Flourishing for All – in detail

Flourishing for All – in detail

If you have any doubts at all about the advice given in Flourishing for All now is the time to confront them. No-one can be criticised or sanctioned for putting the safeguarding of children; their bodies, their mental health, and their futures; first. This anti-bullying policy is an affirmation model promoting the idea gender identity/gender ideology is based in fact not opinion.

The main issues we at Protect and Teach have found with Flourishing for All are:

It lays schools wide open to being sued for discrimination with regard to the protected characteristics of disability and religion or belief.
It removes children’s rights to safeguarding boundaries.
It promotes one political point of view
It could be seen as promoting a single-issue ideology, which is a Prevent issue

Below is a list of some of the areas in which the document falls short of being a sound anti-bullying policy which can confidently be used in Church of England schools. This is not an exhaustive list of all areas in which it falls short.

Discrimination with Regard to the Protected Characteristics of the Equality Act 2010ⁱⁱⁱ

The paragraph below is taken straight from Flourishing for All.

The absence of any previous specific guidance for gender questioning children has sometimes meant that commentators interpreted Valuing all God’s Children as a document setting out the Church’s teaching on gender. It never purported to be that and was always intended to be a specific resource to enable schools to address homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying. This is a journey we remain firmly committed to. However, now the government’s draft guidance is available and the Cass review has finally been published, we are replacing Valuing all God’s Children with a broader suite of documents of which Part B is the first. This gives us the opportunity to enable and encourage schools to apply the same level of care to prevent and deal with bullying in all areas, especially in relation to other protected characteristics such as race, special educational needs or disability, religion or belief and sexual harassment.

The use of ‘transphobic bullying’ linked to a list of protected characteristics implies that being ‘transgender’ is a protected characteristic (this implication is made in Flourishing for Allⁱ more than this once). There is no such protected characteristic as ‘transgender’. The nearest protected characteristic would be ‘gender reassignment’. This protected characteristic can be claimed by any child (i.e. a person up to the age of 18) or adult who is undergoing, or proposes to undergo, a process for the purpose of reassigning their sex. It does not, however, give the child any rights be treated other than as their birth sex. With regard to adults, if they do not have a GRC they too have no other rights than those of others who share their birth sex, if and adult does have a GRC it still does not give them carte blanche to be treated as other than their birth sex.

To imply that a person’s internal feeling that they are ‘transgender’ gives them a protected characteristic is sleight of hand to give any adult and child who feels like this a special status. This could easily be challenged.

The constant emphasis throughout Flourishing for Allⁱ is a consideration for those children and adults who hold a belief in gender identity/gender ideology. At no point does Flourishing for Allⁱ the protections allowed to those who do not hold such beliefs, but rather hold the belief that sex is immutable and gender is a personal choice.

“It is important for parents/ carers to work in partnership with the school to help their children understand what it looks like to live well with difference. Just as a child may show curiosity about a classmate whose religious beliefs influence the way they dress or act, and be taught how to understand and respect this, so also should children learn to understand how to respect and understand children and young people who are gender questioning or not conforming to gender stereotypes.”

Flourishing for Allⁱ does make an attempt to ensure a balance between beliefs:

“to teach pupils how to respect different viewpoints, disagree well in their interactions and understand that families and individuals can hold beliefs that differ from one another yet still live together well.”

However, the overwhelming emphasis is on being kind to those who believe in gender identity/gender ideology without reminding its readers that three important, and various less notable, cases brought before the Employment Tribunal have brought the era of silencing to an end.

Forstater, Meade, and Phoenix; bravely ensured it is allowable to both hold and express a belief that sex is immutable and gender identity is not real. To not include in a document on anti-bullying that these views are allowed to be held negates the protected characteristic of belief and could be construed as harassment against anyone holding these views.

The Maya Forstater^iv case ensured that gender critical people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs, while acts of manifesting the belief through lawful speech and action are protected and the courts will protect them where unlawful discrimination occurs.
Rachel Meade^v holds gender critical views, which include the belief that sex is immutable and not to be confused with gender identity and had expressed these views on her private Facebook page. The Employment Tribunal found that Ms Mead was allowed to express her views as there as they were within her protected rights to freedom of thought and expression, under Articles 9 and 10.
While Forstater^iv and Meade^v led the way in allowing gender critical views to be held and expressed the case of Jo Phoenix^vi ensured that staff, and others, deserve protection when holding what are referred to as gender-critical beliefs.

