boys tutus tiara church england school
Education

Boys in tutus and tiara hysteria: media attack Church of England for totally the wrong reason

Today’s furore is caused by the Church of England’s declaration that unrepentant sinners will go to hell and only Jesus can save them boys ought to be able to wear tutus and a tiara at CofE schools, should they be so inclined, in order “to prevent pupils from having their self-worth diminished or their ability to achieve impeded by being bullied because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity”. And, oh boy, the ensuing cyclone of media scorn and damnation is right off the Beatific Beaufort scale, with the Telegraph‘s ‘Let young boys wear tutus and high heels if they want to, Church of England says‘; the Mail: ‘Let little boys wear tiaras: Church of England issues new advice to combat transgender bullying for teachers‘; the Mirror: ‘Boys will be allowed to wear tiaras and tutus in school from age five under new Church of England guidelines‘; the Sun: ‘‘yes to tiaras’ Archbishop of Canterbury says young boys in nursery and primary schools should be allowed to wear tiaras and tutus’; the Express: ‘Transgender ROW as Church of England causes OUTRAGE after saying ‘let boys dress in tutus’‘; the Times: ‘Let children dress up as boys or girls, CofE tells schools‘; the Independent: ‘Church of England tells schools to let children ‘explore gender identity’‘, etc., etc.

All of which is a bit odd, when you consider that about 98.9 per cent of media types are usually foursquare behind the freedom to be whatever you want and believe whatever you wish, especially when you’re a child.

And that’s why people need to delve a little deeper beyond these histrionic headlines, for the real issue here is not about boys being permitted to wear a tutu and tiara at school, but the coercive, censorious and stifling nature of the Church of England’s guidance.

Firstly, the context is “Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying” (who knew it already had an acronym? [Good job they put  ‘biphobic’ before ‘transphobic’…]) in Church of England schools. Quite why this form of bullying is singled out for special guidelines isn’t clear: a school should stamp on all bullying, period. But the guidance which has caused such outrage is nothing to do with ditching school uniforms (should they exist) or permitting children to come to school wearing whatever they wish (though that may follow tomorrow), which is what some of the click-baity headlines suggest. Here’s the relevant section of Valuing All God’s Children (2nd ed. Autumn 2017), p20:

In creating a school environment that promotes dignity for all and a call to live fulfilled lives as uniquely gifted individuals, pupils will be equipped to accept difference of all varieties and be supported to accept their own gender identity or sexual orientation and that of others. In order to do this it will be essential to provide curriculum opportunities where difference is explored, same-sex relationships, same-sex parenting and transgender issues may be mentioned as a fact in some people’s lives. For children of same-sex or transgender parents or with close LGBT relatives this will be a signal of recognition that will encourage self-esteem and belonging.

Educators (Christian or otherwise) may disagree over whether all manifestations of identity exploration ought to be supported or encouraged at the primary school level, but few would contend against the provision of curriculum opportunities to discuss matters of sex and sexuality as a fact at secondary school level. There is nothing indoctrinating about the objective consideration of facts, though individual educators may, of course, impress their own moral worldviews upon receptive minds. But that is not the issue in this guidance, which is to root out the sort of bullying which damages children, “leading to higher levels of mental health disorders, self-harm, depression and suicide”. The next paragraph is seminal to the mission:

In the early years context and throughout primary school, play should be a hallmark of creative exploration. Pupils need to be able to play with the many cloaks of identity (sometimes quite literally with the dressing up box). Children should be at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgement or derision. For example, a child may choose the tutu, princess’s tiara and heels and/or the fireman’s helmet, tool belt and superhero cloak without expectation or comment. Childhood has a sacred space for creative self-imagining.

It’s funny how the headlines are designed to whip up a stink about boys in tutus and tiaras, but there’s little mention at all of girls wearing a fireman’s helmet or a mechanic’s tool belt. And how many of those headlines were followed by the explanation that the Church of England was talking about children play-acting, dressing up and pretending to be that which they are not? The media can’t bash the CofE for encouraging girls to become engineers, architects, soldiers or firefighters. But boys in tutus? Well, that’s when it becomes clear that the real target here is the good old CofE – any opportunity to scoff and scorn must be seized.

There ought to be no objection at all to the inclusion of drama in the school curriculum, and boys ought to be as free as girls to select their robes and crowns. “All the world’s a stage,” as Shakespeare said, “and all the men and women merely players.” Why shouldn’t children have their variable exits and entrances? Why shouldn’t they play many inclusive parts? How can you perform Twelfth Night or As You Like It unless you embrace the possibility of boys dressing as girls or girls as boys? Why shouldn’t boys explore ‘cross-dressing’ with sissy ballet tights? Haven’t you seen Billy Elliot?

The most (perhaps only) objectionable part of this guidance is to be found in the final paragraph on the page:

The use of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic language is still widespread in most English schools and 40 per cent of primary school teachers reported homophobic bullying, name-calling or harassment in their school. Therefore specific work to counter such bullying and counter the use of language such as ‘you’re so gay’ or ‘your pencil case/trainers are gay’ is necessary and will need to be specific to age and cohort.

This is an interesting manipulation of the vernacular. It wasn’t so long ago that ‘gay’ meant nothing more than ‘happy’, and the word has morphed over recent decades to become the synonym of preference for ‘homosexual’, which now sounds altogether to too clinically categorical, if not derogatory. But ‘gay’ is evidently still morphing, and not really in a way which ought to offend any of the LGBT community. It appears to be becoming a synonym for ‘crap’, but few children (if any at the primary school level) are saying that to be gay is to be crap. When they say ‘your trainers are gay’ they are simply deploying the word endowed with the (ascending?) definition – a natural process of linguistic/etymological development which ought to remain free from ecclesial manipulation. Unless, of course, the CofE is also going to issue guidance to restrict the use of ‘pride’, or  rescue ‘sick’ from the same abuse, for ‘your trainers are sick’ has come to mean ‘your trainers are awesome’, and there appears to be no concern at all for the sensitivities of those who are really ill or infirm.

The word ‘gay’ is not owned by anyone, any more than is Abba, Kylie, stage musicals or rainbows. Yet all of these things have been incrementally appropriated by the LGBT community, such that no straight man now dare admit that he likes ‘Dancing Queen’ or enjoys singing along to The Sound of Music. What’s wrong with a turf war over word usage and abusage? What censorious business is it of the Church of England’s if a child uses a word consistent with the new vernacular? What’s next if this coercive programme is permitted to continue? Are teachers to be discouraged from showing rainbows in the context of God’s judgment and forgiveness, just because the Pride flag has detached the phenomenon from God’s covenant with every living thing (Gen 9:13)?

O yes, there is one other objectionable section in this guidance:

Children should be at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgement or derision. For example, a child may choose the tutu, princess’s tiara and heels and/or the fireman’s helmet, tool belt and superhero cloak without expectation or comment.

One child’s judgment is another’s harmless reaction; one child’s laughter is a teacher’s derision. If children are being encouraged to dress up as wicked witches and good fairies to explore their identities and the diversity of humanity, it is absurd that their audiences may not boo or hiss, or pass any kind of comment at all. You can’t stifle the spontaneous clapping, screaming and laughter in the pantomime theatre of childhood: therein lies the most sinister controlling ‘guidance’ and totalitarian educational oppression of them all.

  • Albert

    The basic point here seems right: if a boy puts on a tutu, he shouldn’t be mocked for it. Having said that, I wondered about this bit (from the Telegraph):

    Secondary school pupils should be allowed to “‘try on identities for size”, it adds, explaining that teenagers “need to be offered the freedom that was afforded to the child in nursery of the metaphorical dressing up box of trying on identities without assumption or judgement”.

    The reality is I think, that we just don’t understand all this stuff properly – it’s origins and its consequences. What’s needed is a proper theological and philosophical discussion – without the usual liberal-fundamentalist carping designed to prevent discussion.

    It seems to me that we are in danger of falling into an untruthful dualism in which the person is to defined by the subjective mental state, while the objective bodily elements are ignored or even mutilated. But almost no one in philosophy holds such a dualism is an adequate account of the human person. Any treatment or response to this issue that flows from an inadequate account of the human person is itself going to be at best inadequate, and at worst, damaging – especially if it ends up in irreversible medical treatment.

