Scottish Educational Psychologists and Gender Ideology in Scotland’s Schools: A Conspiracy of Silence?
By Carolyn Brown
On 26th February 2024, Genspect published the article by McGuiggan, D’Lima and Robertson, Where are the Educational Psychologists when children say they’re transgender? Well done for raising their heads above the parapet and simply stating the truth! And poor show as far as the British Psychological Society is concerned for refusing to publish McGuiggan et al.’s important article. As an acknowledgement of their article’s significance, my article has been written as a follow-up outline of the education and educational psychology context in Scotland. While Scotland has similarities to the English context, there are clear differences which have been accentuated further following the recent publication of the Cass Review’s Final Report. The Scottish Government’s promotional stance regarding gender ideology including its NHS allegiance to WPATH Standards of Care (WPATH); its funding of LGBTQ lobby groups; its unrepresentative consultative processes (Murray, Blackburn and Mackenzie, 2022) and its suppression and dismissiveness of critical evidence and research, are largely responsible for a range of public services which have become captured and are continuing to function in denial of the debates happening elsewhere (eg. England and Scandinavia). The grudging acknowledgement by Scottish ministers, to outright refusal by Patrick Harvey, the leader of the Green Party, to even acknowledge Dr Cass’s recommendations are exacerbating an issue that needs a calm, balanced approach, otherwise safeguarding children is put further at risk. McGuiggan et al.’s main question remains pertinent to Scottish education:
“Where are the educational psychologists when children say they’re ‘transgender?’”.
First, a word about definitions. In this article, given that defining “transgender” is problematic, the term is encased in inverted commas. “Transgender” means different things to different individuals and is impossible to define in any measurable or consistent way. “Transgender” is commonly described as an individual whose gender identity is different from the gender into which they were born. Such a circular supposition does not provide clarity in our understanding of this concept. There is no evidence to prove that gender identity exists; it is reported as a feeling that some individuals say that they have. Some organisations state that the term “transgender” is ‘an umbrella term’ (p. 10) encompassing many forms of behaviour ranging from a child who experiences unease with his or her body, to a man demonstrating a fetish. The point remains that a great deal of time, energy and money has been targeted at what would appear at best to be an ill-defined, socially constructed and unproven hypothetical concept.
Educational Psychology and the Scottish Context
In 2002, a review of the educational psychologist’s (EP) role in Scotland established what came to be known as the Currie functions, named after Director of Education, Eleanor Currie, author of the report Review of Provision of Educational Psychology Services in Scotland. The report outlined the following functions as key regarding the educational psychologist’s role. These were:
- consultation and advice
- assessment
- intervention
- professional development and training
- research and strategic development
The same functions were outlined by the 2019 report Making a Difference to Excellence and Equity for All: The Future of Educational Psychology Services (EPS) in Scotland. The functions are expanded to state that educational psychologists:
…advise education authorities, school staff and, importantly, parents/carers on the needs of children and young people with additional support needs (ASN) and the educational provision required for them. Educational psychologists have a unique role in working at different levels within the education system, linking casework to the development of policy and strategy. They provide direct support to individual children and young people and often work with and through others.
Making a Difference to Excellence and Equity for All: The Future of Educational Psychology Services (EPS) in Scotland, p. 1.
A key role for EPs is prevention and early intervention. EPs work to support schools to create positive, inclusive environments which foster and develop children’s and young people’s resilience and wellbeing to impact positively on mental health. Much of this work results in raising attainment and equity for all, thereby extending beyond those children and young people with ASN.
Making a Difference to Excellence and Equity for All: The Future of Educational Psychology Services (EPS) in Scotland, p. 1.
To return to the question:
“Where are Educational Psychologists When Children Say They’re Transgender?”
