Abstract
Harry Zeitlin
More concerns related to sex are once again being reported. However, on this occasion, the concerns relate to gender. Unfortunately, gender has a number of meanings including masculinity/femininity, sexual category and sexual role (and probably more). In this issue, Charles Lewis’s article discusses sexually related behaviour and current social attitudes and in particular to ‘equalising’ expectations to boys and girls, gender dysphoria and transgender within the school and other environments. It is worth exploring further some of the issues and confusions that may arise.
For clarity, gender dysphoria refers to those who express discomfort at living as and being seen as their genetic gender. We may start by noting that females have two similar chromosomes labelled XX and males have one X and a rather scrubby little one labelled Y. These determine the usual physical characteristics for females and males. Transgender refers to those who have taken some form of action in order to be perceived as being of the other sex.
Starting with gender dysphoria, it is as yet unclear as to why some children and young people feel they would prefer to be the other sex. There are several reasons that may and indeed can contribute differently in different young people; perhaps for some, there is an intrinsic physical factor, for others, early parental attitudes (you are my lovely boy, but I wish I’d had a girl) and for yet others, perhaps jealousy. Incidentally the overall rate of comorbid psychological problems, particularly anxiety and mood disorders, is higher in those with gender dysphoria than in the general population. There is research indicating that some of these people do better overall if they are enabled to live as the other sex whereas some, perhaps with help, seem to work through these feelings and then continue their lives according to their genetic sex. Unfortunately, transition to the other sex is, on the whole, better if it is commenced before puberty, but at that early stage, we do not have the means of knowing which option is best for each individual – namely, to remain in their genetic sex or to transgender to the opposite sex. More careful research is needed, particularly research that recognises that not all people with gender dysphoria are the same.
Transgender itself raises a variety of difficulties in our current state of knowledge. Should a person be allowed to legally be considered of the other sex solely if they say that is how they see their own identity or should they have to agree to complete treatment for physical change to a nominated extent first? If somebody who is transgender gets into a relationship, should the law demand that they inform their partner of their gender origins?
It may be that there are no rational answers to these and similar questions.
A different matter relates to whether males and females should be treated in exactly the same way so that at schools boys can wear skirts etc. This perhaps raises a different question about what equality for boys and girls actually means. Males and females are not physically the same nor are they psychologically the same. Demanding identical behaviour is probably removing equality. Ensuring the boys and girls have the same educational chances and career opportunities whilst making allowances for their differences is probably more appropriate.
However, what is probably most important is that these issues should not be considered as shameful, to be hidden and not talked about. It is to be hoped that articles of this nature will promote open and constructive discussion. In the meantime, perhaps it would be better if in schools we did not blur gender identity for young developing people.
Diana Brahams
The issue has hit the media recently. The media reports that at least one co-educational school has removed skirts from its school uniform list and now requires both girls and boys to wear trousers. This decision has not been universally popular. Is this ‘equality’ not just a practical attempt to avoid disputes? By contrast, as I write, the Times of 11 September 2017 reports that a Christian couple, Nigel and Sally Rowe, are threatening to sue their six-year-old son’s school in East Sussex because one of his classmates has been allowed to wear a dress on the days he turns up as a girl. They explain, Our concerns were raised when our son came back home from school saying he was confused as to why and how a boy was now a girl … We believe it is wrong to encourage very young children to embrace transgenderism. Boys are boys and girls are girls. Gender dysphoria is something we as Christians need to address with love and compassion, but in the sphere of a primary school environment.
The school’s response was that it had followed Church of England guidance and that transgender children were protected under the Equality Act 2010. But where is the evidence that this interpretation of equality is truly in each and every child’s long-term best interests or indeed the majority of children’s best interests? Whatever happened to trying to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number?
In yet another move to remove engrained stereotyping of clothing, John Lewis (a department store chain) has now declared it will remove any signage which describes whether clothing is for boys or girls. Does it also plan to remove all signage indicating whether clothes are for men and/or women? How inconvenient!