    • Anton

      Yes, aside from the politics this is actually to do with the mind-body issue. When somebody with testes and a penis claims to be a woman, or somebody with a vagina and breasts claims to be a man, they should be asked to define what they mean by ‘man’ and ‘woman.’ If the resulting definition is unrelated to physiology (or genotype) then why do they demand operations to change their genitalia?

      • Are you expecting some kind of logic and rationality at the heart of this mushy therapeutic relativism?

        • Anton

          No. I am doing my best to expose the illogic using secular arguments that cannot be dismissed by “I don’t share your faith”.

      • Albert

        Excellent point. Now if someone’s belief about reality is different from reality, one has to be very, very cautious about going along with that, especially if the person is a child, and there is a risk of irreversible action.

    • IanCad

      There is a great deal wrong in putting a young boy in a tutu; He is impressionable and needs guidance. Not this:

      • Albert

        Yes, that’s pretty shocking. I note the comment in the blurb:

        The little kid has become a heartthrob in the LGBT community

        “Little kids” just shouldn’t be the heartthrobs of any adults.

  • Martin

    It is notable that bullying has been decried but very little done until the LGBT issues raised their heads. Now we have teachers suspended for using the wrong words. I fail to see how primary school children can be homosexual, bisexual or transsexual in any case. Presumably it is still fine to bully a child with poor eyesight, physical or mental skills, just so long as you don’t mention sex.

    It seems a shame that the CoE doesn’t address the spiritual disaster it has become.

  • Anton

    The buck stops on Justin Welby’s desk. He is either a coward or a fool and in neither case fit to lead a church.

    • Chris Bell

      You of course mean Justin Well-may-Be.

      • Anton

        I wonder whether he would really bring up his own children in the way he tells other parents to.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Not only have the lunatics taken over the asylum, they have co-opted their guardians into lala land.

  • Children are actually a rather horrible bunch and will bully their contemporaries for almost any perceived difference: being fat, short, ginger, asthmatic, intellectual or not liking sport are all reasons for being bullied.
    Why is one sort of bullying being censored and all the others apparently ignored? And will children be told that its perfectly acceptable for them and their parents to be obese in order to counter fatophobia?

    • Marcus Stewart

      Quite; the impetus to bully will simply be displaced onto summat else. The quality of argument – not that it even bothers to engage is that, from the CofE is, as always, risible. A hobby horse? Lets ride on it. Politically correct? It’s our position.

      Sack most of the ‘advisers’ who do nothing but damage, and appoint more parish priests, who (theoretically) preach the gospel and generate the giving that pays for advisers.

    • jaundicedi

      I assume that CoE schools have dropped teaching “Love thy neighbour as thyself” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto thee” and the Beatitudes which should cover all forms of bullying and extending compassion to one’s fellows?

      • Anton

        I suspect they teach those to the virtual exclusion of “Love the Lord thy God”.

    • Chefofsinners

      All forms of bullying are combatted in schools. This particular form needs calling out because the church is in danger of being seen to sanction bullying by maintaining a biblical morality. The two are quite logically distinct, but not always in the mind of the perpetrators or the victims.

      • To be honest, when Jack was a child it never crossed his mind that some boys might want to wear dresses and call themselves girls. And if they did they would certainly attract negative peer pressure. That’s not “bullying”. As for boys being sexually attracted to boys, again this never occurred to Jack. True towards the end of primary school girls became more interesting. But sex?! And between boys?! Or girl on girl?! Some things should be kept

        • Chefofsinners

          Negative peer pressure can indeed amount to bullying. The rest of what you say seems irrelevant.

  • Chris Bell

    Deep inside its lost heart the CoE desperately wants to be seen as the great force of evangelical secularism.
    What happens when ink is added to water? Both are an amorphous grey. Entropy ensures an equilibrium of death.
    So mix it all up boys and girls soon there will no gender to worry about and Christ a distant quaint memory.
    The CoE will ensure that this will happen and itself will be forgotten by its own hand.

  • It’s to be hoped that, in the course of exploring ‘same-sex relationships, same-sex parenting’, Church of England schools draw attention to the increased risk of child abuse and neglect in non-traditional families. Figures 5-1 to 5-4 in this PDF illustrate the levels of physical, sexual and emotional abuse and physical, emotional and educational neglect in six types of parenting. Needless to say, the children of married biological parents are at the least risk, by a long chalk. Figure 5-1 is on page 5-20.

  • Anton

    And we wonder why Islam is rising…?

    • Sarky

      Because it’s traditional and doesn’t stray from it’s path?

      • Anton

        Because we have lost our way.

    • Chefofsinners

      Because the men are allowed to wear dresses?

      • Anton

        Keeping divine judgement in mind, perhaps the two phenomena have a common causative factor in changes to family cohesiveness and structure since 1960.

  • Marcus Stewart

    The usual shyte from the CoE.

  • Father David

    Has the Church of England gone completely mad?
    I remember my own school days – I had 15 older sisters and being the only boy I had to wear their hand me down clothes. One day I turned up at school wearing the same dress as the teacher. I don’t know who was the most embarrassed – him or me!

    • Chefofsinners

      And that was when you knew you were called to the priesthood.

      • Father David

        You want to take greater care in your comments, wearing as you do that girly syrup.

        • Chefofsinners

          Case in point. What was manly attire in the seventeenth century is girly today. Scotsmen wear skirts. Women today wear trousers. If children always did the same as their parents none of these things would be.

  • dannybhoy

    Mum at bottom of stairs..
    “Timmy, time to get up! You’re going to be late for school!
    Young Timmy remembers that he hasn’t done his homework and wracks his brains for an excuse..
    Yells downstairs..
    “Mum, I’m not Timmy today, I’m Edith; and I think my period’s starting…

  • Chefofsinners

    Now I’m going to make myself unpopular. This is a very good article, but a bit nitpicky in its criticisms. As a Christian working in education, I find this guidance well written and helpful to schools. All forms of bullying are unacceptable – amongst children most of all, for they have no control over who their parents are, nor over whether they feel the urge to don a tiara. I know the author of the guidance and will be glad to feed back any concerns. However, on the points raised I would say:
    Teachers are easily able to judge the intent behind a child using the word ‘gay’. If it is to insult others then it should not be used. Consider that we do have other words whose meanings have ossified due to sensitivities. The N-word springs to mind. Likewise, teachers can tell whether a child is being judgmental or derisive and can intervene where appropriate. As we head into panto season, the line between laughing with somebody and laughing at them is not that hard to define.

  • carl jacobs

    It used to be that parents were charged with the responsibility of teaching children who they were – of teaching them an identity. At the center of this instruction would be the binary differentiation between male and female. But now, in order to justify adults who do not wish to be told that their sexual desires are perverse, we have thrown that responsibility back upon the children themselves. And of course they are wholly inadequate to the task. It must lead to confusion, angst, lack of identity in children who do not have the tools to answer questions like “Who am I? What am I?” They don’t even have the security of family identification anymore as adults couple and decouple at will, scattering children across the landscape like broken pieces of glass.

    There is a price to be paid for this.

    • Chefofsinners

      Allowing them to be bullied is not the answer.

      • carl jacobs

        You have no idea how well I know that. I could give you chapter and verse to the permanent and life altering consequences it has visited upon my family. But you don’t address bullying by destroying the concept of gender identification.

        • Chefofsinners

          The guidance does not suggest destroying the concept of gender identification. It merely suggests that children should not be bullied over the issue.

          • Anti-bullying is a ploy being used by the LGBT lobby worldwide to disarm conservatives in their protection of children from the agenda. It must be seen through. All bullying should be condemned, but singling out HBT bullying is most unhelpful and plays right into their hands. In particular it accepts the insidious classification of pre-pubescent children as gay or transgender – a patently misplaced categorisation.

          • Brian

            You’re right – it’s a transparent political ploy, the purpose of which is not to help a tiny number from mistreatment but to change the thinking of the majority to be pro-homosexual and to stigmatise opposition to homosexuality as unhealthy, wrong and sinful as ‘evil’ and ‘bullying’ per se. It’s all about climate change – and the soft target is always the jelly-spined Church of England. And where it will all bwckfire is when the rising majority of Muslims in schools strike back not with ‘bullying’ – which really means little more than taunting most of the time – but with actual murder.

          • Chefofsinners

            The guidance on HBT bullying is much needed.
            Some people use the Christian faith as a cloak for abhorrent behaviour and this guidance will stop them. I say that as someone who believes unequivocally that homosexual acts are sinful.

