The Crown Prosecution Service has devised lesson plans for pupils aged 11-16 to teach them awareness of hate crimes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pupils. The CPS Schools Project is a free educational resource pack developed with the help of Gendered Intelligence, Stonewall and the Ministry of Justice and includes dramatised scenarios, a power point and a full teaching pack from which we have taken the quotes below. It includes extensive training in both recognising, and understanding sentencing guidelines for hate crimes, together with role-play scenarios where pupils can play the part of police arresting someone on hate crime charges.
Although we agree with the aim of raising awareness of homophobic bullying and its impact on targeted pupils, the issue is not so simple when it comes to defining ‘transgender hate crime.’ Accepting and respecting someone as gay or lesbian is not the same as accepting that a boy is a girl.
Being forced to accept and agree with another person’s personal identity when it contradicts biological reality has particularly serious implications for girls. Sex-segregated facilities are established as part of basic safeguarding policies, specifically to protect girls in situations where they are physically vulnerable. To suddenly say that a boy is female does not change the fact that he is male.
Trans activists will insist that there have been no recorded incidents of ‘transwomen’ assaulting women in public toilets or changing rooms. Of course that is not true, but the point is irrelevant anyway: this guidance gives any man or boy an easy means to access girls’ private spaces, based only on his own self-declared ‘gender identity’ which nobody is allowed to challenge.
Under the guise of protecting ‘LGBT’ pupils, the CPS schools project is in reality the thinly disguised promotion of a trans activist agenda; explicitly in regard to male rights to access female spaces, together with the enforcement of a blanket ‘affirmation only’ response to trans-identified young people. The obfuscating definition of ‘lesbian’ (quoted below) also implicitly supports the manipulation of young lesbians to accept males as sexual partners or be seen as ‘transphobic.’ This teaching resource takes that agenda into schools.
We have analysed the document to show exactly what messages girls will be getting from these lessons; use of bold is ours and our comments are in italics.
CPS Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Hate Crime Schools Project
Classroom activities and guidance for teachers
The document begins by advising teachers to first educate themselves by looking at Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and resources on The Classroom, which directs teachers to the GIRES teaching resource The Gender Question? as one of its ‘Science’ resources:
Teaching girls that they have ‘pink brains’ is the kind of sexist stereotyping traditionally used to hold back and deny rights to girls and women, placing girls as the naturally inferior sex. This sets the scene for what is to follow:
“The CPS regards homophobic and transphobic crimes as particularly serious because they undermine people’s right to feel safe about and be safe in their sexual orientation, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual, and in their gender identity, whether they are women or men and including trans men and women. Such crimes are based on prejudice, discrimination and hate and they do not have any place in an open and democratic society.”
Aligning ‘T’ with ‘LGB’ suggests to adolescent girls that their discomfort about a boy being in their toilet is not only ‘transphobic’ but ‘anti-LGBT rights.’
Girls also have a right to feel safe. But girls are taught that any objection to a male classmate in their toilets or changing-rooms can only be based on bigotry and hate; that they are bad people if they feel uncomfortable or threatened by males in their private spaces. This is victim-blaming. Only the male pupil’s feelings are important:
“There is no statutory definition of a homophobic or transphobic incident. However, when prosecuting such cases, and to help us to apply our policy on dealing with cases with a homophobic or transphobic element, we adopt the following definition: “Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim, or by any other person.”
So if naming a male as male is perceived by him to be transphobic, girls are guilty of a hate crime. He is the victim, not the girls who are made to feel uncomfortable. Girls must consider a boy’s feelings above their own valid need for privacy, comfort and safety.
Next, pupils are taught the standard trans activist redefinition of the word ‘lesbian’ in this glossary of terms:
“Sexual orientation: a combination of emotional, romantic, sexual or affectionate attraction to another person
Heterosexual: being attracted to people of the opposite sex
Bisexual: being attracted to people of both sexes
Homosexual: originally the term ‘homosexual’ was used by scientists and doctors to describe same sex attraction and behaviour as a sign of mental disorder and moral deficiency. To obtain distance from such medical labels, the terms gay and lesbian are now used.
Lesbian: a woman who is attracted to other women
Gay: a term that is used to describe a man who has an emotional and/or sexual orientation towards men.”
Only ‘heterosexual’ and ‘bisexual’ are given correct definitions. The term ‘homosexual’ itself here is written out, on spurious grounds. ‘Lesbian’ is not correctly defined as a woman who is same-sex attracted, but one who is attracted to ‘women,’ thus allowing the inclusion of self-identified ‘women’ who are male. This subtle difference in definitions is significant; it suggests nothing other than a manipulation of terms in order to justify the coercion of young lesbians to accept males with penises as sexual partners if those males identify as ‘lesbian women.’ Lesbians alone are not described as ‘sexually’ attracted to anyone, a definition which can only benefit males who wish to hide the fact that their interest in lesbians is sexual.
Gendered Intelligence clarify their reframing of sexual orientation as ‘gender’ orientation in this statement from their sexual health guide for young people:
Trans activists are pressuring young lesbians to have sex with the ‘women who enjoy getting blow jobs’ or be accused of ‘transphobia’. No such pressure is being applied to young gay men.
