Querying the Queering of Scottish Schools.

It was announced with great fanfare on the 12th of August by the Scottish government and welcomed by the Scottish Education Secretary, Shirley Anne Sommerville, new guidance regarding transgender issues in schools. Sommerville stated on the Scottish government website: 

New guidance to help schools better support transgender children and young people has been published. The guidance contains real-life examples, best practice and advice on a wide range of issues that are known to affect transgender pupils including bullying, safety and privacy.[i]

In the actual guidance document entitled, “Supporting transgender pupils in schools: guidance for Scottish schools”, Sommerville wrote:

“The health and wellbeing of every child and young person must be at the heart of our decision making. I am confident that this guidance, combined with our forthcoming work on gender equality, will help schools deliver a learning environment where privacy, safety, dignity and respect is afforded to every pupil so they can each achieve their full potential.”[ii]

This new guidance was also welcomed by several organisations who contributed to its development. These were listed at the end of the guidance document and included: Association of Directors of Education Scotland, Children in Scotland, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), Education Scotland, Engender, LGBT Youth Scotland, National Parent Forum of Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland, Sportscotland, Stonewall Scotland and the Scottish Transgender Alliance. Indeed, on social media many of these organisations openly welcomed and celebrated this new guidance.

However, the guidance has caused much furore amongst many people and this was picked up by several newspapers in the UK, including The Telegraph and Daily Express. To give a flavour, The Daily Express reported:

“Children as young as four will be allowed to change their name and gender at school without their parents’ consent…..Scottish government guidance says transgender people “may come out at any age” and calls on teachers not to tell them it is “just a phase”.”[iii]

As one can imagine, this new guidance, which has arrived just before the start of the new Scottish school term, seems to have been created “out of sight, out of mind” without much consultation with actual parents. How many parents in Scotland knew about this consultation? Marion Calder, a campaigner of a group called “For Women Scotland” said the new guidance showed “a removal of parental rights”.

The actual document reads like a Kafka-esque scenario. It is opaque and vague on the issue of involving parents in issues that arise with their own children. Below is from page 35 of the document:

 “-If a young person wishes to ‘come out’ in a school setting, information may need to be shared. Teachers should consider who to tell and how; taking into account the young person’s view and legal requirements on this.

-A transgender young person may not have told their family about their gender identity. Inadvertent disclosure could cause needless stress for the young person or could put them at risk and breach legal requirements. Therefore, it is best to not share information with parents or carers without considering and respecting the young person’s views and rights.”

On page 56 the guidance document presents guidance from the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, Article 16) to bolster its policy of dealing with transgender children; this inclusion undoubtedly has added to the concerned voices over this new document:

“Article 16 ensures a child’s right to privacy. If a young person comes out as transgender there is no immediate need to inform their parents or others. See more on confidentiality and information sharing on page 35.”

Putting aside the polarised reactions to this new document (i.e., alarm at the school excluding parents from their children’s well-being versus the visible celebration of the guidance from many tax-payer funded organisations), I think it is fair to say that certain sentiments within the document are seriously misguided. As written on page 35 of the document:

“National Child protection guidelines require agencies and professionals, including teachers to follow particular procedures for confidentiality and information sharing. But, being transgender is not a child protection issue in itself. If there is a child protection issue, this should be specified and the school’s child protection guidelines followed.

Good practice

• It is important to respect a young person’s right to privacy.

• Being transgender is not a child protection issue or wellbeing concern in itself.”

The grey areas of disclosing to parents and/or carers if a child is sharing to the school desire/distress re transgender issues is one thing, but alarm bells begin to ring when the Scottish government does not consider the issue of transgenderism a “child protection issue or a wellbeing concern in itself”. This last point is seriously misguided and the Scottish government have ventured into fantasy land by ignoring the vast research and literature on the issue of transgenderism in children. Suffice to say, psychologically speaking, there are a plethora of issues to be concerned about if a child arrives at a point where they feel they need to change their name and/or feel they are in the wrong body. For the Scottish government to advocate otherwise is irresponsible. Often there is a great need for a psychological exploration as to why a child has arrived at the position of feeling they need to change their name (e.g., from a boy’s name to a girl’s name) and/or come to see their body (e.g., being a male or female) as being an issue of some kind. To think otherwise is ignorance. But it is here where the cracks in the Scottish government’s narrative around this issue are exposed; their adoration of the explicitly politically motivated queer theory which influences much of their educational policies, reveal itself in plain sight. I will write more about the idea of queer theory below. But first, and it is related to the Scottish government’s love of queer theory, there is an elephant in the room that has gone unnoticed amongst all mainstream and alternative commentators/commentary on both sides of the debate around the announcement of this new guidance.

The day after the Scottish government announced its new guidance, the 13th August, I downloaded the guidance document so as I could read it in full. I was shocked to find on page 64, on the list for additional resources for primary schools, the name of a book called “Beyond Magenta: transgender teens speak out”, by Susan Kulkin. In this book, one of the stories depicts a six-year-old boy engaged in sex acts with older men.