          • But would ever tell a child in school who you were teaching that? And, if you did, would you sill have employment by the end of the week?

          • Chefofsinners

            No. That’s a discussion to have with adults.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Not only should all bullying be condemned; all bullying must be firmly dealt with. The reason why “HTB” bullying has been singled out is that it is the only form of bullying which some people apparently still think should be accorded privileged status and winked at. Whether pre-pubescent children can meaningfully be described as gay or transgender – or indeed as straight – is neither here nor there.

          • This is exceptionally naïve. The reason for privileging it is in order to advance the LGBT agenda and bring children into it by leading society and children to identity with its spurious categories.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            This is exceptionally naïve. The reason for focusing on “HBT” bullying is that for years it was tacitly treated as an exception to the rule that bullying of any kind is wrong and must not be tolerated. As we all know, children hope to get away with all sorts of things that they know they shouldn’t get away with, but that is the one form of bullying which many believed that they actually had a right to get away with, and they were sometimes encouraged in that belief by irresponsible adults. As a former teacher, I know whereof I speak. And the reason why it is still necessary in 2017 to keep stressing that such bullying does NOT have privileged, exempt status is that efforts are still being made to obstruct concrete measures to eradicate it by those who spout nonsense about “advancing the LGBT agenda”, whatever that is – I still haven’t managed to obtain a copy.

      • No, bullying is not the answer but neither is permitting 90% of unaffected children having their moral development blighted because a small minority of children live in families where one or both parents are transgendered and/or homosexual. Nor because the occasional child might have experience an emerging and poorly understood sexual identity issue. A problem, incidentally, which might be successfully overcome by skilled and compassionate early intervention.

        The objectively perverse lifestyles of a small minority should not be normalised in this way and allowed to wreck the moral foundations of family and social life. Social taboos exist for a reason.

        • Chefofsinners

          It is not normalising gay lifestyles to prevent children from bullying one another. These are separate issues.

          • Define bullying. Is it passing disapproving comments? That’s called socialisation. And children are less sophisticated than most adults. It might simply be a “yuk”.
            How do you prevent bullying without at the same time endorsing and approving the lifestyles of homosexuals and transsexual parents or encouraging these behaviours in children?

          • Chefofsinners

            In this context bullying is actions or words intended to be hurtful, repeated on a number of occasions. Bullying usually exploits a power imbalance. It is the opposite of socialisation. The answer to your second question is exactly what the guidance in question seeks to provide.

  • In creating a school environment that promotes dignity for all and a call to live fulfilled lives as uniquely gifted individuals, pupils will be equipped to accept difference of all varieties and be supported to accept their own gender identity or sexual orientation and that of others.

    No, no, no.

    Pupils in a Christian school should be equipped to accept God’s creation and the natural relationships between men and women. This is tantamount to actively promoting and encouraging homosexuality and transgenderism.

    More sinister is what attitude will the State begin to adopt towards Christian parents who view their child’s psycho-sexual and moral development through the truth of orthodox Church teaching. The days are coming when it will be seen as “child abuse” to instil in a child that sex should only take place in a permanent marriage between a man and a woman. This conflict will be played out in schools.

    Over the past two decades, it has slowly dawned on Christians that the implications of same-sex “marriage” are far greater for those who still believe in the traditional understanding of marriage than even the cynics first thought possible. The politicians, the academics, and the media have reached the collective conclusion that if gay “marriage” is a civil right, those who oppose it are not simply dissenters holding to a two-thousand-year-old tradition, but ugly bigots who deserve to be marginalized for their discriminatory views. Thus, “live and let live” turned into “you will be forced to participate and approve,” with bakers, florists, property owners, and adoption agencies finding themselves to be the targets of gay activists who show a shocking ruthlessness in their enthusiasm for prosecuting supposed thought crimes.

    None of this will be news to most of you, but the impact of radical reinvention of our social structures is beginning to impact Christian communities in ways that are striking even closer to home. There is the fact that public schools across Canada (and many places in the United States) are beginning to implement sex education that runs directly contrary to the beliefs of many traditionalist communities—and governments are beginning to eye Christian and private schools as unwelcome havens of dissenting thought and education. And worse: Christian parents and foster parents are increasingly finding themselves “disqualified” from adopting children or taking children into their homes because of their views.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/liberals-now-claim-christian-parents-are-dangerous.-this-is-an-existential

    • Manfarang

      Pupils in a Christian school should be taught that all sexual impulses are sinful,

      • Chefofsinners

        All sexual impulses? Christianity would die out in a generation.

        • Manfarang

          In northern Europe maybe.

          • Chefofsinners

            Are children conceived immaculately in the Southern Hemisphere?

          • Manfarang

            People left the church in northern Europe to live in sin.

      • carl jacobs

        What do you mean by “impulses”? Because on its face this is a false assertion.

        • Manfarang

          28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

          • CliveM

            What if that woman is your wife?

          • Manfarang

            You can’t commit adultery with your wife.

          • CliveM

            So not every sexual impulse is wrong.

          • Manfarang

            Kids were taught that premarital sex was wrong in years gone by.

          • Chefofsinners

            It is. The confusion here seems to be that when you said “all impulses” you did not mean those within marriage.

          • Manfarang

            Do you ever get headaches?

          • Chefofsinners

            Pain in the arse sometimes.

          • Manfarang

            Eat plenty of fruit and vegetables.

          • CliveM

            That’s a different issue.

          • carl jacobs

            And people don’t instantly transform into sexual beings when they get married. We are created as sexual beings. The natural state of man is to live a sexual life. The first commandment given to man was “Go forth, have sex, and multiply”. Sexual desire is good, natural, essential, and built right into the created order.

            I told my kids “The world will tell you that sex is good, and right, and fun. The world speaks truth when it says this. But what it won’t ever tell you is that sex should should be treated as holy and set apart.”

            That’s the difference.

          • carl jacobs

            Not every sexual impulse is lustful.

          • writhledshrimp

            Read the Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard, he tackles your difficulty with this much better than I can in here. It may liberate you from what must be a horrible dilemma you are living in.

          • Manfarang

            Abstention is not a dilemma.

      • Anton

        We are told that Jesus suffered every temptation yet was without sin, including in his heart. That combination implies he experienced sexual impulses that were not sinful. Therefore you are wrong.

        • Manfarang

          Jesus didn’t say much about sex. However Augustine says “I intend to remind myself of my past foulnesses and carnal corruptions, not because I love them but so that I may love you, my God” i.e. sex is sin which became the prevailing view of the church.

          • Anton

            Well ducked.

      • CliveM

        What a bizarre statement.

        • Manfarang

          Did you ever go to Church fifty years ago?

          • CliveM

            Occasionally. As I would have been 4, going on about sexual impulses would have quite simply baffled me.

          • Manfarang

            As I expect the primary school kids are baffled today.

          • Dodgy Geezer

            Actually, It’s not so much sex that the Catholic Church objects to, it’s women.

      • Why? The sexual impulse itself is not sinful.

        • Manfarang

          Father forgive me.

      • dannybhoy

        Wind-up merchant.

    • The biggest problem here is the assumption that prepubescent children have a sexual orientation or gender identity. How absurd, and harmful bordering on child abuse.

      • Chefofsinners

        Prepubescent children do have gender identities and sexual orientations.

        • dannybhoy

          And they quite like playing doctors and nurses, and “I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours…”
          Or the dreaded ‘Kiss chase’…
          which gave some girls the opportunity to run s-l-o-w-l-y away from their favourite boy, who -too late!- realised he was going to have to kiss that girl with the drippy nose.
          Ah memories, memories..

          • Chefofsinners

            A surprising number of adults have forgotten these things and idealise childhood as an asexual period.

          • Anton

            Let’s not confuse curiosity and desire.

          • Pubcrawler

            Let me guess the ending: “Reader, I married her.”

          • dannybhoy

            Nope.
            “Reader, I caught impetigo..”
            That’s all we had in common, so it would never have worked.

        • How can they when those are adult identity constructs intended to normalise certain forms of psychiatric disorder?

          • Chefofsinners

            No. A gender identity is simply a boy seeing himself as a boy and a girl seeing herself as a girl. They all have it and occasionally one of them is confused or has an intersex medical condition.

          • You sound like you’ve bought into their ideology.

