Schools (Gender and Parental Rights)
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
1.35pm
(North West Leicestershire)
(Reclaim)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the promotion
of social transition practices in schools; to require schools to
inform parents if their child has indicated an intention to
pursue, or has commenced, social transition; to provide for a
right for parents to access information about lessons in schools;
to make provision about the teaching of the concept of gender
identity in schools; and for connected purposes.
The issue that I bring to the House today needs a Bill, the very
necessity of which is both grotesque and revealing of an
absurdity: the turning of a blind eye to the real-world effects
that seemingly good-faith legislation has had on our education
system, on schools and on society as a whole.
So that we can all be clear about what the proposed Bill refers
to, let me start by defining the terms that it mentions. “Gender
identity” is the theory that, although we may be biologically
male or female, the more important characteristic is what we
actually feel like on the inside. “Social transitioning” is the
conscious act of self-rejection of our biological reality.
Cases of that happening used to be one of the clearest examples
we had ever seen of an exception that proves the rule, but I am
sickened to say that, under all our noses, members of society who
are either politically or educationally tasked with helping to
bring up our children have turned raising the next generation
into a science experiment, with consequences that break my
heart.
In schools today, it is rapidly becoming taught that it is a
normal and common experience not to feel at home in our own
bodies, and that the reason we feel like that is likely to be
because we, as a person, are simply trapped in the body of the
opposite sex. In some schools, one in 15 children now identify as
something different from their actual biological sex.
The exceptions that proved the rule are now becoming the rule. We
have started to blur the lines of basic reality, and have turned
what was already an extremely complex world for children to get
to grips with into a more complex one. To paraphrase Douglas
Murray, there is just about nothing more formative to our grip on
reality than the realities of sex. The first, most basic, most
instinctive thing we become aware of when we are growing up or
even meeting someone new is simply that there are boys and there
are girls. In dismantling that, we dismantle the world and pull
out a foundational block of society. Who knows where the Jenga
tower may fall? But one thing is certain: the tower will fall,
and we should all be ashamed that we would doom our children to
such a fate.
Social transition practices in schools have now become the norm
in every classroom in the country. They are promoted as a normal
and healthy response to natural feelings that children experience
during the difficult period that we used just to call “growing
up.” There is not a single child in our schools today who has not
been exposed to these practices. They include the policing of
language by mandating the use of a child’s preferred
pronouns—referring to a boy as “she” or “her” instead of “he” or
“him”, or vice versa—and the use of body alterations to reflect a
transition to the opposite sex, which primarily take the form of
surgical castration for boys, double mastectomies for girls,
Frankenstein-esque genitalia being created from grafts of skin,
and drugs to pause or halt puberty. Teachers, students or even
parents who do not oblige are punished and ostracised. In Canada,
calling a child by their “wrong pronoun” is already a crime.
The common consensus is that this gender-based ideology came from
adolescents who are more inclined to adopt so-called progressive
and liberal values, but that could not be further from the truth.
The origins of gender ideology came from rogue academics in the
20th century who have since been discredited, laying the
groundwork for future socialist thinkers to start making more and
more wild claims about the nature of our societies.
George Bernard Shaw was one of those who opened Pandora’s box by
coining anti-family rhetoric and promoting the rejection of
societal gender norms. In 1928, Shaw wrote:
“The social creed must be imposed on us when we are children… It
is quite easy to give people a second nature, however unnatural,
if you catch them early enough.”
Those are chilling words, yet here we are, voluntarily following
his playbook.
This did not come from our children spending more and more time
in the echo chamber of social media; it has been clinically and
systematically imposed on them from the top down. Gender ideology
is a political ideology—one that is being, effectively, promoted
in schools, and that therefore constitutes political
indoctrination, which, under section 406 of the Education Act
1996, is strictly prohibited.
Any who would argue that gender identity is protected by the
Equality Act 2010, and can therefore be discussed in schools,
would have grossly misinterpreted the Equality Act, as gender
identity is not a protected characteristic. There is a reason why
we are careful what topics we broach with children and teach them
at young ages. Why have we forgotten that?
If it were at all possible, it gets much worse. The public are
rightly shocked when they learn just how graphic and extensive
sex education lessons have become in our schools. Five-year-olds
are being taught to identify different genitalia in class.
Nowhere in the guidance on sex education lessons does the
Department for Education discuss nine-year-old children being
taught about masturbation or witnessing dolls simulate sex acts,
or 11 to 12-year-olds being taught that they can feel pleasure
from anal or oral sex. Does this depravity know no bounds?
Not only are these topics being broached, but pre-pubescent
children are being encouraged to explore their own bodies in this
manner. It borders on criminality when adults are suggesting that
children as young as eight should engage in adult activities. We
have a duty to safeguard our children, preserve their innocence
and protect them from the complexities of adult life until they
reach an appropriate age, when they are mature enough to engage
with topics and fully understand them.