This lack of consideration for those who do not hold the belief that gender identity/gender ideology is based in fact negates the following claim in Flourishing for Allⁱ as some children and adults will know their views are not supported and cannot be expressed:

All children deserve to love their childhood, finding space for play, exploration, imagination and creativity. They should be surrounded by loving relationships, structures and systems which release and enable life in all its fullness.

This oversight regarding those who do not believe in gender identity/gender ideology can only be designed to silence those in school, and the local community.

Sadly, Flourishing for Allⁱ shows the same disregard for children who have a disability which may result in distress when they are asked to accept a child or adult as the opposite sex.

The children who could be affected due to the protected characteristic of disability include those who:

Are cognitively challenged
have a memory disability
have non-verbal condition
have complex needs
are young

Without recognition of the effect on other children and adults claiming to be the opposite sex on children with a disability, children with a diagnosed special need, these children could claim they were being discriminated against due to being forced into confusion around sexed bodies. Put simply, if you have a practice which ends up disadvantaging a pupil because of their disability the school would be contravening the Equality Act 2010ⁱⁱⁱ and could be challenged on it.

Children with disabilities, especially with cognitive disabilities, being forced into a confused state around sexed bodies could also be classified as a school contravening its Public Sector Equality Duty.ⁱⁱⁱ

A Flourishing for Allⁱ with regard to disability is planned for some time in 2025, but that is not an excuse does not consider how children and adults claiming to be ‘transgender’ will not affect them in this document.

Children’s Rights to Safeguarding Boundaries.

Flourishing for Allⁱ has rightly asked that schools consider those children who have already made steps to present as the opposite sex, and those who may do so in the future. There is, however, no attempt to discuss how to actually help children who the Church of England schools have already encouraged to socially transition, or more, to the ‘opposite sex’. It is obvious that having previously encouraged schools to promote an ideology which results in children thinking they may be the opposite sex, and making changes to fulfil these ideas, the Church of England education department have chosen to justify their error by continuing to promote gender identity/gender ideology as fact. This is detrimental to all children in Church of England schools, and the wider community as well as being against government guidance and a safeguarding issue.

The document actually seems to be presenting itself as an anti-bullying policy in order to hide away from how schools could come back from affirming those who have already started presenting as the opposite sex. This a safeguarding failure for those children. It also opens the school up to being cited as responsible for such children being led down a pathway they were not mature enough to choose, should they decide to detransition later in life.

Flourishing for Allⁱ compounds this safeguarding fail by not questioning why children may choose to present as the opposite sex in the first place. Five or ten years ago this may have been standard procedure but today there is too much evidence to state children often choose to present as the opposite sex because they, or their parents/other adults around them, do not want them to be homosexual or they have been subject to trauma, especially sexual abuse.

The constant emphasis on supporting adults in the school and community who claim transgender status is very worrying. While it could be considered kind to support such adults, to make no attempt to question why adults may claim to be the opposite sex is a safeguarding failure. Flourishing for Allⁱ blithely uses the term ‘trans’ including (word for word) the Stonewall definition in the glossary:

“An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.”

without informing readers that, according to Stonewall^vii, this can include:

… people [who] may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, genderqueer (GQ), genderfluid, non-binary, gender-variant, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bigender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

Schools and anyone in a position of responsibility with regard to children should always be aware that their own preferences for groups or individuals should be constantly checked. Safeguarding involves always being suspicious. No group or individual should be given a free pass where children are involved. A brief reading of Flourishing for Allⁱ shows safeguarding has been rejected in favour of ‘being kind’ to adults; staff or parents/ carers. This makes it difficult for any child be confident that they can report their concerns to adults and adults that they should report such concerns. Basically, Flourishing for Allⁱ is the embodiment of all the concerns raised by The Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse October 2022:

“Despite 20 years of enhanced focus on safeguarding, schools are not as safe for children as they should be, and children’s interests do not always come first when allegations or concerns of sexual abuse arise. The Inquiry identified many shortcomings in current systems of protection, regulation, oversight and enforcement, including the scope and practical operation of the DBS scheme, workforce regulation, inspection systems and standards. Statutory guidance is not always sufficiently precise and clear. Some staff were reluctant to report concerns, in part fearful of the consequences of doing so. When concerns were raised, they were not always referred to statutory authorities when they should have been. Where the threshold for formal referral was not met, there was confusion regarding what, if any, further steps should be taken, and by whom.”