          • Chefofsinners

            I feel you have an argument against my points then make it. Otherwise, have more self respect than to default to the ragbag of generalisations.

          • The point is to accept the idea that a boy seeing himself as a boy is a ‘gender identity’ and that there is an alternative ‘gender identity’ for him to see himself as a girl is to flatter the latter and give it a legitimacy it does not possess while fatally relativising the former. There is no such thing as gender identity, there is just normal psychology and a disorder called gender dysphoria.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Boys usually see themselves as boys, and girls usually see themselves as girls, so both boys and girls usually have a gender identity. That is what the term means. You may protest that the term is of recent coinage, but even if you dislike it and regard it as unnecessary, it does refer to a reality. That a few children may have a delusional gender identity (gender dysphoria) does not alter that.

            That children have a sexual orientation is far more questionable, but that is of little relevance to the present discussion. Bullying on the grounds of sexual orientation needs to be stamped on just as firmly as bullying for any other reason. Whether the supposed sexual orientation is real or just imaginary makes not the slightest difference to that.

          • How about we just stamp out bullying and not use spurious terms like gender identity to subdivide it? Gender identity implies, and is intended to imply, that there is more than one legitimate way for a boy to view himself – as a boy, a girl, or something else. It should therefore be avoided completely, and terms which make clear the erroneous nature of non-normal identification used instead e.g. gender confusion and gender dysphoria.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, yes, how about we just stamp out bullying and don’t try to use irrelevant considerations e.g. objections to a technical term like gender identity, as phony excuses for dragging our feet when it comes to particular forms of bullying? The term does not imply “that there is more than one legitimate way for a boy to view himself – as a boy, a girl, or something else”. You are confusing a neutral term which denotes an objective reality with the peculiar theories of certain people ABOUT gender identity. Yes, of course they will use that term when propounding their theories.

            I certainly had a gender identity when I was a boy, even though I didn’t know the expression and didn’t need to know it. I thought of myself as a boy, which was what I was, and it didn’t occur to me to think of myself as anything else. If you didn’t have one, that’s fascinating. Tell us more.

          • Children should not be encouraged to think of themselves as having a gender identity or sexual orientation. It’s harmful and invites confusion. Neither should adults for that matter.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, children will have a gender identity whether they are encouraged to think of themselves as having one or not, rather as Molière’s “bourgeois gentilhomme” Monsieur Jourdain had been speaking prose for years without knowing it. Children won’t have a sexual orientation, at least none that will be discoverable by themselves or anyone else, and they certainly shouldn’t have their lives complicated by being encouraged to concern themselves with it, but they will one day become aware of having one. Trying to persuade adults that they don’t have a gender identity or a sexual orientation is just a piece of stupidity.

            Incidentally, the first time that I can recall hearing the expression “gender identity” used was some years ago on television. It was used by one of those anti-gay know-alls whose arrogant confidence is directly proportionate to their ignorance. He stridently pontificated to the effect that homosexuality was the result of “confusion of gender identity”.

  • Skidger

    Well I suppose this advice is coming from men who wear frocks.

  • Caroline Farrow

    His Grace is correct about reclaiming use of the word ‘gay’. My seemingly heterosexual golden retriever is frequently referred to as gay by parishioners thanks to his inability as a guard dog and propensity to roll on his back or siddle up for a cuddle every time a stranger enters the presbytery or parish office.

    What is concerning about this advice is that it is accompanied by various forms and tick boxes in which teachers are encouraged to name the bully and their target. An innocent piece of banter may result in a pupil having an accusation of homophobic bully on their permanent school record. Even more concerning when one learns that the office of a certain Lib Dem MP is besieging faith schools with FOI’s re stats on incidences of LGBT bullying. This is either to undermine faith schools and add fodder to the campaigns of the NSS and BHS and/or to provide Stonewall with extra ammunition that more needs to be done in faith schools, which are hotbeds of LGBT bullying. They can spin low figures as under-reporting or untrained staff or high incidences, as proof that this is a terrible scourge.

    It’s all about claiming that refusal to validate and indeed celebrate childtrn’s ideas about sexuality can cause them real harm. Therefore traditional Christian teaching is nasty and should be banned.

    HG might also be interested to learn that this guidance produced is identical in wording (especially the gay trainers motif) to the anti LGBT bullying document produced by the Catholic Education Service a few months ago. A document which was found to have C&Ped large chunks from Stonewall’s website and that of LGBT Youth Scotland.

    Two of the authors of this All God’s Children document are senior executives in Stonewall. What a coincidence!!

  • CliveM

    If young children dress up in ways that we as adults view as gender inappropriate, there are two ways of over reacting. One is to worry that your child is gay/gender confused. The second is to assume they are gay/gender confused. Both lots need to relax and let time take its course. The vast majority will settle down and grow up normally. But whether they do or don’t, they need to be protected from being bullied.

  • Graham Wood

    Cranmer’s comment today, and the prevailing obsession of the C of E’ with all things “gay” and perceived “homophobia” should be seen alongside the comments of an ex Synod member, Lorna Ashworth who recently resigned from that body. It really puts the C of E’s strange order of priorities in perspective: Gavin Ashenden comments:

    She came to the conclusion that the Church of England has passed the point of no return, and is no longer worth spending time in or over, at the level of General Synod. Here is her rationale:

    “In my last speech given at the General Synod in York, July 2017, I expressed this frustration by saying that, ‘as a corporate body we have become unable to articulate the saving message of Jesus Christ which fully encompasses the reality of sin, repentance and forgiveness – without this message we do not teach a true gospel and people do not get saved.”

    As GA suggests: ” Take a moment to try to understand what lies behind these words, because they are monumentally important.”

    • layreader

      Personally, I have reached the point of saying ‘not in my name’ to almost everything that General Synod says or does. I know I’m not alone in this, and Lorna Ashworth’s resignation statement appears to say very much the same thing. Synodical government is long overdue for reform, and, as a means of giving the C of E democratic government, it is a complete non-starter. Expect to see Alternative Synods emerging…

      • Graham Wood

        Layreader. Point taken and though I am not an Anglican I agree that reform is indeed long overdue, but I cannot really see alternative Synods emerging.
        However, you say – “giving the C of E democratic government” Is this what it really needs or requires?
        I would rather the C of E if it is to be truly reformed seeks biblical church government – an issue which afaik it has never fully addressed – such is the strength and power of a tradition.
        Like the Church of Rome, I do not believe that a monolithic church such as the C of E is actually capable of reform anyway. For true believers the best alternative IMO is to leave it entirely

        • layreader

          I don’t much think that reform of its government will solve all of the C of E’s problems. What it really needs is leadership and not necessarily democracy. Synodical government, like tower blocks, is a hangover from the 1960s and deserves the same fate (dynamite).
          The RC manages to do without democracy and hasn’t particularly suffered as a result.
          However, flouncing out and banging the door behind you is not the answer either. Schism is a more attractive alternative, because the body of Christ is much stronger when it remains together (for evidence, read any of the New Testament). Fortunately, the financial structures of the C of E make such a thing relatively easy, and that’s why I posited Alternative Synods. A Synod, after all, is simply a meeting of like-minded people and not necessarily part of any existing structure.

          • Anton

            The church has leadership. He is called Christ. What the Church of England needs to do is LISTEN TO HIM AND DO WHAT HE SAYS.

        • Coniston

          “giving the C of E democratic government.” This is surely what General Synod was originally set up to do. But how can a mainly theologically unqualified assembly make decisions about Christian beliefs and practice? A ‘democratic’ assembly will, largely, reflect the relativistic beliefs of the surrounding secular and pagan society. It should be the Bishops who make such decisions. But with the present lot of Bishops the decisions would probably be even worse.
          Michael Nazir-Ali for Archbishop!

    • John

      The senior leadership of the Church of England, in its anxiety to curry favour with Channel 4 News, is sailing perilously close to the wind on all this. We are approaching a tipping point when Evangelicals will start to leave in large numbers. At the moment, it’s the usual suspects who have always been half in/half out but with the Archbishop of Canterbury sounding like more and more like Justine Greening in a mitre he is driving the church hell-for-leather towards a catastrophic schism.

      • Graham Wood

        Agree John. It is very sad, as schism is never desirable but sometimes, and obviously in this case, warranted.
        It has been coming for some time, and no doubt if Welby continues on his present course then things will I think quickly come to a head.

