioning’ child is treated almost like some kind of god-like entity, that everyone should follow and take their lead from. This is noteworthy, because attributing such immense responsibility to a child is a dereliction of duty as a parent and a responsible professional, charged with the task of working with vulnerable young people. See the following examples from this conference for how everyone - and I mean, everyone - is expected to change their world, their practices and their beliefs, in order to affirm young peoples’ ‘identity’, whether dysphoric or not…
Given that Mermaids believes parents should not be informed about conversations staff members have had regarding a pupil’s desire to transition, I wonder what is meant here by “disclosures”.
The conference continued to highlight its ideas for ‘best practice’ by promoting one of its schools, ‘The Oasis Academy’, in Leesbrook, Manchester. A few members of its staff were enlisted to talk of how they practiced inclusion and how it benefitted all students in the school. In fact, between them, they exclaimed how despite having “gender neutral” toilets, having no segregation in activities and all sports being mixed, they had had “zero problems”. Seeing how absolute their claims were and knowing children and how pervasive bullying can be amongst them, I very much doubt the veracity of such claims.
As mentioned briefly above, the Proud Trust was represented and enthusiastic about the work being done in schools. The Proud Trust gave us the Relationships and Sex Education ‘dice game’, where students roll two dice (see below) and try to think of a sex activity involving the two words which faced up. The dice game came with instructions on ideas involving sticking objects into your anus, for sexual gratification. The game was aimed at children aged 13+.
The Proud Trust, then presented its ‘Rainbow Flag Award’. The idea being, organisations embed into learning materials, LGBTQ+ ideas and ‘educate’ children about gender identity.
In the image below, it was explained just how comprehensive the programme should be to ensure gender identity as a concept is accepted by all.
All in all, there is no room for doubt, that the ultimate aim is to ensure schools have adopted the unscientific belief system that is, ‘gender identity’. In fact, it’s hardly surprising that the majority of this conference was full of religious overtones and that, the Anglican Priest, Mann, effectively preached a sermon for the first 20 minutes, combining gender ideology and spirituality. Intriguingly, the promotion of this conference was uncharacteristically low key.
That this three hour genderfaith-fest was organised by a Safeguarding Advisor to Schools, implies that this was an event about safeguarding, yet safeguarding was barely mentioned. Why was there not more emphasis on safeguarding? Could it be that the focus on changing terminology and pedagogy was designed to legitimise the belief that all children have a gender identity and therefore, educators must treat all children as if they may be transgender? In the words of George Orwell, “…if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
Safeguarding is a tool by which, professionals can exercise a preventative approach. The idea, is not to believe or disbelieve, but rather to acknowledge and record. When a disclosure is made, it is essential the responsible adult does not lead the young person, nor should they promise to keep secrets.
There is a pattern of organisations passing their responsibilities to children, framed in terms of bodily autonomy and ‘informed consent’, so that children bear sole responsibility for their choices. One only needs to look at the Tavistock v Keira Bell ruling to see how this is playing out in children’s lives. This dereliction of duty leaves young people vulnerable to harm.
Thank you for reporting on this. Paul Bayes is an interesting name, there. A moral entrepreneur making a good career out of shepherding the Church into this zone. https://opentable.lgbt/our-events/2021/3/18/meet-our-patrons-bishop-paul-bayes-in-conversation-with-kieran-bohan
In the 1980s I lived in a religious cult that had no boundaries about children and adults having sex. This included normalising grooming infants to enjoy genital stimulation by adults performing cunnilingus on baby girls and fellatio on baby boys. The community actually survived over 20 years during which around 30 children were born into it. In the mid 90s 7 cult members, 6 men and 1 woman, went to jail for child sexual abuse, but they never stopped maintaining sexual contact with children was healthy normal human behaviour and that the children sought and benefitted from sexual interaction. I did in fact witness some of the little girls around 5-6 years old, the ones who had been inducted into clitoral stimulation as infants, snuggle up to adult males and ask to be "tickled off" in the community lingo.
Any kind of behaviour can be normalised if there is enough benefit to the adults. I can only think there must some anthropological benefit to social cohesion that unhindered male access to all females must be controlled or everything goes to shit.
Perhaps we'll find out in the next decade....?