The Church of England Education Department has refused to even question why a male adult may be presenting as their idea of a woman. This is a huge, dangerous, safeguarding failure in Flourishing for Allⁱ.

Evidence submitted to the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) in 2021 by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Alice Sullivan includes the following:

“A study by MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).”

The evidence submitted to the WEC^ix provides a cast iron reason on why the Church of England policy makers cannot safely assume that the offending patterns of transgender women; males who claim to be women; can be ignored in order to ‘be kind’

In the same WEC^ix document Professor Michael Briggs noted:

Of the 125 transgender prisoners counted by the prison service in 2017, 60 had been convicted of sexual offenses, including 27 convicted of rape (BBC News 2018). In the overall prison population, by comparison, 19% of males had been convicted of sexual crimes and only 4% of females (Ministry of Justice 2018b).’

To ignore these facts, as Flourishing for Allⁱ has done, is to ignore the basic first principle of safeguarding – be suspicious.

The same blindness to the dangers that adult males who claim to be women pose to girls (and females of any age) can be seen in the blasé attitude Flourishing for Allⁱ to boys who claim to be girls.

This is in total defiance of safeguarding and OFSTED research which shows it is an undeniable fact that the majority of sexual abuse/harassment is perpetrated by males on females and that peer-to-peer sexual abuse is a huge problem in schools.

“Although anyone can experience sexual harassment and violence, research indicates that girls are disproportionately affected. For example, 90% of recorded offences of rape in 2018–19 of 13- to 15-year-olds were committed against girls. In the past year, girls aged between 15 and 17 reported the highest annual rates of sexual abuse for young people and children aged 25 and younger.”

OFSTED^x is uncompromising and advise that schools “should assume that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are happening in their setting, even when there are no specific reports, and put in place a whole-school approach to address them. While the writers of Flourishing for Allⁱ used OFSTED to back up the many harmful suggestions throughout the policy it is noticeable they missed out the one regarding safeguarding.

The adherence to an affirmation model mentioned in the introduction to this letter is made clear by the documents Flourishing for Allⁱ references. It seems to be a clear case of picking and choosing whichever document will support the use of the acronym LGBT+, so promoting gender identity/gender identity as fact, rather than the latest government documents. This is a definite safeguarding fail.

Any school wishing to ensure all children are safeguarded should question why Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023 is used instead of the 2024 version which has been widely available and will be implemented from September this year. It could be suggested that the Church of England Education Department was being cautious as Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024 states:

“Children who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or gender questioning

N.B. This section remains under review, pending the outcome of the gender questioning children guidance consultation, and final gender questioning guidance documents being published.”

but, that does not make sense in light of the fact Flourishing for Allⁱ states:

“With the publication of the DfE draft guidance a period of consultation has followed and, whilst there may be a slight hiatus as a consequence of the general election, we expect it to move from draft guidance to a final version soon. All schools should now have regard to that guidance and refer to it to enable clarity for children and parents and to ensure that all the children, young people and adults in their school communities are honoured and treated consistently and fairly.”

The only conclusion anyone can reach, after wading through Flourishing for Allⁱ is that the 2023^xi version refers to ‘LGBT’ and the 2024^xii version uses ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, or gender questioning’. The latter would not fit the affirmation model which infuses Flourishing for Allⁱ

The references to OFSTED are interesting. Flourishing for Allⁱ refers to three OFSTED documents: Education Inspection Framework (2023), School Inspection Handbook, (April 2024), the and Inspecting Teaching of the Protected characteristics, (August 2023).

The first two OFSTED documents provide these quotes in Flourishing for Allⁱ:

“The inspection framework also directs inspectors to look at how the school supports the needs of distinct groups of pupils, such as ‘girls or lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender pupils’ and those with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents or carers. It expects to see ‘an inclusive environment that meets the needs of all pupils, irrespective of age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation, and where no discrimination exists.”^xiv

and

“Ofsted’s Education Inspection Framework (2023) makes it clear that schools must address bullying. Under Behaviour and Attitudes, it states that: ‘Leaders, teachers, other staff and learners create an environment where bullying, learner-on-learner abuse or discrimination are not tolerated. If they do occur, staff deal with issues quickly and effectively, and do not allow them to spread.’”^xv

OFSTED is also used to justify the acronym LGBT+ (the dangers of accepting T+ without question have already been discussed above) While ignoring:

“Inspectors will gather evidence on how schools promote equality and pupils’ understanding of the protected characteristics.”^xvi

“All primary and secondary schools, whether state-funded or independent, should be able to demonstrate that no form of discrimination is tolerated and that pupils show respect for those who share the protected characteristics.”