  • Albert

    What would be the CofE’s position on this news story:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-41966554

  • Dodgy Geezer

    Words that sound inclusive, caring and full of virtue signals in a ‘diversity committee’ sound strained and impractical in a teacher’s staff room, and positively dangerous when you are in a teacher/parent meeting with a Durham ex-miner….

    • Anton

      I know whose side I’m on!

    • dannybhoy

      That’s because we inhabit different worlds. If the aim is to raise generations of gender fluid, risk averse cissies that’s fine, but you’d better make sure the rest of the world is doing the same thing…
      The Church of England Synod has done a fine job setting an example..

    • Chris Bell

      Hey, stop with this ‘virtue signalling’ stuff. Its doing my head in. Its all over the place. We have an old word its called Hypocrisy.

  • layreader

    My granddaughter would love to wear a tutu to school, but she has boring old school uniform to put up with.

    • Anton

      Perhaps because it’s too, too sexist?

      • layreader

        Strikes me as the ultimate in sexism – boys can wear tutus but girls can’t. Or perhaps I just don’t understand sexism, like all the rest of us.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Although some girls might like the idea of becoming engineers this CoE initiative, and all the similar secular initiatives that it is imitating, might paradoxically end up reinforcing stereotypical gender roles as far as girls are concerned. In the past girls who were tomboys tended to be admired for being adventurous and daring. How long will it be, if it is not happening already, that the LGBT enthusiasts start trying to plant the idea in their heads, even before they reach puberty, that they are either lesbians or should “identify” as boys?

    Any mental health issues arising from such pernicious suggestions would be taken as a sign of internalised “homophobia” or “trans-phobia” for which the parents or the church would be blamed and would also be taken as an indication for more resources to be devoted to LCBT propaganda for brainwashing purposes.

  • Chris Bell

    Overheard in birth ward:
    Hi how are you doing?
    Oh, thanks, just fine, the birth was a breeze.
    And what did you have?
    We had a beautiful he/she/it. 8lbs and 17ozs. ( ‘cos it had one of those fleshy thingies, y’know) We’ve always yearned for a non gendered child. Thank God in His Grace.
    Yes, indeed!! Have you thought of a name yet?
    Well, we haven’t really decided, but my husband/wife/thing thought that JUSTINA would be good. Y’know after St Wellmaybe. of Canterbury.
    So your child will have the full name of Justina maybe Smith?
    Yes………y’know its just what we want really.
    We don’t like any identity. We don’t really like sex too much either and we only do it when he/she/it feels like a ‘he’ and I feel like a ‘she’ and that isn’t very often.
    So Justina is real miracle, in a way.
    We’ve put our name down for one of those new schools where there are only children and no girls and boys at all. And no, before you ask, it isn’t one of those pagan Christian schools of 50yrs ago. No, this one is managed by the
    the Association of Religious Secularists (of England). ARS(E)
    Wow!! You’re really lucky.
    (Yawn)

  • wisestreligion

    “Homophobic bullying” is a deceitful cloak for pushing homosexuality on children. In reality a tiny proportion of bullying is related to homosexuality. LGBT activists realise, however, that to openly encourage the insertion of the male sexual organ into the rectum is a massively distasteful proposition, so they will always proceed by euphemism. What we hear from our Liberal Superiors is therefore talk of Equality, Progressiveness, leaving bigotry behind, coming into the 21st century. Anything but the actual facts of homosexuality. And above all, of course, is the delicious self-righteousness from being an apostle of the new faith and morality. This faith allows hatred only in pursuit of its own creed, the condemnation of those sub-humans, the homophobes. That is a hatred you can luxuriate in, and the more you hate, the more righteous a Pharisee of Progress you must be.

    Take one study, done of fifth formers by UCL Institute of Education in 2015. 56% of pupils who later identified as adults had been bullied in the past year. Sad. But just a minute, the proportion of normal kids who reported bullying was not vastly different, at 38%. Taking the figures of the ONS 2010 mega-survey putting homosexuals at 1.5% of the population, then a mere 2% of school bullying might be homophobic. No one talks much about the 98% of our children because there is no Marxist agenda behind their cause.

    The C of E is absurdly naïve in accepting unquestioningly the arguments of the militant LGBTQ activists. Any Christian with open eyes and a backbone should recognize that another hostile religion is being preached here by the Progressives, pro-porneia and anti-family. This other religion prefers to masquerade as a neutral higher awareness and hide its agenda behind euphemisms like anti-bullying, diversity, equality, but it is incompatible with scripture and Christian faith.

    • dannybhoy

      ” LGBT activists realise, however, that to openly encourage the insertion of the male sexual organ into the rectum is a massively distasteful proposition..”
      Not to mention yeeukky and sum-ellly and (for the first 20 times at least) painful/uncomfortable).
      Not to mention the fact that it goes against God’s commandments…
      The vagina is designed for sexual pleasure and reproduction, the anus is designed to eliminate digested food waste (aka poo -which comes in all shapes, sizes and consistencies) from the body…

      • Brian

        “designed”? You don’t believe in all that ID stuff, do you?
        Now one thing that will quickly enrage homosexual activists and bring the charge of ‘homophobia’ is to discuss what anal sex really is. And if you mention that joining the organ of generation with the organ of defecation is really connecting life with death, you will send that apoplectic – because it is manifestly wrong and opposed to life, it is quite literally a parody of sexual intercourse.
        But if you *really* want to upset people – talk about 1. STDs caused by the practice; 2. diapers needed because of rectal prolapse.

    • Chris Bell

      Indeed your words are insightful. So now we are able to talk without hyperbole of the ‘last’ days. We have entered the age where the organs of procreation and the organs of excretion are interposed and wilfully confused.
      Such that the struggle and misery of children born now and growing into this sanctioned hell, their psychology, their identity will be of such calamity that all that we know now of suffering will be as nothing to their future suffering. These poor children will not have Christ, they will not be taught of Christ they will have, instead, only this evil Association of Religious Secularism presently known as the CoE. And as blogged before the acronym ARSE is the only fitting description. It is now absolutely clear that it is Anti-Christ.
      For these souls personal revelation guided by Grace will be their learning and their life. Grace never ceases yet our hearts will bleed for them nevertheless.

  • Brian

    This is clearly the outcome of all that Desmond Tutu has been advocating.

    • carl jacobs

      You are channeling your inner Chef again. This can only produce bad outcomes. You don’t want to end up like Chef, do you?

      • Brian

        That would be tutu much!

        • Chefofsinners

          Desmond Tutu is now living as a woman and going by the name Desdemona Hardhat.

          • Anton

            Good name for a woman vicar.

      • Chefofsinners

        I think we must remember that in biblical terms XY is Adam, XX is Eve and YYY Delilah.

        • Anton

          Definitive version:

        • carl jacobs

          I don’t know which is more astounding – that you would reach back that far, or that you are capable of reaching back that far. It’s like watching an evil mad scientist try to destroy the world. One can’t help but be impressed.

          • Chefofsinners

            Eh?

          • carl jacobs

            That song is from 1968.

          • Chefofsinners

            Ain’t no mountain old enough…

  • There’s nothing dignified about a boy or a man in a dress.

  • Aaron37

    A contrary LGBT view is given by gay psychiatrist, Dr. Jack Drescher. Based on studies from various countries, he informs us that only “6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood”. Therefore, most “transgendered” children (at least 77 percent of boys and 73 percent of girls) will give up this notion that they are trapped in a body of the wrong sex.

    Therefore, their current state is an illusion. It would be less confusing and thus better for most (if not all of them) and for the other children around them if no one would cater to “transgenderism” in children and teens. To do otherwise is child abuse.

    https://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/09/10/drescher-et-al-2014-hastings-center-report/drescher-et-al-2014-hastings-center-report.pdf

    • dannybhoy

      The point is though that as a result of the deliberate (and satanically inspired) attacks on the traditional family, children are having to live without mums and dads, good role models and behavioural boundaries. Some blame themselves for marriage breakdowns, many are desperate for love and affirmation; ripe therefore for exploitation and abuse.
      That’s where our ‘anti God’ experts are leading us..

  • John

    You are XX or you are XY. Responsible education is about helping children understand their place in the real world and not about indulging the latest lunatic fantasy.

    • Chefofsinners

      Some people are neither XX nor XY. Their adult lives will be very difficult. Do they deserve to also have their childhoods ruined by bullying?