Below are two screenshots of page 64 from the downloaded document. One from on the 13th August 2021 (at exactly10:43 a.m.) with Beyond Magenta listed. The other screenshot is from approximately 7 hours later on Friday the 13th where the reference to “Beyond Magenta” had been mysteriously removed.

Before (with Beyond Magenta):

After (Beyond Magenta deleted):

To appreciate the seriousness of this inappropriate book, here is an excerpt from the book in question and why it is not appropriate for schools, never mind primary school aged children.

Here is a link to an article about the above material:


What is most incredible about this whole issue, is that the Scottish government and the education secretary Shirley Anne Sommerville approved this document (with the inclusion of the book Beyond Magenta) as did the other organisations listed above, including LGBT Youth Scotland and the National Parent Forum of Scotland. Not only that, on Thursday the 12th of August, many of the organisations listed above including Stonewall Scotland and the National Parent Forum of Scotland openly celebrated and “welcomed” the Scottish government’s new guidance document. The question is, did Shirley Anne Sommerville, Stonewall Scotland, and the National Parent Forum of Scotland actually read the document properly before publication, before they welcomed it and celebrated it? Or did they not read it? If they had read it, as it seems that they are indicating that they did, as they welcomed it, were they aware of the material being recommended within the document before the deletion of the listing of “Beyond Magenta”? Surely they would have objected to such material if they had actually read the document? The controversy around “Beyond Magenta” is well known, especially within LGBT organisations. However, if they had not read the document, it calls into question the legitimacy of these people, organisations and their endorsement of the document.

However, the plot thickens even more. LGBT Youth Scotland who contributed to this new Scottish government guidance still have the book “Beyond Magenta” on their website as a resource.[iv] LGBT Youth Scotland play a major role in Scottish education and have much input in relation to the curriculum (e.g., LGBT inclusive education) and related LGBT related consultations with the Scottish government.

This new transgender guidance and the furore that has erupted around it and the “Beyond Magenta” issue, is not the first time the Scottish government and education issues have been tainted with inappropriateness. As I have written elsewhere[v], there was the anger by the parents of primary one children of Glencoats primary school in Paisley, Glasgow after Mhairi Black MP and an adult drag queen called “Flojob” visited the school; the parents were not informed about the drag queen visit. John Swinney, the then education secretary had to apologise.  There was also issue of an “educational” pornographic polari video (code language used by gay men)[vi] that appeared on Jedburgh Grammar school website, the infamous Dunbar Grammar drag fest[vii] and the issue of pornographic sex-education material used in Scottish schools[viii]. All these issues, including the new transgender guidance come under what is called queer theory.

To remind the reader, queer theory and gender ideology and its application in schools can be summed up in an influential book published in 2009 called “Interrogating heteronormativity in primary schools: the work of the no outsiders project”, edited by Renée DePalma and Elizabeth Atkinson. The first clue is in the title of the book: “Interrogating heteronormativity in primary schools”. Yes, primary schools; schools with children in them, not adults. Bear this in mind.  A quick look at the objectives of the project, which was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council grant, takes us down the rabbit hole of queer theory. Its stated objectives were to understand the operation of “heteronormativity (heterosexual behaviour, lifestyle), its normalisation, and to develop means to challenge its normativity, in primary schools. It wanted to develop teaching practices within the classroom so it could carry these objectives out.

Another more sinister aim of the project was, as the authors lamented, to address the omission in primary schools of sexuality, pleasure, bodies and desire which ordinarily, within educational settings with children are omitted (quite rightly in my opinion) to protect children. The reasoning given to “correct” this omission was that it denies children engagement with vital information about sexualities, silences the sexual voice of children and erases their sexual agency.

These aims and concerns of the No Outsiders project are reiterated and re-emphasised with the authors’ objective of exploring how to make “safe spaces” in primary schools in which children can talk about sexualities; their parents’ sexualities, their parents’ friends’ sexualities and indeed the children’s’ own sexualities. Incredibly, it is argued that teachers also should discuss their own sexualities. The authors argue that by denying children and the teachers discussions about queer sexualities, it omits the inclusion of queer bodies, pleasures and desires, which if these queer sexualities were discussed, it would confound or confuse heterosexuality or heteronormativity.

An even darker aspect of No Outsiders lurks hidden in their manifesto for queering the classroom; the overt disdain for heteronormativity is revealed in discussions of a need for the rejection of heterosexuality and reproduction. The authors of “No Outsiders” argue that there is a need to challenge reproductive futurism (human reproduction of children and its heterosexual nature) and that queering the classroom and human reproduction are at odds with each other. Indeed, the rational for teaching children at all is questioned, as queer existences or lifestyles are antagonistic to a reproductive future; i.e., as in heteronormativity, where the future, child and family are valued.