Any school using the OFSTED quotes in this one sided ‘anti-bullying’ policy called Flourishing for Allⁱ to justify it’s lack of fair treatment of all protected characteristics is in real danger of falling foul of both disability discrimination and religion or belief, in addition to being unable to fulfil its duties with regard to Public Sector Equality Duty.ⁱⁱⁱ

It can only be assumed the constant references to OFSTED are to give a pretence of being a balanced document which follows government guidelines. This constant reference to OFSTED as justification for the twisted logic in Flourishing for Allⁱ smacks of desperation to find anything that will support the Church of England Education Department in its promotion of a harmful ideology and removal of basic safeguarding procedures while subtly threatening schools with compliance to the affirmation of gender identity/gender ideology as fact.

Promotes One Political Point of View

Every school should be aware of the Education Act 2006, their commitment to political impartiality and prohibition of the promotion of partisan political as detailed in sections 406 and 407:

406 Political indoctrination.

(1) The local authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid—

(a) the pursuit of partisan political activities by any of those registered pupils at a maintained school who are junior pupils, and

(b) the promotion of partisan political views—

(i) in the teaching of any subject in the school (in the case of a school in England), or

(ii) in the teaching of any aspect of a curriculum provided in the school under the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021 (in the case of a school in Wales)

(2) In the case of activities which take place otherwise than on the school premises, subsection (1)(a) applies only where arrangements for junior pupils to take part in the activities are made by—

(a) any member of the school’s staff (in his capacity as such), or

(b) anyone acting on behalf of the school or of a member of the school’s staff (in his capacity as such).

407 Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues.

(1) The local authority], governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are—

(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or

(b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school,

they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.

Schools are also expected to actively promote the fundamental British values of the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. At no point can it be said that this document which is so intent on affirming gender identity/gender ideology as fact is politically impartial or promoting fundamental British values or based in a balanced view of opposing views on political issues.

The terms used to in Flourishing for All are overwhelmingly taken directly from the Stonewall List of LGBTQ+ terms^vii. This is against political impartiality as Stonewall is a lobby group for gender identity/gender ideology. A list of the terms and reference to which ones are directly taken from the Stonewall List of LGBTQ+ terms^vii is attached (Appendix 1).

Prevent Issue

The message promoted by Flourishing for Allⁱ could be seen as a Prevent issue as it promotes as single-issue ideology onto 1 million children in Church of England schools.

Signposting gender non-conforming young people to internal and external support staff are mentioned as something schools can do to help them seek information.

“Ensuring pastoral staff are well informed so they can signpost young people who are LGBT+ to internal and external support in order to help them avoid seeking information and support from strangers online.”

Our investigations, and those of other concerned groups researching schools, have found that those classed as providing ‘support’ often promote gender identity/gender ideology as fact not opinion and need careful scrutiny before any child is sent to them. Unfortunately, the tenor of the whole anti-bullying policy is an affirmative model for those who believe in gender identity/gender identity.

Many of the individuals and groups gender non-conforming children go to, or are sent to for support, would be classed as extremist groups aiming to radicalise the children and adults in a school when considered using the Prevent Strategy guidelines.

The Prevent Strategy lays out which type of children are open to being exploited by extremists:

isolated
they do not belong
they have no purpose
low self-esteem
their aspirations are unmet
anger or frustration
a sense of injustice
confused about life or the world

If follows this up with a list of what an extremist group offers children who can be radicalised:

offers a very narrow, manipulated version of an identity that often supports stereotypical gender norms
offers inaccurate answers or falsehoods to grievances
encourages conspiracy theories
promotes an ‘us vs. them’ mentality
blames specific communities for grievances
encourages the use of hatred and violent actions to get justice
encourages ideas of supremacy
offers a sense of community and a support network
promises fulfilment or excitement
makes the learner feel special and part of a wider mission

Extremist influences can include:

staff members of an education or community setting promoting an extremist ideology
peers promoting an extremist ideology or sharing extremist material
access or exposure to online extremist material via social media or the internet – for example, propaganda including pictures, videos, blogs and fake news
access or exposure to extremist leaflets, magazines or stickering
exposure to extremist groups hosting marches, protests or stalls

It should be noted that the above comments are only some that could be made about the issues Flourishing for Alⁱl raise for children in Church of England schools, the staff who work in them, and the community who are involved with them.