      • Anton

        Of course not. But do you want society to be designed for a very small minority, or for the overwhelming majority who should simply be kind to the minority?

        • Chefofsinners

          This guidance is all about how the majority should be kind to the minority.

          • Anton

            You can’t legislate kindness.

          • Chefofsinners

            No, and it’s not legislation. But you can make helpful suggestions to people who find themselves in sensitive situations. That’s all this is.

          • Anton

            But I disagree that it is a helpful suggestion to encourage children with penises (if we are not going to be allowed to say ‘boys’) to don tutus.

          • Chefofsinners

            The guidance isn ‘t about encouraging tutus for boys. It is about how adults respond if/when little boys make that choice. Boys have always tried on girls’ clothes and vice-versa.

          • Anton

            Not at school they haven’t. A boy who tries on a tutu should be discouraged by the teacher, clearly and without humiliation. Anything else is going to promote confusion among the other 99%. Now let’s go back several steps to where I asked whether you want society to be designed for a very small minority, or for the overwhelming majority who should simply be kind to the minority?

          • Chefofsinners

            You asked whether a society should be designed for the majority or the minority. We are all minorities in one way or another. So it is in the interests of the majority to protect minorities.

          • Anton

            Depends what each minority is.

      • John

        That is an entirely different matter, Chef. Genetic anomalies occur in a vanishingly small percentage of the population and such people should be cared for appropriately. This article addresses a dangerous and barmy fad that has about as much legitimacy in our schools as the Da Vinci Code in the History curriculum or unicorns in Biology.

        • Chefofsinners

          This article is about guidance which addresses:
          1) the one in a hundred children born with bodies which differ from standard male or female (two children in an average sized primary school).
          2) The one in a thousand with XXY syndrome (one in every five primaries).
          3) How to handle children playing dressing up in all manner of costumes and cruel comments (every child).

      • Royinsouthwest

        What is wrong with cracking down on bullying in general?

        • Chefofsinners

          Nothing. And this is part of that. There is lots of guidance on bullying in general and how to handle different forms, but until now there has been nothing on this particular type of bullying.

  • Inspector General

    A low to moderate amount of bullying is good for the child’s development. The Inspector had most of his by kind arrangement with the school head of sports. We all did…

    We are weak stock as it is. We are born feeble and it takes years before we can leave the security of the nest and make it out alone. It’s never ever going to go your way all the time, and bullying conditions the child to this.

    A month or two ago, the Inspector read about a sad case of the suicide of a young man. He was depressed. He’d been to university and it was his regret that he was unable to find a girl therein to spend the rest of his life with. He was just 23. It doesn’t take much imagination to believe he possessed absolutely no resilience to disappointment whatsoever. His is not unique. Readers may remember a spate of mid teen suicides in Bridgend over what we would call the trials of teenage life. Nothing awful about Bridgend other than that suicide became in vogue there for some unknown reason. Rather like tranny fever all over today. Children are spared disappointment these days. Over protected and indulged. And it’s killing them, or it’s turning them queer…

    • dannybhoy

      Again I fail to understand how people who believe in evilution can possibly have cause to rail against bullying and competitive sports.
      Darwin was all about the survival of the fittest, so why whine when precious Freddie gets bullied because he came to school dressed in his sister’s ballet gear?

      • Inspector General

        It all paid off. We became a hard lot, and we knew that when we reached adulthood we’d have one up on the rest. Had we been around just a few decades earlier, we could have beaten anything the Hitler Youth threw at us. ..

        • dannybhoy

          And then there’s this gem…

      • Anton

        Darwin is about whose genes confer protection when a virus comes through, and who therefore survives to breed and pass on those genes.

        • dannybhoy

          Ahh…..tishooo!

          • Anton

            Bless you.

          • betteroffoutofit

            ‘Member, though — One for sorrow, two for joy…….

    • carl jacobs

      A low to moderate amount of bullying is good for the child’s development.

      Good God, but you can be dirt ignorant. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea the amount of permanent damage that can be done. Children carve other kids out of the group in order to establish the value of the group. Those children in the group have value. Those outside the group are used to demonstrate the value of the boundary that defines the group. If you ever had a kid outside that boundary (and I have) you would never say something that stupid. You would understand just how vicious and cruel and damaging it can be. Do you want details? Because I can give them.

      • dannybhoy

        It’s all about belonging and not belonging, about establishing a pecking order, about feeling safe and feeling rejected.
        Children don’t start out being cruel, but they quickly learn who is the dominant child and what they have to do in order to fit in..

        • Anton

          Especially at boarding school…

          • dannybhoy

            Especially a naval boarding school.. and a kid with eczema.
            But then to be honest it’s fairly subjective. What one kid can cope with another kid can’t.
            That’s why we should encourage children to consider others and stick up for the weaker and sensitive kids.

      • Inspector General

        Strict school discipline precludes child on child bullying. We had our own young psychos just as any other school did, but they were kept in check. One can imagine the scene. It never happened to this pupil but there ‘s no reason why it couldn’t have taken place.

        The master enters the room. We all stand up. We wait for him to beckon us to sit. It doesn’t happen. Instead, he says this. .

        “Listen. If there’s to be any bullying in this establishment, it will be done by the staff. To those who deserve it. Is that perfectly clear because I will not repeat this”

        “Yes sir”

        “Good. Now sit and open your books”

        That’s how it was, and there were no complaints from snowflakes (as if in them days) or their parents, and no suicides.

        • carl jacobs

          What happened to my daughter happened in a Christian school. It was instigated, encouraged and protected by the teacher. School discipline is no necessary protection.

          • CliveM

            Hope you took the school to the cleaners.

          • What did happen to your daughter, Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            She was pushed down a flight of stairs. She was locked in a school locker. She was hung on a fence by her coat and left to choke. She was forced to stand for a week in class with no chair. That’s what she has told is. The really bad stuff she only told the psychologist.

          • Good Lord. That’s not common “bullying; it’s outright assault. What was the cause of such brutality? And why did the teacher participate? Jack hopes you sued the bastard.

          • Phil R

            This is terrible.

            Don’t they have any teachers in US schools?

            Is like the school is modelled on Lord of the Flies. It takes some considerable incompetence from teachers to not notice that this was going on.

        • Phil R

          There is some sense in this approach

          My school was similar. Fantastic results, lots of corporal punishment and little or no bullying.

          We had kids who started out in bottom sets going to university

          When going to university meant something….

      • CliveM

        I had a friend who was subjected to bullying. No good reason. Tried to kill himself.

        • not a machine

          I would think all of us have seen bullying, as I see it in this society construct the cognitive psychopaths run your life in the end. It is tragic seeing teenagers feeling pathetic because of bullying and self harm or suicide, let alone where liberal views on drugs will also play out. Kids can be extremely cruel, you can train them but then you need authority, and I don’t always see that in this society construct.

      • Carl, well made points but …. it’s how one defines “bullying”. The kind of systematic exclusion and berating you’re describing is not to be tolerated. However, as the Inspector says, a normal part of growth and development is being able to withstand degrees of peer group pressure and acquiring the self confidence to value oneself. How does one achieve this with children growing up with homosexual couples and/or transsexual parents without at the same time normalising the corrosion of sexual moral values and virtues? Jack really doesn’t know. The genie is now out of the bottle.

        • carl jacobs

          It’s a fair point. Bullying means something to me and so I reflexively apply that definition.

          To your point, however. This situation isn’t an accident. God isn’t sitting in heaven wondering how this all came about. This is judgment. What will fix it is the rod of iron and woe to those upon whom it will be applied.

          You cannot sustain a civilization upon this kind of libertine sexual chaos. Before the time a child born today reaches 50 years of age, Europe as we know it will no longer exist. It cannot proceed indefinitely in this manner any more than a sinking ship can indefinitely stay afloat. Something has to change and that change will not be benign.

          • It’s been the central issue since the beginning of time. Relationships between men and women and between parents and children. The metaphors we use about Christ’s relationship with His Church reflect God’s purpose for marriage; it’s at the very heart of the Trinity and the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit – selfless, sacrificial love.

            Sister Lucia dos Santos, one of the three children who witnessed the Marian apparitions at Fatima, died in 2005. But before her death, she predicted that the final battle between Christ and Satan would be over marriage and the family.“The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family. Don’t be afraid because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head.”

