Gender identity and the plastic nature of self-definition
By Archbishop Cranmer:
One school in Brighton (Brighton College) has decided to allow its students to decide for themselves whether they wish to dress as a boy or as a girl, irrespective of their natural (dare one say ‘God-given’?) biological designation. Gender identity is fluid. From reception to sixth form, students will be able to choose between wearing a traditional blazer, tie and trousers or skirt and bolero jacket. The school said it was “reacting to a changing society which recognises that some children have gender dysphoria and do not wish to lose their emotional gender identities at school”.
Headteacher Richard Cairns explains: “The college’s approach is different from most other schools that have tended to give transgender children personal leeway with uniform. Brighton College has instead decided to abolish the notion of boys’ and girl’ schools altogether,” he said. “It ties in with my strong personal belief that youngsters should be respected for who they are. If some boys and girls are happier identifying with a different gender from that in which they were born, then my job is to make sure that we accommodate that. My only interest as headmaster is their welfare and happiness.”
Another school in Brighton (Blatchingham Mill) has sent out a survey to its student population, asking them how they define their gender. In addition to the binary option of ‘girl’ and ‘boy’, children may opt to self-identify as ‘male’ or ‘female’ (how does that differ from ‘girl’ or ‘boy’?), ‘non-binary’, ‘demi-boy’ and ‘gender fluid’, whatever these terms might mean to your average hormonally-confused 13-year-old.
Headteacher Ashley Harrold said: “We’re incredibly passionate about ensuring that every student feels safe and welcome at our school. When it comes to gender identity it is a real and valid concern for a number of students. For us, anything that prevents students feeling happy, from feeling confident in themselves and from feeling accepted by their peers is something we feel the curriculum should address.”
It is interesting that both headteachers prioritise children’s self-identity as the radical route to happiness, as though the natural world were designed so that the personal fulfilment of subjective feelings must be the optimal expression of good. What must their RE lessons inculcate? That God’s goodness is contingent on His capacity to ensure our good? That His beneficence is contiguous with our happiness?
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