In other words, the notion of the family, a biological Mum and Dad, heterosexuality, commitment to heterosexual monogamy, for one’s children and the future all need to be sacrificed on the altar of queer theory; the present, alternative sexualities (LGBT/Queer sexualities), alternative lifestyles (e.g., open relationships/polyamory), sex as only for pleasure or immediate gratification is the ideal of a queer utopia.

These ideas are perhaps appropriate for the realms of adult behaviour and lifestyle, but they are certainly not appropriate in a child’s classroom. The Scottish government has pushed this agenda. And who has pushed this agenda with them? A group called the TIE campaign (Time for inclusive education), LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland, and others as listed above. These groups, many of them tax-payer funded, seem to have the ear of Scottish Government and an inordinate amount of influence on its policies, and they also have untroubled access to Scottish schools, disseminating queer theory and gender ideology.

The driving force of queer theory from queer theory ideologues, in queering the primary school (including transgender ideology), is the pushing and transgressing of sexual boundaries. This includes transgressing the boundaries of age and sexualities (i.e., LGBT) and the boundary of the natural human body (i.e., transgender/alternative gender). Queer theory wants to target children to push and transgress ordinary boundaries of childhood and the child body, and to invite and stimulate children with sexual ideas (i.e., of themselves) and others (i.e., their teachers’ sexualities). In the good old days this might be called grooming, or sexual abuse.  But targeting children and their sexualities and attempting to deconstruct sexualities is nothing new. 

I think it would do us well to meditate on the words of the cultural-Marxist psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, who was for the destruction of the family and the deconstruction of the norms regarding sexual behaviour and practices, for purely political ends; a so-called liberated society, but whereby the sexual liberation becomes a form of political control:

“In contrast, a child whose motor activity is completely free, and whose natural sexuality has been liberated in sexual play, will oppose strictly authoritarian, ascetic influences. Political reaction can always compete with revolutionary education in the authoritarian, superficial influencing of children. But it can never do so in the realm of sexual education. No reactionary ideology or political orientation can ever accomplish for children what a social revolution can with respect to their sexual life. In terms of processions, marches, songs, banners, and uniforms, however, reaction undoubtedly has more to offer. We thus see the revolutionary structuring of the child must involve the freeing of his biological motility. This is indisputable.” (W. Reich, 1936, The Sexual Revolution)

It seems to be quite clear that to target children with “educational” programmes focussed on LGBT (with a heavy focus on the T) sex education (with a focus on blatantly pornographic content/ideas/ideology/queer theory) is an attempt at “freeing the sexual motility” of children, which will have damaging knock-on effects: a questioning and confusion regarding gender, sexuality and sexual behaviour, and an inappropriate exposure to sexual ideas before the relevant developmental milestones have been reached. The reality of biological sex and the importance of biological families (e.g., mum, dad) are all being undermined by current Scottish education policies, and are being defended by those who advocate drag-queen story time and queer theory in schools. It must be noted, this drive for queering the classroom and a queer utopia is not solely a Scottish issue. It comes straight out of the ideology of Agenda 2021/2030, the “Great Reset”, and the dystopian vision of living in a pod, alone, without a family, owning nothing and being happy; the globalist’s totalitarian dream.

In conclusion, serious questions need asked regarding the seeming endorsement (and subsequent mysterious deletion) of paedophilic materials included in the new guidance for transgenderism published by the Scottish Government. Furthermore, questions need asked about the organisations who contributed to this guidance, who welcomed it and celebrated it (with the inclusion of the book “Beyond Magenta), and there needs to be inquiries why tax-payer-funded organisations like LGBT Youth Scotland, who have an influence on the Scottish education system, still endorse a book like “Beyond Magenta”.  This is a child welfare issue, and it is the organisations and government who need to be scrutinised by an independent body before any new guidance is implemented in Scottish schools. 

[i] https://www.gov.scot/news/supporting-transgender-young-people/

[ii] file:///C:/Users/PC/Desktop/supporting-transgender-pupils-schools-guidance-scottish-schools.pdf

[iii] https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1476898/transgender-school-Scotland-pupils-pick-gender-age-four

[iv] https://www.lgbtyouth.org.uk/media/1344/supporting-transgender-young-people.pdf

[v] https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/drag-queen-story-time-tale-dark-defence

[vi] https://youtu.be/2dnxU7HnSLE

[vii] https://youtu.be/OcDnWvT4YEo

[viii] https://youtu.be/ujePAmm5uK4

3 thoughts on “Querying the Queering of Scottish Schools.

  1. You may find this of interest…see how far back the rot goes
    “In other words, public education was sold to parents as a labor-saving device, but then actually functioned to propagate what a later age called secular humanism. And the Owenites had boundless confidence in the power of public education to shape these abducted children into perfect little secular humanists because Locke and Condillac had persuaded them that the mind was “a mere tabla rasa, a blank sheet, with simply the capacity of receiving the characters which may be written on it.”
    “Our theory was, that the child is passive in the hands of the educator, and may be molded as clay in the hands of the potter.”

    Liked by 1 person


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s