            Cardinal Caffarra added that:“speaking again with John Paul II, you could feel that the family was the core, since it has to do with the supporting pillar of creation, the truth of the relationship between man and woman, between the generations. If the foundational pillar is damaged, the entire building collapses and we’re seeing this now, because we are right at this point and we know it.”

            https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/fatima-visionary-predicted-final-battle-would-be-over-marriage-family-17760

      • Phil R

        An important discussion. To some extent you are both right. but I would tend to agree with the inspector and as a Christian his approach is more Biblical.

        Ask your daughter. Would she have preferred to have gone to the Inspector’s school rather than the “Christian” William Golding Academy?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Nothing awful about Bridgend? Well, it’s too damned close to Swansea for a start. I seem to remember that those suicides may have been linked to a website that actually encouraged teenagers to self-harm. A few scars on tge wrist seems to be a badge of honour for some of them.

  • Inspector General

    Notice To All Headmasters. CoE schools.

    First. On behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Inspector General wishes to inform you all that any bullying is not to be tolerated. Suspects are to have the dogs set on them following a suitable head start.

    Second. Any child who is hoping to become the next Eddie Izzard is to be sent home. Gown and Beret to be burnt in front of the assembled school. The child on return to be denied food and water.

    Third. No other Transgender Madness to be suffered. Use of the slipper allowed on this occasion to restore order.

    Fourth. Don’t let the little buggers get you down. Remember, you’re there to give them an education, even if that’s the last thing on their darling precious narcissistic minds.

    Keep calm, carry on, and think of that retirement day you’re looking forward to…

  • Coniston

    ‘The use of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic language is still widespread in most English schools’. I may be getting old, but when I was at school (secondary, let alone primary), many decades ago, not many pupils, I am certain, knew anything about these matters, thus there was no bullying, I’m sure, about them. Any bullying was about other matters.
    Another point – surely Church Schools should have a school uniform?

    • dannybhoy

      “surely Church Schools should have a school uniform?”
      Ours has. A swishy little number in faux silk, ruffled at wrists and neck, and with a concealed flap in the genital area for pupils with external plumbing..
      Other features include a large pocket in the blouse area for secreting forbidden foods or even crib sheets, whilst the below the knee (daringly slashed) skirt has a concertina type fold which can be raised for playtimes or p.t…

      • Dreadnaught

        Didn’t have you down for a Laurence Llewellyn-Bowen type Dan.
        You certainly talk the talk. 🙂

        • dannybhoy

          Mmmwahhh dahlink!

    • betteroffoutofit

      ” . . . not many pupils, I am certain, knew anything about these matters.” Exactly. Now they force them to know and they’re not knowledgeable enough to know what it’s all really about.

  • Russ Brown

    The Church of England, once loved by God for the Westminster Confession has become a satanic disgrace in my opinion. They must immediately divorce themselves from the State/Satan and fall back in love with Jesus.

  • Murti Bing

    The real malaise these days is a simple one – national arrested development.

    Everyone needs to grow up, especially children, but increasingly it seems this is no longer an option.

  • Dreadnaught

    For Pete’s sake… let the kids develop at their own pace without reading too much into it. We are facing far more serious issues. This is not newsworthy.

  • not a machine

    I enjoyed your graces first paragraph, I have tried to consider where this thinking will lead and no matter how much I try, I find it an attempt to make those who know the church schools still have some foundation in the Christian faith are in need of an attractive must have secular makeover. Many comments on here tonight take up the idea that children are children and getting 1984 think in early to still keep excitement in social experimentation going, rather than what may have worked before, is making some discomfort and conjecture about what nibbling at the edges will achieve in terms of rubble for church schools in the future. Now if who ever made this report and I point to happy jacks post does not believe that marriage as outlined in the Bible is heterosexual, and hopes to also bring the new secular use of marriage to be taught, then I think I have a problem with that, and if my Bishop cannot accept scripture with some concession, but not change, then I pity his/her politics for it is as worthless as his/her Christian faith. As regards leaving EU news am delighted.

  • Inspector General

    If we are to survive as a species on this planet, we need to live with nature not against. If your boy is effete and probably homosexual then that is what he is. Same with boot wearing girls.

    Transgenderism is thus an utter fake as a result. You cannot be with nature and rely on the synthetic products of laboratories. If ever there was a case of weak mankind’s corruption, it’s this nonsense.

  • Inspector General

    The stock is weak, God help us. But He has, Christianity. There is no room in Christianity for sexual deviants and degenerate shitty types who would take over society’s direction. Is there?

    • not a machine

      Inspector I can understand your view and some of the possible consequences and concerns, the direction of society is not just down to gender bending, it is but one tool from the same supplier, we have to be a little better than being offended, if you have any prayer ask our Lord Jesus to help.

  • Lucius

    The transgender phenomena is the product of too much peace and too much prosperity. When humanity engages in its next world order defining global war, all of these manufactured social ills will cease to exist for several generations thereafter (if not more).

  • Mike Stallard

    Cor – don’t we love talking about this sort of thing!

    • Anton

      Who’s we? There wasn’t much time wasted on such topics before 1967.

      • Mike Stallard

        180 comments!

    • dannybhoy
      • IanCad

        Grant request season coming up. A bunch of shakedown artists trying to fleece the taxpayer.

        • dannybhoy

          You reckon?
          You don’t think we’re running out of natural resources?

          • Anton

            We tend to think up our own to replace them. Fossil fuels aren’t running out but if they are then we have nuclear. 70% of the earth’s surface is sea and we have desalination. Forests can be replanted. Global warming due to manmade CO2 is greatly over-estimated. If some species of squid goes extinct that lives 10,000 feet under the ocean then I don’t care much. What natural resources that are vital to humanity are we running out of?

          • magnolia

            Other than love, spiritual purity, common sense, a will for Christian evangelism, British wildflowers, elm trees and a dearth of bees, cannot really think of any.

            Seems to be enough oil for several centuries to me, though I have heard the Saudis will run out which is why they invest elsewhere because not much other resources would support them and they aren’t that keen on hard graft. Lots of oil resources barely tapped, (all depends on price) and furthermore oil reservoirs sometimes replenish…However scare stories can be good for some people to make money…

          • Anton

            Only “thinks” it? Venezuela *announced* that last week!

          • magnolia

            Yes, they announced a partial (selective) default/delay of a lesser amount. What it will end up as is as yet a matter for interpretation.

          • Ray Sunshine

            Update from Bloomberg:

            Venezuela’s grand gathering with creditors Monday lasted all of 30 minutes and didn’t produce anything of substance. To make matters worse, S&P Global Ratings declaredthe country in default while Fitch Ratings cited missed payments by the state oil company.

            https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/venezuela-s-bondholder-meeting-is-a-bust-as-s-p-declares-default

          • CliveM

            Why should we care only for life critical to humans? If God cares for his creation I don’t see why we shouldn’t.

          • Anton

            If you care about that squid then I’m not condemning you for it! But I’m far more concerned about the risks of nuclear and biological weapons than about the incidental effects of civilisation on the biosphere.

          • CliveM

            So am I. However I don’t see concern in one, excludes concern in the other.

          • Anton

            If you can manage that then you probably have a bigger heart than me, and far be it from me to condemn you for it!

          • CliveM

            I’m not going to pretend I lie awake at night worrying about the squid!! I simply feel if God created it, it has worth.

            I’m not condemning either.

          • Why not condemn? God entrusted creation to man to be its stewards, not to exploit the planet without regard to consequences. Creation displays the power and majesty of our Creator. As such, it should be respected.

          • CliveM

            I agree with all that, except I’m not, not condemning because I believe it’s unimportant, but because I want a proper discussion. I find if I simply condemn people don’t listen.

            Ok people don’t listen too me much anyway, but I like to try!

          • dannybhoy

            I agree wih you on global warming, but unless a world government can decree how many children may be born and where people can live, where will you plant your new forests?
            There will have to be a limit imposed on population levels, and where will they all live? If the answer is ever higher high rises that may have all kinds of effect on our sense of wellbeing (think battery hens).
            And what about wildlife, whether on land or sea, what happens to them?
            Nuclear power in the longer run will contaminate seas and rivers, but I suppose a plus will be that we won’t need torches..
            So a world government seems essential and inevitable, but who will be ‘the power behind the throne’ or security council?
            Don’t forget that our Creator God made man to be stewards over the earth, accountable to Him.

