Mum vs Gender Ideology 🐘

Agenda 2030: The fine print they hope you won’t read. I read it.

[Mum vs Gender Ideology 🐘 @MumVsGenderID]

🧵In 2015, the UK, along with all 193 UN member states, adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, committing to its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This global pledge was formalised at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in September of... /1

[Mum vs Gender Ideology 🐘 @MumVsGenderID]

@JustAMomNamedMM Already did

[Bayswater Support @BayswaterSG]

Bayswater Support Group: Who are we and what do we do.

With thanks to Trust the Evidence for hosting this post and for their recent series on paediatric gender medicine.

https://t.co/zVUjogjBXb

[Bayswater Support @BayswaterSG]

We will be in the High Court on Friday for the hearing of the MHRA’s application to stay the proceedings for 8 weeks. We wish either to press ahead to a substantive hearing or for the MHRA to accept that the Pathways trial is no longer authorised and they need to re-take their decision. They are sitting on the fence. We hope that the hearing on Friday will bring clarity on the MHRA’s position.

[John James @JohnJamesNI]

Dr Cass admits the majority of boys who question their gender “grow up to be GAY MEN.”

So WHY are we drugging kids in a trial if we know this to be the case?!

As a gay man it makes me sick.

STOP THE TRIAL - this is gay conversion therapy sanctioned by the Govt!

#bbclaurak

[Read some Piaget please! @prof_curiosity1]

KCSIE 2026: A critique of the sections on "gender identity" from child development and safeguarding perspective

Executive Summary
KCSIE 2026 attempts to “safeguard” while still adopting the core gender identity premise: that children possess an inner gender that may diverge from sex. This is a contested claim in developmental science. By embedding identity language into statutory safeguarding guidance, the document institutionalises a framework that can itself shape children’s self understanding, reinforce distress as identity, and accelerate identity foreclosure. The draft correctly acknowledges that social transition is an active intervention with uncertain long-term outcomes, yet it continues to treat “gender questioning” as a stable category requiring administrative management rather than a developmental presentation requiring humility, time, and comprehensive psychosocial assessment.

Analysis
1. Where KCSIE treats gender identity as fact
KCSIE repeatedly frames the issue as a mismatch between an inner “gender identity” and sex, rather than as a developmental presentation. For example, it describes children “questioning the way they feel about being a boy or a girl” and frames puberty distress as the body changing in ways that “don’t match how they feel inside.” This language assumes an inner essence separable from sex, rather than acknowledging uncertainty about how children form self concepts.

2. The document contradicts itself
KCSIE correctly states that social transition is an “active intervention” with uncertain long term effects. But it simultaneously treats gender identity as a stable internal reality. These positions cannot both be true. If social transition can shape outcomes, then identity is at least partly constructed and reinforced, not simply “revealed.”

3. Cass is used selectively
KCSIE cites the Cass Review to warn that early social transition is associated with higher progression to a medical pathway. This is a significant admission. Yet the document does not draw the safeguarding conclusion: that social transition may function as a consolidating intervention, not a neutral accommodation.

4. The missing developmental context
KCSIE does not explain that children are developmentally suggestible and that identity is staged and socially transmitted. Major developmental frameworks (Piaget, Kohlberg, Vygotsky, Bandura, Erikson, Marcia) emphasise that children’s self understanding is shaped by cognitive maturation, modelling, reinforcement, and peer belonging. Schools are not neutral observers in this process.

5. The core safeguarding weakness
Even when KCSIE acknowledges comorbidity and uncertainty, it still categorises the child primarily as “gender questioning.” A safeguarding approach should treat this first as distress, confusion, anxiety, body discomfort, trauma, social pressure, or neurodevelopmental vulnerability, not as an identity category requiring institutional validation.

In short I would give this draft guidance a D-. It has started to grasp the transgender nettle (hence not a straight F) but still believes that "gender identity" in children is a thing rather than a contested adult ideology imposed on childhood. This would be fine in a gender studies course where self contradiction and obfuscation are par for the course; but this level of analysis is not fit for purpose for statutory guidance around safeguarding children.

[Jonathan Hinder MP @Jonathan_Hinder]

This woman is so brave.

Keira was put on puberty blockers at 16, then given testosterone, then had her healthy breasts removed.

She regrets it all. She was just a tomboy.

She needed support, not medicalisation.

Thank you @KBtheYoungOG for sharing your story.

#StopTheTrial

[marcus evans @marcuse99903226]

Parents of gender-confused children have been failed by mental health and medical services. Puberty is a healthy developmental process essential to sexual maturation treated as if it were a pathology, despite there never having been an evidence base for doing so.

Instead of supporting families to tolerate the turbulence of puberty and adolescent development, parents were placed under intense pressure from distressed children, online affirmation, activist cheerleaders, clinicians, and wider society to interpret developmental distress as evidence of a fixed condition requiring medical intervention.

What was offered was an implicit bargain: the promise of avoiding psychic pain, anxiety, and conflict in the short term, in exchange for profound and irreversible losses in mature adult sexual functioning. This trade-off was rarely named honestly and often denied altogether.

Parents were confronted with weak and contested evidence, confidently presented by the medical establishment, and made to feel that questioning thoughtless affirmation caused harm to their children rather than representing adult experience, duty of care, and appropriate parental caution.

The @Hilary_Cass report put a much-needed scientific lid back on what had become a reckless experiment conducted without an adequate evidence base or proper clinical governance, except for its recommendation of a puberty blocker trial. Many parents have told @SueEvansProtect and myself over the past seven years how important it has been to have their private doubts publicly and authoritatively validated. For the first time, they felt less alone.