This is the explanation of ‘transgender’:
“Transgender/trans: is a term that identifies the spectrum of those who feel that their assigned sex at birth does not match or sit easily with their sense of self.
• It encompasses transsexual people, transgender people and cross dressers, or anyone who challenges gender norms
• It may be that a trans person feels more the “opposite” sex and so chooses to use medical intervention in order to align their body with their mind, their external appearance with their internal feelings
• Cross dressers may dress to express the more masculine or feminine side of themselves, or simply because they find those clothes more comfortable
Transphobia: Transphobia is the fear or dislike of someone who identifies as transgendered or transsexual
This glossary is based on glossaries published by Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence.”
Anyone who ‘challenges gender norms’ is transgender, so unless you’re a stereotype you need to question yourself. This is the idea which is misleading young people into thinking they are ‘trans’ – overwhelmingly, teenage girls.
“Opposite” is put in scare quotes as if ‘opposite sex’ is a contested idea. The meaning of ‘transgender’ is incoherent and so wide as to be meaningless. There is no mention of gender dysphoria; so to be ‘transgender’ requires no diagnosis other than someone’s self-declared personal feelings. This glossary essentially protects any boy who likes to wear women’s clothing for whatever reason, and allows him access to girls’ private spaces through his own uncontestable assertion that he ‘identifies’ as a woman based on his unfalsifiable ‘internal feelings.’ All protection for girls is taken away; they have no legal right to challenge this.
The definition of ‘gender identity’ conflates masculine and feminine with boy and girl. It suggests that feeling ‘feminine’ makes you a girl but nowhere is it explained how:
“Gender identity describes a person’s sense of self in terms of being masculine or feminine or a boy or a girl. Gender identity is not necessarily dictated by a person’s physiology.”
Students are then given information about why the CPS regards hate crimes as particularly serious, given examples of sentencing guidelines, and a list of reasons that anti-LGBT bullying is more serious than other forms of bullying. This would be absolutely terrifying for teenage girls who feel threatened by a male classmate in their toilets or changing rooms – or girls who just want to be in a girls-only group:
“Categories of anti-LGBT hate crime or LGBT hate incidents
• Ostracising and excluding from friendship groups for reasons of sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or perceived gender identity.
• Outing someone as gay or transgender”
This means that girls cannot exclude any boy who identifies as a girl from a friendship group, girls are no longer entitled to female-only spaces. Correctly identifying males as males is reclassified as ‘outing’ them, which is a hate crime.
Gay, lesbian and bi-sexual pupils get one case scenario each; transgender pupils get two and in both of these, it is girls who are shamed as the transphobic bullying bigots. In reality, trans people are most at risk from male violence. These case studies are deliberately misleading in their clear message that discrimination against trans people is the fault of girls. Girls are already socialised to be the caretakers of males and it is girls here who are given the responsibility as caretakers of trans equality. The first case scenario leads girls in through a representation of girls bullying one of their own (who cuts her hair short and returns to school as a ‘boy’) and the second takes them to the real heart of the matter: accepting males into their toilets.
Case Study 4: Transition
In this scenario, the ‘trans’ pupil is overweight, so there is an immediate familiar stereotype created of ‘nasty, bitchy girls picking on the fat, unpopular girl in the class.’ The only person who shows any discomfort about what is going on is a boy watching. Girls are so bitchy to other girls!
Obviously it is unkind to make fun of someone in this way, but when a girl here says “you’re not a ‘he’ you’re a ‘she'” she is being factually correct. This is not the simple scenario it’s made out to be. There has been a huge spike in teenage girls suddenly identifying as boys and given that there is a corresponding growth of a community of young women subsequently regretting their ‘transition,’ is it right to ask girls to collude in the reinforcement of an identity which may change, leaving these young women with irreversible physical and psychological effects? How responsible would these girls feel later on for their part in encouraging an adolescent girl to head towards the path of transition? If they were in possession of all the facts, would girls perhaps find other more thoughtful ways of accepting and supporting a classmate who identifies as ‘trans’?
Is it in the best interests of girls who may be lesbians, on the autistic spectrum, or suffering body-hatred and self-harming behaviours to be affirmed by everyone around them that they are really boys? Is this not just a way of absolving ourselves of the responsibility to look at what’s really going on with this unprecedented number of teenage girls suddenly identifying as boys?
This scenario makes teenage girls pawns in the activist campaign for ‘affirmation’ as the only allowed response to any trans-identified child or adolescent. By referring to the pupil as a ‘boy’ throughout, the teacher’s notes reinforce the idea that there is only one acceptable way to respond to a ‘trans’ classmate: follow the trans activists’ demands to “affirm the person’s preferred gender.”
“Ask the students what happened in the clip. Ask the students what they thought about the students’ attitude and behaviour to the boy coming back to school. Do they think that the students had any understanding of the boy’s situation? How do they think the boy felt?
• When transgender people begin to live as the gender with which they identify, rather than the one assigned at birth this is called transitioning. Part of the process is to live in the new gender socially, in education and at work.
