Trying to get information about what goes on in our children’s SPHE classes is no easy task.
Alarmed by reports that pornography and gender ideology were being introduced into Junior Cycle classrooms, I wrote to both the NCCA and the Department of Education as a concerned parent trying to understand the rationale behind the proposals several months ago.
“I am happy to confirm that the NCCA has not introduced gender ideology into the curriculum,” was the cheerful response from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). The Department of Education’s email response was limited to a terse statement ‘The programme of government states that this Government will develop inclusive and age-appropriate curricula for Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) and Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) across primary and post-primary schools, including an inclusive programme on LGBTI+ relationships’.
My specific request to both institutions was to provide evidence-based social research studies supporting the introduction of gender ideology in primary and secondary schools. Despite multiple requests since, neither the NCCA nor the Department of Education have provided links or lists of evidence-based research that influenced their deliberations on the topic.
This is not the first time I’ve been misled and stonewalled by professionals charged with educating my children. After voicing concerns prior to my son starting secondary school last year, the SPHE teacher from my son’s first-year course assured me that the Junior Cycle course was harmless, all about well-being and respect for yourself and others.
On his first day of SPHE in secondary school, the teacher opened a discussion of same-sex attraction with a room full of 12- and 13-year-olds and told them they were sworn to secrecy about classroom discussions.
My son and I had a good laugh at that notion, as he wondered aloud how many nanoseconds it would take for a SPHE secret to circulate the entire student body. On a more serious note, we acknowledged how creepy and inappropriate it is for adults to ask children to keep secrets.
Secrecy, denial and obfuscation seem to be the modus operandi of our politicians and educators of late on any number of hot topics. When those tactics fail, a quick pivot to celebrating diversity and inclusiveness does the trick. Who can argue with diversity and inclusivity?
Everybody loves diversity and inclusion, but the pressing question for parents and educators everywhere remains ‘Does the teaching of gender ideology promote or undermine the health and well-being of our children?’ The government and the NCCA have failed to present or explore the evidence so let’s do our best to take a quick look at social science studies that explore gender identity and well-being.
Gender dysphoria is defined as ‘a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mis-match between their biological sex and their gender identity’. It is associated with high levels of mental distress.
A recent 2020 study from Sweden used clinical records to assess well-being of the transgender population compared to the general population. The findings are sobering. Individuals with gender dysphoria were six times as likely to attend mood or anxiety treatments, more than 3 times as likely to receive prescriptions for anti-depressants and more than 6 times as likely to be hospitalised after a suicide attempt.
The treatments for gender dysphoria include prescribing puberty blockers (drugs that stop the production of sex hormones and delay the onset of puberty). The drugs used for puberty blockers are also used for chemical castration and result in a loss of sexual function. For a thorough synopsis of the history of various research efforts on the subject of puberty blockers see this study (important for anyone facing this issue). Puberty blockers are often followed by hormonal treatments (resulting in sterility) and surgery to give the appearance of conforming to the desired gender identity.
Transgender treatments are not cheap. The market valuation for transgender sex-change surgeries is projected to reach USD1.5 billion by 2026. These numbers do not include the pharmaceutical industry’s take from the life-long provision of hormone treatments for transgender individuals. It’s a big business. Ireland’s economy is heavily dependent on the pharmaceutical industry which accounts for 43% of national sales according to the CSO.
What’s good for Ireland inc., isn’t necessarily good for Irish kids.
There is an ongoing debate regarding whether gender reassignment treatments improve well-being. There are any number of ‘lots-of-people-say’ studies using self-reported or professionally administered questionnaires that celebrate the success of gender reassignment treatments. The problem with these sorts of studies is confirmation bias. It’s not uncommon for people to say what they think they should say or tell you what they think you want to hear.
Surveys of transgender individuals, not surprisingly, paint a rosy picture of gender reassignment and hormonal treatments. Studies that use dispassionate clinical evidence result in a much murkier picture.
