Relationships Education: LGBT Content

Adam Holloway Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. There are impassioned calls for the Government to remove LGBT content from the primary school curriculum and equally impassioned calls that children of 11 and under should be taught about LGBT relationships—the two petitions we are debating today. They reflect real anxiety over this hugely sensitive issue. Feelings run very high, and understandably so. Some worry about exposing young children to age-inappropriate material and foisting adult preoccupations on them, while others feel strongly that some children will not be able to make informed decisions about health, wellbeing and relationships without developing an understanding of LGBT issues at a fairly young age. I will make a few brief points on the issue, which chiefly relate to the teaching of transgender ideology.

My points are informed by a very unhappy experience in my constituency, where an academy trust developed a syllabus designed for primary school children promoting transgender ideology. The ideas at the heart of the teaching materials that were proposed and the manner in which the matter was handled caused massive upset among the parent body and a catastrophic breakdown in trust. We all have loads of WhatsApp groups, and the busiest WhatsApp group that I have is the group in my constituency, which the parents have entitled “protect our children”.

Thankfully, there has now been a resolution of sorts, with parents rightly being put back in control of what their primary-age children are taught, but the episode has impressed on me the need to remember that our understanding of transgender theory is by no means settled and that there is not a consensus of opinion.

[Dame Andrea Jenkyns]

As the mother of a primary-age schoolchild, I do not want him or other children, straight or gay, to learn about sex full stop. I also do not want young children in primary school to be taught about changing gender. I have no problem with whatever people want to do when they are older—life is short; be happy—but does my hon. Friend agree that we need to protect the innocence of children and their childhood, especially at primary school age?

[Adam Holloway]

Indeed, as well as respect parents. Because the long-term emotional consequences of transition are not properly understood, we should be careful about teaching contested concepts to young, impressionable children. We would not be doing right by the majority of parents if we failed to acknowledge that the idea that sex is assigned at birth is not a universally held view, but the complexities of explaining that to children aged 11 or under are pretty obvious. I also struggle to see how that issue could be taught honestly and objectively without explaining that there may be other reasons why a person feels uncomfortable about themselves or their body. Teaching that to primary-aged children is clearly hugely problematic. Instinctively, for those reasons, I feel that the complex issue of transgender ideology has no real place on the primary school curriculum.

It is, however, unrealistic to think that issues relating to gender will not crop up—of course they will. Some children will question their gender, and many will meet transgender adults. Where primary schools feel that such education does need to be included—which will not be everywhere—we need to support teachers in navigating the sensitivities, and to ensure that schools are safe places for everybody. Therefore, the Government need urgently to issue clear and prescriptive guidance on content, and as anticipated in the current review, take a firm grip on the materials that schools use.

I would prefer that what was taught reflected the fact that there is a divergence of views on the issue of transgender. However, at primary school level, what is taught about that need not go much further than emphasising that the choices people make should never be the subject of unkindness. The emphasis on parental engagement with the curriculum is welcome. Communication and trust between parents and schools is important, but while it is sensible to let parents see what their children will be taught before lessons are delivered, and while a parental opt-out may be useful, children are bound to discuss the topics among themselves. The focus must be on teachers getting it right and ensuring that the message primary-aged children receive is not confusing, age inappropriate or sexualised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I will come back to my speech—I do not want to spoil the flow of it, as it were. From what I have heard, the consensus here is that what we are teaching children should be transparent and age-appropriate. I believe it should also be grounded in truth. There have been remarks from lots of people here saying that the literature being shown to our children is not there and that there is no real evidence of it. Members are literally burying their heads in the sand on this issue. If they did not and they actually worked with myself and maybe the Department for Education and looked at all the evidence I have, maybe we would not have to go on social media and say, “Look what our kids are being taught. This is abhorrent,” and then somebody jumps on my page and so on and so forth. If all the adults in the room sat down with the Minister and said, “Look, this is what is happening”—I have examples in my folder, but we cannot show pictures in debates.

[Adam Holloway]

I will give an example. One primary school in my constituency was using a book that included a picture of a grandfather in a gimp suit.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my hon. Friend. There is so much evidence out there of bad actors in this field, and I will come on to them.

I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her earlier intervention. Would we be surprised if some—not all but some—children started to believe that two plus two equals five, especially when told by one of the main influences in their life, their teacher? We could put that together with many on social media also saying that two plus two equals five. Then, let us say, that people start wearing lanyards saying that two plus two equals five. Perhaps they do not really believe it, but they think it is a kind thing to do in order to make people who believe that two plus two equals five feel included. Then, let us say that the same people start putting two plus two equals five on their email footers for similar reasons. That thought gets compounded further when perhaps an irresponsible broadcaster through one of their main soaps has a storyline where an adult tells a 12-year-old that it is okay to think two plus two equals five. Then, let us say, that private businesses start putting posters up, again saying that two plus two equals five, and that there are flags flying down the high street saying two plus two equals five.

Then, let us say, some people start to stand up and say, “No, it doesn’t. Two plus two equals four. Let’s tell the truth.” Let us say that those individuals are called bigots and are silenced by venomous individuals on social media. If that scenario took place, would we be surprised that we would have thousands of young children believing that two plus two equals five? That is exactly where we have got to through teaching gender identity in our schools. Should our children be exposed to material that states they can be a boy or a girl depending on how they feel? No, they should not.

I agree 100% with the petitioners who want to remove such content from our schools. Children should not be subject, under any circumstances, to unscientific ideological material that leads to harm. I believe there is nothing more abhorrent then misleading the young, and it must stop.