          • Anton

            You worry correctly more about the human world than the natural ! All of the concern about excess population assumes we shall just keep on increasing in number indefinitely. Yet indigenous Europeans are not doing, and nor are Japanese or Iranians. And that’s before any major wars.

            Nuclear *fusion* will create far less noxious endproducts than nuclear fission. And even fission needn’t if we recycle using fast breeder reactors.

          • dannybhoy

            And I guess you are assuming that all religious and political differences and ambitions will also have been resolved?
            We’ll all be singing Kumbaya and sharing a spliff?

          • Anton

            Er, it was me saying that the threat to humans was from other humans directly rather than through our effect on the environment!

          • dannybhoy

            True Anton, but I think we should never underestimate the ability of unredeemed humanity to put their beliefs ahead of the security of others.
            Btw I’m reading your link now you’ve kindly pointed it out to me. Because you keep interrupting me I shall have to go back and refresh my mind on the relevance of the boy in San Fransisco..

          • dannybhoy

            Read your link
            Totally gross.

          • CliveM

            In what way is the human world and the rest of creation separate? We are all dependent on the health of the planet. Ultimately is not the whole of creation interdependent, which is as God created it?

            And if God cares for the whole of creation should not we?

          • Anton

            I agree, but it’s a question of priorities and my concerns are human crises such as WMDs. I can live without squid and chips but I can’t live in a nuked country.

          • IanCad

            Danny, IMO a lot of unnecessary concern is made over population density. Given that Bangladesh is a food exporting nation and that it has close to 180 million of souls, extrapolation paints a rosy picture.
            Were the entire population of the world to be confined to one particular area, several candidates would be in the running. Sub equatorial Africa would serve nicely. Angolan and Zam. Tanzania and Mozambique. South Africa and Zim. Leave out Namibia and Botswana – Too dry. Lots of jungle recreational space in DRC, beach resorts in southern Kenya. The rest of the world left to nature. Were it not so dry Australia would fit the bill. The USA east of the continental divide would suffice, as would India and SE Asia. More than enough room in Brazil.
            So many sweet prospects for the militant eco-freaks.

          • “If some squid goes extinct that lives 10,000 feet under the ocean then I don’t care much.”

            God cares.

          • Anton

            I expect he does. So?

          • IanCad

            In general, no, Danny. Plenty of land and water. Of course “Fossil Fuels,” if indeed oil is such, then certainly; any finite resources will be diminished as they are used up.

      • Mike Stallard

        “Now, I have not taken a stand on whether the machinations of the CRU extended to actually altering the global temperature figures. It seems quite clear from Professor Karlen’s observations, however, that they have gotten it very wrong in at least the Fennoscandian region. Since this region has very good records and a lot of them, this does not bode well for the rest of the globe …” – Watts up with that.

        • Anton

          Yes, it used to be only the future that was hard to predict. Today it is the past, at least as the temperature record goes. When the data support your pet hypothesis you don’t need to cheat. Ergo…

          • Mike Stallard

            What is urgently needed is for the media, the parliament and uncle Tom Cobbley to allow the opposition to have their say. This is absolutely denied at the moment. The Global Warmists are in denial and that makes me – a non scientist and a non participant – suspicious.

          • Anton

            Yes, I convinced more people that it is overdone by pointing to the data manipulation than by saying that the calculations are easy for a dry atmosphere but so much more complex for a moist atmosphere that it is still basically guesswork and the models are loaded.

          • Mike Stallard

            And let me add the huge number of lies – I mean that strong word – perpetrated by “scientists” like Al Gore and the UEA. And all the assumptions about measuring the temperature of the world (big planet there) in the middle ages.

  • What would be so wrong with a school claiming to be Christian teaching that homosexuality is unnatural and acting on such desires a grave offence against God, the person engaged with you in such activity and against society at large? To teach that we don’t know why God permits such disordered desires but those so afflicted should be loved and supported by fellow Christians and not bullied or cast aside by the Church or society? To teach that those with same sex temptations should be helped in everyway possible to overcome these unnatural desires and treated with the utmost respect in this struggle?

    Why is such an approach “homophobic, biphobic and transphobic”? Instead of teaching children to “accept” an unnatural gender “identity” or “sexual orientation”, why not teach them to resist these sinful and destructive inclinations? Just as all children are taught we are sinful creatures who have to resist greed, lust, pride, gluttony, anger, laziness and despair?

    • dannybhoy

      It used to be that way.
      When we talked about bullying we meant any kind of bullying. We didn’t make a distinction. Yet along comes political correctness and suddenly there are all kinds of bullying, and some kinds are more important than others.
      Eg
      It’s okay to bash a Catholic,
      but not a gay Catholic….. ;0)

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        Or e.g. all bullying is wrong, unless the person whom you are bullying is gay – or at least you think that they are, or probably are.

        • dannybhoy

          No ALL bullying is wrong, full stop.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Indeed. Unfortunately, however, some who profess to be Christians preach a different message, although they don’t have the courage to express it so baldly.

  • Norman Yardy

    How much easier was it to grow up in the 50’s and early 60’s. There was nothing complicated about discipline, you just did as you were told or you got the consequences. Your gender was reinforced by way of sport and subjects such as woodwork and metalwork for boys and cooking and needlework for girls. Nowadays we know that it is justifiable for these roles to be reversed but a child must be made comfortable with their gender in these impressionable years.

    • HoratioLordNelson

      Hear hear Norman! I’m an old friend by the way, using a pseudonym (obviously I’m not really Nelson posting from the grave!) I gave your two lads physics coaching back in the day 😉

      • Norman Yardy

        Are you sure you have the right person? I had three boys.

        • HoratioLordNelson

          But I only gave the older 2 physics coaching. Initials JB. You know my mum too. Is Kees still with you?

  • len

    Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls.
    It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world,
    Except for Lola. Lo lo lo lo Lola.

    • Inspector General

      Still. You two made a life together, and you have your cats…

  • Inspector General

    From left field, the voice of common sense…

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/11/14/the-suns-horrendous-trans-classes-front-page-has-sparked-outrage/comments/#disqus_thread
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Natalie

    Psssst! Whisper it, but…THE SUN WOZ RIGHT!! These classes are out and out child abuse and indoctrination of impressionable minds by any other name!

    And I say that as a fully paid up member of the LGB community who did their bit to march for our rights over several decades – not for the trans thuggery lobby to bully society to comply to their outrageous demands.

    Outrage needs to come from us LGB, and needs to start by looping off the T who we are now being tarred by association with, and who are targeting and branding kids as gender dysphoric and drugging them with hormone blockers when in fact they are simply gay but too young to understand the complexities of human sexuality.

    The trans lobby is a danger to us LGB as well as society in general, particularly women. But who will have the guts to speak out against the vicious, militant trans lobby? Peter Tatchell, are you listening?!

  • Chefofsinners

    Have any of you actually read this guidance? The link provided by HG is broken and another is not easily available. Here are a few choice extracts that did not make the Daily Mail:

    The “need to protect childhood from early sexualisation”

    “It is not appropriate that a primary school’s strategy for combatting HBT bullying should focus on any aspect of differing sexual practices (i.e. What people do with their bodies sexually, although human reproduction may be an element of the science curriculum). An exploration of differing sexual activity would serve to counter a primary school’s responsibility to safeguard the latency of childhood.”

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      Anglican Mainstream [sic], as represented by the Revd Andrew Symes, also omits to draw attention to those passages. Not that I’m one whit surprised.

    • Fixed (they moved it the document, for some unhelpful reason).

  • Voice For Justice UK have a petition:
    Sign to scrap the guidance for teachers in CofE schools promoting gender dysphoria among children.

    http://www.citizengo.org/en/115050-scrap-guidance-teachers-church-england-schools-promoting-gender-dysphoria-among-children

  • prompteetsincere

    Witness where this would-be-Divine Comedy is leading in Canada under the tyrannical blessing of the Federal Cultural Marxist Bill-C 16, with its respective Provincial circles of Hell in Ontario and Alberta, v.:
    Lifesitenews, Leanne Laurence’s ‘Ontario Education ‘Expert’….’ November 17, 2017; in turn citing ‘The Sun”s Michele Mendel’s November 15, 2017 article, “Depraved World View…”.

  • DP111

    Gender dysphoria to one of the greatest spiritual sins, homosexuality, is just one short.step. And this is how Satan rolls people into hell. Islam its sword does the rest.