A 2011 study in Sweden examining clinical records, found that clinical mental health outcomes did not improve after gender reassignment treatment. A more recent study 2020, showed an increase in adverse clinical outcomes in the post-operative year. A secondary finding that outcomes improved after, has been criticised as not supported by the study data and retracted. Subsequent independent analysis of the original study data revealed little difference between clinical outcomes between transgender individuals who received and did not receive sex reassignment treatments. Reading the (often ferocious) peer-review commentary that follows research studies is always illuminating and worthwhile.
The take-away here is that a dispassionate review of clinical records suggests that transgender individuals suffer from higher risks for mental illness and distress than the general population. The clinical evidence also suggests that the current available treatments do little to alleviate this risk.
As Ireland is introducing Gender Identity into the educational curriculum, many countries are furiously back-peddling on gender affirming treatments for minors with gender dysmorphia. Last December, Sweden joined France, the UK, the Netherlands, and 25 states in the United States in restricting gender affirming treatments for minors due to concerns over the lack of evidence that it contributes to the long-term health and well-being of children.
The government’s argument, often repeated, is that we need to teach our children about Gender Ideology because transgender individuals exist. As a society, we need to be inclusive and supportive of them. In many ways this argument seems perfectly reasonable. Transgender individuals do exist. We should know what they believe and respect their right to their beliefs. So far so good.
The devil, however, is always in the details. In the first case, introducing Gender Ideology as a fact is categorically false. It is a belief system, an ideology, not a fact. Furthermore, introducing Gender Ideology to 12- and 13- year-olds going through the throes of puberty is highly questionable. Given what we know about the mental health struggles of transgender individuals, the active promotion of Gender Ideology in schools just as children are entering the turbulent time of puberty is putting our children at risk. What child wouldn’t be tempted to take a pill to make the whole messy process of puberty just go away?
Parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, it is our job to educate our children on this issue. When I talk to my kids, I tell them the truth. Gender is binary, based on two biological sexes male (chromosome XY, sperm producing) and female (chromosome XX, egg producing). Only a male sperm (daddy) and a female egg (mommy) can make a baby together. Your biological sex (male or female) is written in your chromosomes in every cell in your body.
I also tell them that some people think that you can change your gender. Some people think that a man can become a woman. We disagree, but people are entitled to their beliefs. Treat everyone with respect. The best advice, as always, is to learn people’s names and use them!
To be clear, despite the smears of activists, there is nothing hateful about disagreeing with Gender Ideology. Disagreeing with someone is not denying their existence. Disagreeing with someone is not a phobic or fearful. You do not have to agree with someone to wish them well, be a good neighbour and enjoy their company.
As a society it shouldn’t be that hard to navigate this issue, save one thorny problem – there are many places where men and women spaces exist separately: bathrooms, prisons, hospital wards, locker-rooms and athletics. There is no getting around the fact that the historical divisions of same-sex spaces and events openly clash with transgender individuals chosen gender identity.
Without any rancor at all towards transgender individuals, I do not believe that biological men should have the right to enter women’s spaces and compete in women’s sports. It is unsafe and unfair for biological man to play ladies rugby. I would have the same concern about safety and fairness in the case of a transgender man (a biological women) playing men’s rugby or sharing a men’s locker-room.
As for minors, same sex spaces in our schools should remain, as always, tied to biological sex rather than a chosen gender. This policy does not exclude transgender minors from participation in any school-related activities, and instead, protects all minors with same sex-spaces and activities due to the very real biological differences between post-pubescent boys and girls.
It should also be feasible to create spaces to accommodate transgender individuals such as wards or sections in hospitals, single unisex restrooms and changing rooms in schools and public facilities and transgender divisions for team sports and transgender categories for individual sports.
Please think through your own personal stances on these important issues and raise your voice. Do your part to spread the word. Every concerned parent needs to make themselves heard. Ring your schools, TDs and local politicians. Exert your constitutional parental rights as the primary educator of your children to opt out of SPHE if you choose.
It is past time to test this government’s actual commitment to diversity and inclusivity.
Clare Frances, M.B.A, M.Sc Applied Social Research, writes on the nexus of research and public policy at The People’s Guide to Research