What is happening in our schools is unacceptable, and there is a
need for immediate action. Classrooms should be a safe harbour.
Inclusivity has become a double-edged sword, cutting through the
very fabric of childhood. Every child has the right to innocence
and immunity from the sexual perversions of adults.
When teaching sex education—a topic where a bridge should stand
between parents and teachers—a barricade has formed. Parents have
been left in the dark and even actively blocked from seeing the
material taught to their own children. We must act now and hope
that the damage already done will not be too long-lasting.
The Bill I propose today will prop up existing legislation aimed
at protecting our children and put an end to this dark chapter.
Social transition in children will be forbidden. The promotion of
social transitioning and the discussion of social transitioning
practices will be prohibited from appearing in any aspect of a
school curriculum. Local authorities, governing bodies or
headteachers shall immediately inform parents or carers of any
child who indicates intent to socially transition or who has
commenced the process of socially transitioning. Moreover, when
the parents of a child who has considered socially transitioning
have been informed, the relevant safeguarding policies shall be
adhered to and the relevant safeguarding leads shall be
notified.
Parents will be entitled to the right to consultation, the right
to withdraw their children from sex education and the right to
have access to the materials used as part of that sexual
education. Schools will only be allowed to use published,
citeable resources that are reliably available for public and
regulatory scrutiny. The Bill will uphold and reinforce the
provisions laid out in the Education Act 1996 and will forbid the
promotion of gender identity. Where gender identity is taught, it
will be taught alongside opposing views to allow for a fair
presentation of political beliefs.
Relationships and sex education lessons and personal, social,
health and economic education lessons were brought in to sensibly
and safely inform our children about topics necessary to keep
them safe from harm. Let us get a grip of the legislation and
deliver on the original intended purpose. Our children are not
guinea pigs; it is high time that this House took charge and
stopped allowing ideologies passed down from mad scientists that
treat them as such. My proposed Bill will protect children,
reassure parents and offer certainty to teachers. I wish with all
my heart that it was not necessary, but it is needed—and it is
desperately needed.
1.45pm
(Exeter) (Lab)
I would like to make it clear to the House that I was not
intending to speak in this debate when I came to work today, but
I and a number of colleagues were so appalled by the Bill’s
contents—as we were by that speech—that we felt it was important
to send a clear message from this place, particularly to young
LGBT people and their families, that this nasty Bill does not
represent the views of Parliament.
Trans and non-binary people have always existed. Gender dysphoria
has been an internationally recognised condition for decades.
Coming out as trans or non-binary is never easy and often
extremely difficult. That is why, historically, so many trans
people have suppressed their gender dysphoria, leading to high
levels of mental illness and, all too often, sadly, suicide.
Better knowledge and a much wider acceptance of gender
non-conformity in recent years, particularly among the younger
generation, have thankfully made it easier for trans and
non-binary young people to come out. Of course, that can pose
challenges to schools, but schools have become very experienced
at handling social transitioning with sensitivity and
professionalism.
This Bill would turn the clock back to an age in which the very
existence of trans and non-binary people—a tiny minority—was
simply not acknowledged. It would force young people to continue
living in the gender assigned at birth, even when, as in the vast
majority of cases, they have the full support of their parents to
transition and live in their chosen gender. Parents would face
the impossible choice of forcing their child to continue living
in the gender they no longer identify with—with all the negative,
often devastating, impacts on that child’s mental health—or
removing them from school and educating them at home. There is no
evidence that the way schools currently deal with this very small
number of cases is not working.
For young LGBT people whose families are not supportive of their
sexuality or gender identity, the consequences of this Bill would
be even worse: it would, in effect, force schools to out LGBT
students. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children says that young people should never, ever be outed
against their will, except when serious safeguarding concerns
require it. One third of homeless young people are LGBT people
who have been rejected by their families. The Albert Kennedy
Trust, a charity that does fantastic work with homeless young
LGBT people, has seen a 70% increase in referrals in the last
three years, and half of LGBT young people report that they would
be worried about coming out to their families because of
hostility from one or more family member.
This Bill is not about the welfare of young people, and it is not
about the smooth running of our schools; it is about a cynical
but completely transparent attempt, by a conspiracy theorist who
is too right-wing even for today’s Conservative party, to stoke
the culture wars on the backs of our most vulnerable minority and
their families. It is despicable. I urge colleagues in this House
to give it a resounding thumbs down.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Perhaps the Serjeant could make sure that everything is okay in
the Division Lobbies.
[Division 272
The House having divided:
Ayes
34
Noes
40
Question accordingly negatived.