Gender ideology activist organisations such as Stonewall and LGBT Youth Scotland, have been forthright about the need to accept and affirm “trans” children in schools. They have made claims about children becoming suicidal if they do not receive affirmative care. They have provided glossy materials to schools which present misleading and idealised information. It might be assumed that, given their preventative and advisory role and their research expertise, Scottish EPs would have examined the Cass Interim Report (2022); the findings of the NICE evidence reviews (2020); the international research studies detailed by the SEGM website; the work done by Biggs (2022), Barnes (2023), Blakemore (2019), Baxendale (2023) and others. The conclusions from all of the findings to date are clear that there is no substantial evidence of positive outcomes as a result of “gender-affirmative care” and considerable evidence that a great deal of harm has already been caused by the affirmative approach to gender-questioning children. Given that there has been a huge increase in referrals to gender identity services both in England and Scotland, and that many of these referrals are linked to mental health and emotional well-being issues, the silence from Scottish EPS is disconcerting. Having noted the 5000% increase in referral rates to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) the Interim Cass Report stated,
The increase in referrals has been accompanied by a change in the case-mix from predominantly birth-registered males presenting with gender incongruence from an early age, to predominantly birth-registered females presenting with later onset of reported gender incongruence in early teen years. (p. 32)
A similar trend has existed in Scotland over the last five years, yet there appears to be little exploration, questioning, research or advice being provided by Scottish EPS. It cannot be argued that the issue is not an educational or psychological one. Schools across Scotland have seen significant increases in children and young people identifying as “trans”. Yet no public institution is gathering data on the reasons for this. It should also be noted that for every pupil who identifies as “trans”, this means that a whole group or class of pupils have to collude in what is essentially a fiction and a process which such researchers as Cass (2022), Kaltiala (2024) and Cass (2024) advise against. In Scotland, the Scottish Government guidance Supporting Transgender Pupils (distributed to all Scottish schools in August 2021) encourages schools to affirm gender and support pupils to socially transition despite Cass’s caution against this. There has been no Cass Review equivalent in Scotland, no scrutiny about referral trends, and many parental queries and concerns have been studiously ignored by those in power and in our public services. Education Scotland, the school regulatory body (the equivalent of Ofsted) presides over deeply flawed and poorly researched school guidance; guidance which amongst other things, recommends accessing LGBT Youth Scotland, an organisation which was under investigation; Mermaids, also under investigation, and Stonewall. All three organisations recommend affirmative care and social transitioning in schools.
It is clear, as indicated by the Cass Review, Sex Matters and Transgender Trend, that schools have a major contribution to make with regard to influencing children’s cognitive and psychological development in positive ways and preventing psychological harm. The existence of an influential ideology in schools which tells children that they can change sex if they don’t like their bodies is, by definition, harmful to children and teenagers, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who have additional support needs such as autism or being in care. There is a major safeguarding issue for Scottish schools which seems to have been eroded by those promoting gender ideology in schools and those professionals ignoring that this is happening. Schools play an important part in providing an environment which supports and facilitates children’s resilience in learning and emotional well-being. It would surely be odd if educational psychologists were not involved in supporting schools to promote positive emotional well-being and mental health and did not have a view on preventive as well as harmful approaches.
Parents and carers should be able to feel secure in the knowledge that when their children attend school they are physically and psychologically safe. Sadly, the Scottish education system has been influenced significantly by ideologues. The concerns of parents and principled individuals have been, and continue to be ignored. Any parent who has tried to raise concerns with schools, Councils and politicians will tell you that they have been mostly dismissed or ignored, as private conversations with many Scottish grassroots organisations have confirmed.
More worryingly, statements of fact are now at risk of being driven underground given the wording of the Hate Crime legislation (commencing its implementation on 1st April 2024). The lack of clarity about what constitutes a hate crime and how Police Scotland will interpret reported incidents leaves many individuals uncertain and afraid. With regard to gender ideology in schools, Scottish EPs seemed to have already avoided the deployment of critical analysis and reasoned debate. It can only be assumed that the Hate Crime legislation will stifle them further. Scottish educational psychologists have allowed themselves to be cowed.
In speculating about the profession’s lack of discussion in England, McGuiggan et al. consider the concepts of silence, avoidance and suppression. They comment on the silence of the Association of Educational Psychologists (AUP) and the Division of Educational Psychologists (DECP). They point out that it is almost as if the Cass Review does not exist, not to mention other best evidence.
In Scotland, there is only one professional body, the Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists (ASPEP). Regarding this issue, the organisation has remained supremely silent. Regarding avoidance, McGuiggan et al. state, “The EP approach in the literature ignores the challenges in the evidence base and instead centres the child’s voice above all else.”
In Scotland, it is much the same, it would appear that EPs are paying little or no attention to the evidence base and are studiously avoiding it.
As far as suppression is concerned, McGuiggan et al. accurately focus on the influence of social justice theoretical frameworks and the pressure on EPs to support affirmative approaches in the name of equality and inclusion. If this is why EPs are going along with affirmative care and gender ideology; they have confused genuine equality issues regarding sexual orientation with self-identifying gender identity, which cannot be proven in any meaningful sense. Taking such a position will place any EP at significant risk of causing harm and any EP at significant risk of failing to prevent harm caused by its council’s schools. No professional wants to be accused of any sort of bias, but if doing due diligence regarding the research and best evidence is part of the job, then it should not matter what the research findings are and EPs should feel that it is incumbent upon them to report on those findings.
Are Scottish Schools Promoting Gender Ideology?
In England, the consultation period for the Department of Education’s draft guidance for schools Gender Questioning Children has recently been completed (12th March 2024). In contrast, as has already been mentioned, The Scottish Government’s guidance Supporting Transgender Pupils In Schools has been available to all schools since August 2021. It was written by non-specialists in child development; the guidance itself states that it was based on and “developed from Supporting Transgender Young People which was developed and published by LGBT Youth Scotland in 2017″.