It is sad to read a document that is so focussed on protecting one group that it ignores all the rights of others to such and extent that it lays open any school that follows this guidance to claims of discrimination, lack of safeguarding, political bias, and political extremism.

Appendix A

The Glossary

Glossary	Comment
Sexuality: A person’s emotional, romantic and or sexual attraction to another person	Wrong: A person will have emotional relationships/attractions to their parents, siblings, friends, children etc
Lesbian^viiRefers to a woman who has an emotional, romantic and/or sexual attraction towards women	Lesbians have a sexual orientation towards other women.
Gay^viiRefers to a man who has an emotional, romantic and/or sexual attraction towards men.	Gays have a sexual orientation towards other men.
Bisexual^viiRefers to a person who has an emotional and/or sexual attraction towards people of more than one gender	See aboveThe “definition” is ambiguousDoes this describe a relationship with a person with “more than one gender”? Does this describe a person who can be sexually attracted to a woman whilst also capable of being sexually attracted to a man NB This definition confuses sex (ie a man or a woman) with gender: a set of “cultural constructions” – see below
HomosexualThis might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has an emotional, romantic and/or sexual attraction towards someone of the same gender.^vii It is not the preferred term amongst gay/lesbian people.	See above.A person’s sexuality is sex based
GenderThe cultural constructions associated with being male/female or other gender categories, as distinguished from biological sex	If this is correct then a person does not have a gender at all. A person does not have a set of “cultural constructions” nor is a person a set of “cultural constructions”. This is mumbo jumbo
Gender IdentityThis is a sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or another category, such as non-binary Current government guidance states that this is a ‘contested belief’)	It is not merely that “Current government guidance” states that this is a ‘contested belief’”, it is contested simpliciter. Particularly. when the consequences are spelt out If a 6’3 bearded rugby player man sincerely asserts that he is female then , on this account, he is female. Tell me who actually believes this! NB the confusion between “sex” and “gender”. Sex is a biological category whereas the Glossary states that gender is a set of “cultural constructions associated with being male/female”. Whether a person is male or female is a matter of fact. Many people deny that they have a gender identity or that the concept makes any sense
CisgenderThis is a term introduced to refer to people who identify exclusively with the sex assigned to them at birth	And a term which gender critical people regard as indicating a commitment to trans ideology and to be rejected
Non-binaryA gender identity that does not fit into the traditional gender binary of male and female	Male/female is a sex binary . A person is either male or female. There are no other sexes
Transgender man^viiA man who was assigned female at birth but identifies and lives as a man.	A baby is not assigned a sex. Their sex is recordedIt is deeply unclear what it means to “live as a man”NB This implies that a sufficient condition for being a man is sincere assertion
Transgender woman^viiA woman who was assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.	A baby is not assigned a sex. Their sex is recordedIt is deeply unclear what it means to “live as a woman”NB This implies that a sufficient condition for being a woman is sincere assertion i.e. Transwomen are women.
Transition^viiThese are steps a person may take to live in the gender to which they identify.	‘live in the gender to which they identify’ is problematic. A person is the sex they are, how they present does not change this. They cannot live as anything but their sex, whatever surgeries they choose or the clothes they wear.
Pronouns^viiThe words we use to refer to people’s gender in conversation – for example, ‘he’ or ‘she’. Some people may prefer others to refer to them in gender neutral language and use pronouns such as they/their.	No one can be forced to use the pronouns a person chooses for themselves.
Intersex^viiA term used to describe a person who may have the biological attributes of both sexes or whose biological attributes do not fit with societal assumptions about what constitutes male or female. Can identify as male, female or non-binary.	Most persons called “intersex” prefer other terms such as VSD (Variations of Sexual Development) or DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development). Suggesting their biological attributes do not fit in with societal assumption of what constitutes male or female is sleight of hand. The vast majority of people with VSDs are clearly either male or female. Sex is not a spectrum. No one produces both large gametes (eggs) and small gametes (sperm).