Church of England

UPDATE:

Following the recent Supreme Court Judgment we decided to write again to the Church of England.

Dear Mr Genders

The Supreme Court Judgment: For Women Scotland

A request

We request that

· You withdraw “Flourishing for All’ to enable it to be reviewed following the judgment of the Supreme Court and

· You write to all Church of England Schools and remind them that any services or activities for one sex cannot include members of the other sex

The Supreme Court Judgment

The Judgment deserves careful consideration. We consider this as key:

Para 171: The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group

Para 209:… sex has its biological meaning throughout this legislation: “woman” always and only means a biological female of any age [..] It follows that a biological male of any age cannot fall within this definition;

Ergo: a child is either a boy or a girl

Ergo: if there are separate activities or services for girls then these cannot include boys

Bishop Butler (1692-1752) was right ; “a thing is what it is and not another thing” or

“ a boy is a boy and not a girl” !

Flourishing for All

Flourishing for All has been prepared with admirable objectives. Any form of bullying is to be abhorred

However, the influence of a fundamental misunderstanding of the law is apparent.

Two examples will suffice

1. Separate activities or services for girls

P33: … Church schools should make every effort to ensure that when following the government’s draft guidance and making any of the alternative arrangements specified for gender questioning pupils (such as individual changing rooms, toilets and showers in school or sleeping arrangements on residential trips), they are careful not to do so in a way that reinforces any sense of exclusion a pupil may feel by being singled out

This could be read as simple good sense but some of your schools misunderstand the law and allow boys (with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) who “identify as girls” to be included in activities or services for girls. This is in breach of the Equality Act

This paragraph is fundamentally misleading and must be withdrawn and reviewed

The law requires that boys are excluded from activities or services for girls

2. The Glossary

P83 Transgender man: An adult man who was biological female at birth but identifies and lives as a man.

Transgender woman: An adult woman who was biological male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman

This is incorrect. Sex is binary. A transgender man will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and may have a GRC. But this does not change their biological sex

A transgender man was a female at birth and remains a female.

The Glossary is fundamentally misleading and must be withdrawn and reviewed

Our Request repeated

We wrote to you in detail during the consultation period making these and similar points. You refused to engage and have produced a document built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law

We request that

You withdraw “Flourishing for All’ to enable it to be reviewed following the judgment of the Supreme Court and

You write to all Church of England Schools and remind them that any services or activities for one sex cannot include members of the other sex

If you fail to respond within 14 days then we will complain the EHRC.

We were grateful to receive an immediate response and an acknowledgement that the Flourishing for All glossary was incorrect “We have looked at our document in the light of the recent judgement from the Supreme Court and the only place we could see some changes might be needed following the clarity the supreme court has brought about the application of the law, is in the glossary.”

However, it is extremely concerning that the rest of our concerns are dismissed. The implications in Flourishing for All reinforce unlawful ideas around transitioning children and staff, and around teaching this highly contested ideology.

Mr Genders says “We are now awaiting revised guidance from the DfE and will update again to reference that when it is available.” We say that schools must follow the law as it is today, as it has been for years, and not simply wait for government guidance. Males must be excluded from female spaces and vice versa. Teaching children they can choose their sex must stop. Enabling social transition in schools is child abuse.

We will continue to engage until the Church of England take appropriate action to prioritise safeguarding.

Safeguarding is crucial and the responsibility of every individual.

We have written a letter to the Church, which you can download below with the appendix. We said:

Safeguarding and Flourishing for All: Anti-bullying Guidance for Church of England Schools (September 2024)

The objectives of Flourishing for All (“Flourishing”) are excellent. However, its merits are vitiated by:

 A commitment to a trans activist ideology:

 Unlawful restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and

 The consequential bullying and emotional abuse of children who do not concur with the transactivist ideology

It also appears to commit the Church to a transactivist position. These points are detailed in the Appendix

These are safeguarding issues, and we request you to intervene.

In 2024 Protect and Teach researched Church schools in the South West:

 Bath and Wells MAT threatened disciplinary action against staff who said sex is binary;

 An Daras MAT allowed primary school children to transition without informing the parents ;

 Schools referred children to trans activist organisations without parental knowledge;

 Schools put pressure on girls to share changing rooms with boys who claim to be girls;

 Schools set children on a gender affirming pathway;

 75% of schools misrepresented the Equality Act;;

 Schools taught children that sex is a spectrum , that gender identity is real and that if a boy says he is a girl then he is a girl and

 Teachers, parents and children were afraid to raise any doubts because they would be accused of transphobia.

