Ben, your bias is showing

Response to an article in Principals Today

Principals Today, a magazine sent to all schools once a term, carried an article entitled "Relationships and Sexuality Education to be Reviewed" by Ben O’Connell in its 16 January issue.

https://principalstoday.co.nz/relationships-and-sexuality-education-review-nz/

Although Ben made an effort to cover this very contentious topic with some balance, he has fallen short because he does not fully understand the issues. Plus the they/him pronouns he uses in his Linked-in profile suggest an impediment to reporting objectively about gender ideology because he is a true believer.

Value children as the sex that they are

Without speaking to anyone in RGE he has labelled us an "anti-transgender group". In the article he does not say anything about the composition or motivation of our group, meaning the "anti-transgender" pejorative stands uncontested in readers' minds. RGE is an alliance of very experienced educators, parents, grandparents, and others, including some from the rainbow community, who are motivated, not by conservative or religious views, but by the imperative that children should not be told untruths about their bodies. We welcome gender nonconformity and the breaking down of sexist stereotypes. We advocate for children to be free to be themselves and, whatever their interests, to be accepted and valued as the sex that they are.

Journalistic courtesy breached

Ben quotes accurately from one of our Substacks but does not cite the source, giving readers the impression that he had spoken to someone from RGE in person. This becomes troublesome in the section entitled "Debunking RGE's Approach". Readers may think that Ben had raised the supposed flaws in RGE's argument and we were not able to satisfactorily counter them but, if Ben had contacted us, we would have readily rebutted the criticisms he made. When a journalist writes negative comments about a group, it is standard practice to ask the group for comment before publication. Principals Today has breached this normal journalistic courtesy.

What really happens in schools

In his attempt to 'debunk' RGE's position on gender ideology in schools, Ben shows less than adequate knowledge of the reasons why parents have raised concerns and why the RSE Guide has been removed from the MOE website. He purports to know what is being taught in primary schools, yet he doesn't seem to understand the difference between the curriculum and lesson content. While the curriculum is a broad outline and mostly not contentious, it is the detailed lesson content recommended in the just-removed RSE Guide that contains the harmful messages about 'gender identity' that many parents and teachers object to.

RGE submitted a detailed report to the ERO review of RSE and also analysed the resulting ERO report. Ben could have sought proper balance by reading this material as well as talking with RGE in order to fully grasp the controversy.

Ben confidently states, "Age-appropriate RSE focuses on key topics such as consent and self-awareness, not complex identity discussions for younger students." He obviously is not familiar with the RSE Guide which recommended the teaching of gender ideology as fact from Year 1. Five year olds were to be taught to “Understand the relationship between gender, identity and wellbeing”. Seven to eight year olds were to learn that "there are diverse gender and sexual identities in society". The contested concept of ‘gender identity’ and that people can change their sex was reinforced every single year from the beginning of schooling. (RSE Guide: Years 1-8 pp30-38.)

In addition, Navigating the Journey, a resource published by Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa pretends that our sexed bodies are subservient to our feelings. Despite the changes afoot in RSE, this resource is still being used in a large number of schools.

The NTJ lessons for Years 5-6 (10-11 year olds) include Appendix 17 which shows diagrams of human internal and external reproductive organs without labelling them as male or female. The resource suggests teachers accompany the diagrams with this commentary: "Do our body parts define who we are? (No. Some people with penises might feel more like girls and some people who identify as boys might have female body parts.)" (p62)

Although we agree with Ben that 'gender' and 'sex' are distinct categories, that is not the message being given to our school children. They are repeatedly told that their interests, clothing choices, and internal feelings are what determines their sex and are misled into believing that it is possible and risk-free to change their sex as many times as they like.

Lack of knowledge

Ben assures the reader that, "The use of breast binders or discussions about puberty for transgender youth is not about promotion but about providing accurate information for informed decision-making." Clearly he has not read the Cass review - the world's most comprehensive investigation into "gender-affirming care" for children - that found there was no proven benefit and too many unanswered questions for the safe use of puberty blockers. Nor does he seem to know about the 27 negative health effects of breast binding.

Accusing RGE of "craftily" ignoring neuroscience is another example of Ben's bias showing.

The neuroscience he speaks of has been roundly refuted by more recent MRI scanning that shows there are no clear or absolute structural differences between male and female brains, meaning it is absurd to pronounce that anyone can be born with a 'female' brain in a male body or vice versa.

It is fashionable for 'gender identity' to be celebrated everywhere but that doesn't make it true. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that we all have an internal gender identity, just as there is no scientific evidence that we have a religious soul. People (including Ben who uses they/him pronouns on his Linked-In profile) may choose to believe in gender identity but children should not be taught this concept at school as if it is an incontrovertible fact.

RGE categorically rejects transgender ideology which replaces the objective reality of biological sex with the subjective idea of ‘gender identity’ as the criteria for being a boy or a girl.

Gender identity ideology does not belong in schools because it is not true, it is not kind, and it is not wise.

Ben correctly concludes that the science behind RSE is often debated and a wide public conversation is needed. There is a strongly critical international movement which completely rejects gender ideology. Because it is such a contentious issue, for the safety and wellbeing of our children, especially those with gender distress, it is of utmost importance that they receive scientifically factual information in RSE lessons at school.

The new draft list of topics for RSE is due to be announced before the end of Term one (April 11). RGE hopes that it will both allay parents’ concerns and manage to hit the sweet spot of “a balanced curriculum that all educators are willing and able to teach".

PS Please share this information with your school principal.