Compared to any standard methodological research paradigm, the Scottish schools’ guidance for “transgender” pupils is a deeply flawed document, replete with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Amongst a variety of research anomalies, it uses research studies which conflate gay with limited transgender data; it uses adult data in relation to children; it ignores the Nice Guidance (2020) and now Cass (2024) regarding treatment outcomes. The guidance has not been reviewed in light of the Interim Cass Report findings and it remains to be seen if action will be taken regarding the Scottish schools’ guidance in light of the Final Cass Report. The guidance advises schools to affirm children who self-identify as “trans” and gives advice regarding how to socially transition a pupil, including avoiding parental involvement in some instances (p. 35). This is despite the advice of both Cass Reports which state that social transitioning is ‘not a neutral act’ and can be harmful in itself. The Final Cass Report is clear that social transitioning is likely to reinforce the child or teenager’s unease about their body and set the young person on a pathway of bodily hatred which includes a self-perception that there is something wrong with their healthy body. Similarly, at the recent CAN-SG conference in March 2024, Rittakerttu Kaltiala, when asked about social transitioning, stated simply that she would “Always advise against social transitioning”.
The Scottish schools’ guidance offers no counter information such as the well-evidenced research from various studies which highlight that puberty is the “cure” for most teenagers’ bodily unease and that the vast majority of young people who are gender questioning desist as adults (Griffin et al, 2021). Nor does the guidance refer to the various studies reporting the significant side effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones (Nice Evidence Reviews, 2020). The guidance fails to make any reference to the growing reports of poor outcomes of medicalisation from de-transitioners. The guidance uses methodologically unsound statistics from poorly constructed sampling techniques (respondent-driven sampling) to draw highly misleading conclusions. For example, it says that having parents who support affirming their child’s “trans” identity is linked to positive mental health outcomes for children. The guidance also refers to exaggerated and increased risks of suicide for non-affirmed children identifying as “trans” which has been proven by more rigorous research to be untrue (Biggs, 2022).
Supporting Transgender Pupils in Schools continues to be the go-to guidance for schools in Scotland. It has not been withdrawn by the Scottish Government despite various groups and individuals highlighting its many inaccuracies and flaws (Cunningham, 2023; Brown, 2022; Murray, Blackburn and Mackenzie 2021). Some schools may have chosen to ignore the guidance but the fact remains that for as long as the guidance remains in Scottish schools, license is being given to support the promotion of gender ideology in schools. It may be the case that individual EPs are quietly not following a gender ideological stance, but the profession in Scotland as a whole has remained silent despite the potential for harm and a lack of safeguarding for all pupils.
Further evidence of gender ideology being promoted in Scottish schools exists in the curriculum itself in the form of Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood (RSHP) a social education resource designed to be used with pupils from nursery to senior level. Gender ideology is woven throughout this resource. For example, in Level 2 Resources (for P5-P7 children, 9-11-year-olds), there is a section on transgender children. In the additional materials, the section includes a link to the animated podcast “How to be a Girl” (about a boy who, from the age of three, thinks he’s a girl). It features childlike drawings with evocative music suggesting the attainment of happiness when the three-year-old boy decides he wants to change his sex. Such material is designed to be leading and is highly suggestive for children. Such a resource is likely to confuse and may lead a child or a parent to label a child inappropriately. Any critical analysis must query why this has been inserted into lesson plans for 9 and 10-year-olds. And why are there links to videos promoting the idea that a young child will be much happier if they change sex? The RSHP also has a resources section which fails to reference organisations which are critical of gender identity beliefs. So there is no mention of Transgender Trend; Sex Matters; LGB Alliance; Genspect; For Women Scotland. These are organisations which state the importance of good systematic research and a reliance on facts and biology. The organisations that are recommended include LGBT Youth Scotland; Scottish Trans Alliance; Stonewall Scotland; TIE; Mermaids and Young Persons Gender Service Glasgow; all of which are well known for promoting gender ideology. The imbalance in representation is clear.
Conclusion
The Scottish education system has put ideology ahead of facts and safeguarding children and, to date, has ignored the best evidence including systematic reviews. It has repeatedly shut down and dismissed concerned voices (Murray, Blackburn and Mackenzie, 2022, Brown 2022) and has done its best to stifle debate. The recent implementation of the Hate Crime legislation is a further move to prevent open discussion of whatever issues are seen by the Scottish Government as “controversial” or challenging. In this climate, it is perhaps not surprising that Scottish EPs have had nothing to say about the harmful promotion of gender identity ideology in schools. EPs did not contribute to Supporting Transgender Pupils in Schools or the RSHP and were not asked to contribute. But as a professional body, they have clearly ducked the fact that gender identity ideology is being promoted by the Scottish government in schools and they have avoided using their skills, including critical analysis and research. Moreover, they have avoided an ethical imperative to ensure that they have fully advised schools and councils about all safeguarding and preventive measures based on the best evidence. They have made little contribution to the debate, and so, disappointingly, silence, avoidance and suppression reign supreme.
Carolyn Brown is a retired Deputy Principal Educational Psychologist.
Photo by Dive. In Life on Unsplash