Mick Hartley

From the Times:

Officials at a primary school warned the parents of a six-year-old that he would be deemed “transphobic” if he expressed confusion when a pupil he knew as a boy was wearing a dress.

Sally and Nigel Rowe have released a letter they received from a Church of England school on the Isle of Wight after they had raised concerns that their son was confused by the behaviour of another pupil.

The letter from the school’s head teacher and the chairwoman of the governors warned that pupils would be viewed as transphobic if they demonstrated an “inability to believe a transgender person is actually a ‘real’ female or male”.

Children would also be regarded as transphobic if they exhibited “feelings of discomfort and inability to trust or connect with someone based on their transgender status” as well as a refusal to use an “adopted name or using gender inappropriate pronouns”, the letter stated.

Only six, and already threatened that they have to conform to gender identity nonsense and pretend that boys are girls or girls are boys and not show any sign of confusion – or else. Lovely.

Speaking to The Times, Mr Rowe, 48, said “one of the main issues we struggled with in relation to the letter was that it said that if our six-year-old son did not recognise the other boy as a little girl or a little boy, then he would be deemed transphobic. And our son had to use the correct pronouns.

“I don’t think that a six-year-old has the cognisant ability to work that out, especially if the child is gender-fluid. And the letter also said that we as parents would be deemed to be transphobic if we didn’t accept that position.”

The Rowes are now authorised to teach both their children at home because their mother is a qualified primary school teacher. But the father said that the dispute with the school had created difficulties for them in the community.

“When you put your head above the parapet on an issue like this you are highly unpopular,” he said. “There was no way we could go back to the school. We weren’t welcome. And other schools here would have had problems with the fact that we were parents who had raised this issue.

“We felt it was a hostile environment. This is a very small community on the Isle of Wight.”

The parents said they previously had a good relationship with the school’s leaders and had been involved in school activities. “We did assemblies once a week,” said Mr Rowe, “and my wife ran Bible teaching sessions.”

The Rowes, who belong to the Maranatha Christian Fellowship, a non-conformist church, said that school officials remained civil but distant in light of the litigation.

However, she added that her family had received some hostile reactions. “We have had verbal abuse from some of the parents,” she said, adding that one member of the school’s staff shouted at her in front of the Rowe’s home, which is near the Needles: “Shame on you — you shouldn’t even be showing your face in Freshwater.”

Mrs Rowe added that two parents said as they walked past with their child: “Don’t talk to Sally, she’s done something really bad. And some just completely blank us. And one couple makes rude gestures to us if they drive past.”

She said: “We know that there are parents at the school who support us. But they have to whisper their support, that’s how scared they are of speaking out.”

And that's how it is.

Incudentally, I see that the Times has recently taken to turning off comments on any article dealing with trans matters. No comments allowed on this article, or on the "trans Vikings" story yesterday, or on Saturday's Raquel Rosario-Sanchez interview. What's going on? Generally Times commenters are worth reading and well-informed – unlike say comments at the Spectator or the Telegraph or even UnHerd, which are best avoided and full of blowhards sounding off. There's no cheap abuse at the Times – and anyway they can remove stuff they think crosses a line. Comments on trans issues are always critical, but by no means nasty or abusive. So why the ban? Have they been got at by Stonewall? It's worrying…