Flourishing is a foundation document and will be relied upon to develop practice and policies. If followed then schools will increase the gender confusion, depression and mental health problems in children and also be responsible, indirectly, for unnecessary and harmful medical intervention including castration and mastectomies.

The restriction of freedom of expression amounts to emotional abuse. See Keeping children safe in education 2024 para 26 “[Emotional abuse] may include not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or ‘making fun’ of what they say or how they communicate”

Some in the Church regard any criticism of the transactivist position as transphobia. This is nonsense. For instance, disagreeing with the doctrine of transubstantiation does not amount to hatred of Catholics!

We recognise that some good and thoughtful people will believe our fears are exaggerated but given that:

 there is no need to adopt a transactivist position or restrict the basic right to freedom of expression to condemn bullying and

 there is a risk (we believe a certainty) that direct harm will result from the adoption of Flourishing

then you must withdraw the document and allow a review to ensure that Cass is properly integrated throughout and that there is no commitment to a transactivist position and no unlawful restriction on freedom of expression. We believe that unless you do this then you will have failed your safeguarding obligations.

We refer you to the advice in the Makin Report:

“to avoid ‘groupthink’ in terms of safeguarding decisions, and assures itself that there is sufficient external and independent influence on decision-makers and leaders in their everyday approaches to safeguarding matters.”

We have copied this letter to others in the Church and in schools and reminded them of their safeguarding obligations and that they have the protection of the law to support them in raising concerns– in our view, the safeguarding obligation requires them to do so.

Transgender Trend say:

If we were to sum up the overall finding of the Cass Review it would be that ‘gender affirming care’ has failed children. Without clear evidence it is safe, the gender affirming model used in schools is a social experiment that risks starting a child on a pathway that may seriously harm that child’s future

Too many children already have been set on a ‘gender affirmative’ pathway in school, leading to irreversible medical intervention that promises a biological impossibility that can only end in failure. At some point this experiment must end. Why not now?

They are right

We are happy to meet with you to discuss this further and provide you with evidence

Safeguarding letter vf 3.12.24 Download

Appendix Flourishing For All 3.12.24 Download

Flourishing for All consultation

Flourishing for All – in detail

Flourishing for All

We have written to the Church of England regarding their schools guidance “Valuing All Gods Children”. You can download all the documents below.

Why the Church of England should withdraw Valuing All God’s Children: Guidance for Church of England schools on challenging homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying – the Protect and Teach letter

There are 1 million children in Church of England schools

The Guidance is the basis upon which schools develop their Equality Policies

We have researched Church schools in the South West. Over 75% have fundamentally flawed Equality Polices

Bath and Wells MAT threatening disciplinary action against staff who say sex is binary and requiring girls to change with boys who assert they are girls;
An Daras MAT allowing primary school children to transition without informing the parents unless the child consents ;
Schools referring children to trans activist organisations without parental knowledge;
Schools putting pressure on girls to share changing rooms with boys who claim to be girls;
Schools affirming children as being any gender they claim to be
Policies which get the Equality Act protected characteristics wrong and
Schools teaching children that sex is a spectrum , that gender identity is real and that if a boy says he is a girl then he is a girl. And children feeling afraid to raise any doubts

The Guidance is trans activist in content – the Glossary is a Stonewall set of definitions. These include claims about “gender identity” with the implication that a man can become a woman because of an internal feeling. This has the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury to be taught to 1 million children

We wrote to the Archbishop on 6/5/24 to ask that the Guidance be withdrawn immediately. The letter makes extensive reference to the Cass Review and identifies failing in the Guidance e.g. no reference to the Human Rights Act, no reference to social transitioning, no reference to relevant government guidance, no proper account of safeguarding, no mention of the effect upon children who are gender critical, no proper consideration of the Equality Act. The letter has an appendix which set out the most egregious examples of policies, an appendix which sets out the implications of the Guidance and also attaches the Karon Monaghan KC advice

The Chief Executive of the Church of England National Society for Promoting Education has responded by stating he “disagreed with [our] assertions”, and further that the Guidance is not trans activist and is merely about bullying. This is false

The Church of England has been active in promoting trans activist ideology in schools The Church bears direct responsibility for some of the increase in gender confusion, depression and mental health problems in the young and also for unnecessary and harmful medical intervention including castration and mastectomies.