Gender Ideology and Journalism
Hopes are fading that Ireland's national public service broadcaster will cover the topic of gender ideology in Irish education
I was delighted yesterday when I saw a tweet by RTÉ’s education correspondent Emma O’Kelly stating: ‘For parents who want to understand what is in the new SPHE curriculum (and what isn’t) here’s a very clear article from an SPHE teacher’.
‘At last’, I thought to myself, ‘a journalist with RTÉ, our national public service broadcaster, is going to highlight the problem with gender ideology in our schools.’
I enthusiastically opened the link but slumped quickly into disappointment and low-level despair. It was yet another ideologically driven article full of misleading details. The article in question, Sex Education, by Eoghan Cleary, is published on The Journal.ie with the provocative subheading: ‘The new sex ed curriculum is being misrepresented by a small but loud group’.
I agree with many points in Cleary’s article - including that we should teach children what is necessary, age-appropriate and beneficial; that there should be a focus on facts; that no-one should threaten, abuse, or intimidate SPHE teachers. I also agree that it’s good to provide children with skills to be critical of material they come across online, and that SPHE, delivered well, requires the facilitation of diverse opinions about challenging topics.
Cleary wrote his article mainly in response to an information night he attended along with, he reports, around four hundred other people. The night was hosted by a group [unnamed] who were voicing concerns about changes to the SPHE curriculum. If Cleary is accurately recording the views of those present at that meeting, I too would have many issues with the points raised. However, I wasn’t in attendance so I will stick to the information given by Cleary about gender identity in the curriculum.
Cleary sets up a subheading titled ‘False Claim #1: The new curriculum has an obsessive focus on gender identity’. I can only assume that this claim was explicitly made at the information night in question and, if it was, then I agree that this is untrue. Cleary is referring to the recently updated Junior Cycle Social Personal and Health Education (SPHE) Curriculum.
The new Irish Junior Cycle SPHE curriculum is available online so people can see for themselves what is, and is not, included. The phrase ‘gender identity’, sure enough, is only mentioned six times. Hardly obsessive. The curriculum outline suggests that students should be able to understand the diverse ways gender identity is experienced and expressed. Definitions are provided. Nothing radical at all.
Cleary includes a link to an article he wrote in April of this year about the difference between gender and sex in which he states that there is ‘about 1.7% of the global population, (around the same number of people born with red hair) who have biological traits of both sexes’. Speaking of the importance of facts, the true prevalence of intersex conditions (meaning when observable sex is ambiguous or the sex-chromosomes don’t match biological characteristics) is about 0.018% (almost 100 times lower than Cleary’s figure).
Cleary provides a link to another article published by The Journal.ie about the new Draft Senior Cycle SPHE specification that is currently open for consultation. The Senior Cycle specification only mentions the phrase ‘gender identity’ twice and, the draft curriculum specification, at a quick glance, seems innocuous. It defines gender identity and refers to it as a component of sexuality. However, The Journal.ie article does not mention that the Senior Cycle curriculum specification states that SPHE teaching and learning in senior cycle should ‘affirm diversity’ and this involves ‘using inclusive and affirming language’.
The recommendation to use ‘affirming’ language signals an affirmative approach to gender identity. This is an approach that promotes social transition. The Cass Review Interim Report on the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock in London, states that social transition ‘may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning’ and ‘is not a neutral act’.
According to the UK organisation Transgender Trend, evidence from detransitioners and desisters suggests that ‘affirmation and social transition may cover up underlying mental health problems and encourage a child towards a medical ‘solution’ with lifelong consequences’. Transgender Trend also highlights the fact that the move towards gender affirmation in children is experimental and that long-term studies are lacking and much-needed.
Cleary, in his article, outlines False Claim #2: ‘The new curriculum will teach that a boy can become a girl and vice versa’. Again, I am assuming that this claim was explicitly made by speakers/attendees at the information night in question and, if it was, then yes, Cleary is correct in stating that this is untrue. He points out, again correctly, that ‘transitioning will not be taught on the new curriculum nor will any medical or surgical procedures and processes’. However, what is not pointed out is that gender ideology is sprinkled throughout the SPHE/RSE toolkit resources. Cleary is engaging in the logical fallacy of omission.
Although the SPHE/RSE toolkit resources are optional, it is likely that teachers will draw on them for developing classes and informing their approach. Cleary also doesn’t mention any of the SPHE books recently published by educational publishers that promote social transition and use ideological materials including the diagram of the ‘genderbread’ person. (I have previously written on my Substack about the SPHE book for first year secondary students published by Edco).
One of the most disappointing things about Emma O’Kelly’s endorsement of Cleary’s article is that O’Kelly turned off replies to her tweet after just a few responses. One person responded with a link to the Senior Cycle SPHE Resources but O’Kelly, bizarrely, hid this reply.
Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, A. James Gregor, points out that ideologues try to avoid and obstruct attempts to determine the truth or falsity of their claims. O’Kelly turning off replies and hiding responses that do not support her stance points to an ideological approach. Cleary’s omission of relevant details suggests the same.
The chances of our national public service broadcaster ever covering this topic with the integrity, thoroughness, and balance it deserves seem to be growing ever more distant - red sails in the sunset fading on the dimming and distant horizon.
Thank you for the article.
My understanding of what you have written is that the core issues are:
A) Social transition is being sanctioned by the state and that this will cause much harm.
B) Accurate definitions that everyone agrees with are a major problem leading to 1 side talking about 1.7% of people and others 0.0018%
C) Addition of problematic materials are included in optional materials so getting them off the hook.
In my opinion, getting the government/state to make a stand on social transitioning might be the most successful way to go. They will have to eventually support it (which I think they might) or to deny support of it, in which case is can be removed.
Getting the argument into a light is the way to get public support.
Thank you for standing up against SETU's new gender identity policy. You are brave and deserve all the support you get.