• Explain to the class that not everyone who lives in the gender they identify with has hormone treatments or surgery. The most important thing to remember is to treat people the way they wish to be treated.”
This forces adolescents into a belief, or at least pretense of a belief, that a girl is really a boy (and, by extension, that your sex is just something someone randomly decides at your birth, and irrelevant to whether you are a boy or a girl). All ‘trans’ pupils must be treated the way they wish to be treated, although girls have no right to be treated in the way they wish if they want to be treated as the female sex with rights to sex-based protections. The teachers’ guide for the class discussion spells out what kind of person you are if you don’t believe this new ideology:
“She is ignorant, and asks, “So when did you decide you wanted to be a boy then?”
• Ask the class why Nathaniel answers “I didn’t decide it. I just am.” Make sure they all understand what that means.”
Presumably this means re-education into ‘innate gender identity’ ideology, a belief with no credible scientific basis. The class ‘discussion’ is followed by a writing exercise:
“Choose to be any person in the pictures, and write a thoughtful letter to Nathaniel about what happened, what you hope will happen in the future, and what your role will be in achieving it.”
And here’s the warning for girls who feel conflicted about these demands:
“• This may be a Section 4a Public Order offence as the people directing the comments are intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress.”
Case Study 5: Toilet choice
This is the most manipulative scenario; the one that all the previous shaming of girls leads up to. Having been immersed in LGBT case scenarios, class discussions, writing exercises and a thorough grounding in hate crime sentencing guidelines, girls are finally led, unknowingly, to the erosion of their sex-based rights and protections.
In this scenario, a ‘transwoman’ enters the Ladies. Two young women at the sinks whisper their discomfort between themselves: “What’s he doing in here? This is the Ladies,” ‘forcing’ the transwoman to try the Gents’ toilets next time. Here, the transwoman is confronted by two middle-aged bigoted male thugs.
The most physically threatening man bangs on the toilet door, yelling “what you doing in there? You freak!” No teenager, male or female, would want to align themselves with the views of these old past-it men who clearly represent ‘old-fashioned ignorance.’ Their physically threatening response and offensive language paints them clearly as pantomime baddies.
The most insidious suggestion in this case scenario though, is that it was the women‘s fault for not accepting a male into their toilet. It is women’s job to protect males from male violence, by rolling over and allowing males into their toilets. The message is clear: women are responsible for male violence. Teenage boys get off scot free by not being represented in either ‘transgender’ scenario and the reactions of girls and young women are aligned with the bigotry of old men.
In case pupils missed the message in the video, it is clarified in the following class discussion by this leading question:
“Can you say why the person went into the ladies’ toilets and not the mens’ toilets? How did the women behave towards her? How did that make her feel?”
It was the women’s fault.
The class discussion centres on the hurt feelings of the male transgender person; there is no acknowledgment of how the young women may have felt. Use of the language ‘girl,’ ‘she’ and ‘her’ to describe the transgender person in the teachers’ notes means that teenage girls will identify with how it would feel if they were confronted by such men themselves.
“Thinking about how the girl in the clip was treated, can the class understand why she might have felt hesitant about going into the toilets?”
And the final lesson:
” •Transgender people must be supported to use all the facilities appropriate for the gender with which they identify themselves.”
So boys must be able to use girls’ toilets and changing rooms on the basis of ‘identifying’ as girls and girls must accept it. To reinforce the seriousness of this new crime of girls objecting to the presence of males in their private spaces, girls are given this information:
“The students should find that the women and men can be charged with public order offences, in this case aggravated by hostility based on gender identity.”
But this is followed only by:
“They may consider that one man might be charged with the offence and the second charged with joint enterprise.”
It is almost as if coming straight out and saying explicitly that young women may be charged with an offense might actually start both the teachers and the girls thinking it through. What if it was an adult male exposing himself in a public changing room, would a teenage girl be charged with a hate crime for objecting? And why is the ‘toilet choice’ scenario the only one which is situated outside a school? This can only distract from the reality that adolescent girls are being told they must accept male classmates into their toilets if those males identify as female.
Looking at the Learning Outcomes, what teenage girl would dare to speak out about her discomfort ever again?
“Activity 1 Concepts to be enhanced: Legislation and consequences The exercise should bring out the potential criminal charges, including the concepts of ‘aggravated’, ‘motivated’, ‘witnesses’ and ‘joint enterprise’, and indicate possible consequences.
Activity 2 Concepts to be enhanced: Learning the range of anti-LGBT behaviours. Learning that consequences for perpetrators can become serious.”
These outcomes are followed, with no irony, by this instruction:
“Remind the class of the discussion about why people find it difficult to speak out.”
Girls are the pupils who face an epidemic of sexual harassment and abuse in UK schools today, but this teaching guide takes away their most basic safeguarding protections and disempowers girls further through the deception, psychological manipulation and gas-lighting techniques most typically used by abusers.
Harassment and assault of girls on the basis of their sex is not, of course, recognised as a ‘hate crime.’
*Updated on March 13 2017 to correct the mistake that the final scenario was set inside a school; it in fact took place in public toilets outside a school.