I have said this many times and repeat it here: the puberty blocker trial risks taking the lid back off Pandora’s box. It allows countless children to believe they are the exception who must be given puberty blockers, and in doing so legitimises their search for drugs online by reinforcing the belief that some children are appropriate candidates for puberty blockers.

Crucially, the medical ambiguity created by the trial once again exposes parents to their children’s exhortations and accusations, where parental caution is recast as harm rather than recognised as a necessary duty of care.

Parents tell us repeatedly that this dynamic hands disproportionate power to the child’s argument, where any attempt to pause, think, or exercise caution is misrepresented as bigotry or harm rather than as necessary parental responsibility.

I do not believe the researchers promoting this trial in the name of “science” have fully grasped the psychological and social context they are operating in, nor what the trial symbolises to children, parents, schools, clinicians, and online communities.

Longer explanations of these concerns are set out in our two letters to @wesstreeting. We are still waiting for a reply.

@TheBMA @rcpsych @BPC_Official @thetimes @Telegraph @Transgendertrd @BayswaterSG @KemiBadenoch @WesselyS @JamesEsses @Jilliantweeting @CanSG_org @billypilgrim333

[James Esses @JamesEsses]

As we come to the end of 2025, it’s clear that trans ideology is on the ropes.

In 2026, we go for the knockout blow.

Happy New Year to each and every one of you fighting hard to protect children. We will get there.

(Oh, and @wesstreeting - see you in court).

[TransgenderTrend @Transgendertrd]

If you oppose the puberty blockers trial please come along to the protest today. We will be there at 1pm.

[Kellie-Jay Keen @ThePosieParker]

I’m not sending my children to fight against Russia. There’s something sinister about this entire warmongering conversation.

Ukraine was known to be far right, anti democratic and the human trafficking, including baby trafficking, capital of Europe.

We are an island.

[Prisha Mosley🦎 @PrishaMosley]

I used to think I would be trans forever, but it turns out I was just a victim of grooming and unethical doctors. No child is trans. ❤️

[Jill Foster @JournalistJill]

Thanks to the anonymous father who spoke to me about this shocking story…share token here. ⬇️

My son took gender-changing hormones behind my back, with the support of his boarding school https://t.co/2WM4jfe9yK

[Jill Foster @JournalistJill]

This week I took a deeper look at Gendered Intelligence, the trans activist group training everyone from Oxfam to the Royal Shakespeare Company…

The trans activists influencing British schools, sports and the NHS https://t.co/rNhIRtSw0W

[TransgenderTrend @Transgendertrd]

Front page of BBC News website.
This trial will face much greater scrutiny than the 2011 GIDS trial.
A majority of the public are opposed to giving puberty blockers to children.
This legal challenge must succeed.
#StopThePBTrial
https://t.co/UjlScCsI6z

[joseph chrysostom @josephchrysosto]

I am a medical doctor working for the NHS for the past 25 years. I have recently viewed the Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit issued by the Vale of Glamorgan Council. This toolkit is designed for use by staff and governors in primary, secondary, and special schools across the Vale of Glamorgan.
I am presenting my views on this document in four separate sections. These remarks are intended for the attention of the Secretary of State for Education, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, and the Welsh Government. Today I am posting the first section.
Under the guise of inclusivity and support, a growing number of educational institutions are adopting toolkits that teach children that their identity could lie anywhere on a gender spectrum. Within this toolkit, I encountered alarming teaching materials directed at teachers and governors, containing what I believe are significant falsehoods.

In the foreword of the trans tool-kit handbook, it states as follows:
Toolkit:
“We recognize that Trans children and young people are vulnerable to bullying, prejudice
and poor mental health outcomes if they are not effectively supported.”

My response:
Parents send their perfectly normal boys and girls to school expecting them to be taught core subjects such as English, Mathematics, History, Geography and Science. The schools have no authority to label children as “trans”. No human being is born “trans.” On what basis are schools deciding that certain children are now to be identified this way? When schools designate children as “trans,” what anatomical, physiological, or genetic evidence do they rely on? There is no scientific evidence. This practice represents a profound breach of trust by institutions that are meant to educate—not impose gender ideology on—young, impressionable students.
Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) and Curriculum for Wales is now a statutory requirement in the Curriculum for Wales framework and is mandatory for all learners from ages 3 – 16.
Most parents would like their children taught core subjects in schools and not RSE. In my opinion there is absolutely no need to teach this gender ideology pseudoscience in primary and/or secondary schools. But it appears that the Welsh government have made it statutory. Below are some of the subjects matter the schools were mandated to teach as part of this RSE curriculum.

Toolkit:
“There is more than one way to be a boy or a girl.”

My reply: Biologically, there is only one way to be a boy or a girl and that is to possess sex chromosomes XX or XY in all tissues of the body. The only exceptions are the very extremely rare sex chromosomal aberrations that happen in nature.

Toolkit:
“Identities are developing throughout childhood and adolescence and into adulthood, and some children and young people may explore and express their gender identities in different ways. This can start from a young age and may change over time.”

My reply: This paragraph introduces the idea that identity is fluid and open to change from a young age, which can plant confusion in an otherwise normal child with no prior concern. By presenting gender exploration as normal and expected, it subtly encourages children to question their own stable identity. This can lead them to internalize uncertainty and become vulnerable to external influence toward transition.

Toolkit:
“Children and young people should be able to explore their identities, be accepted and change their minds.”

My reply: This section of the Tool-Kit seems to encourage teachers to actively prompt children to question or reconsider their identity—even in cases where no concerns or confusion exist. Framing this as “exploration” may amount to undue influence on otherwise stable children, without parental knowledge or consent. The idea that schools might steer children toward identity changes without written parental involvement is deeply concerning.
The phrase “be accepted and change their minds” is particularly troubling. While acceptance is essential for all children, the suggestion that young people should be encouraged to change their minds about their identity introduces a dangerous ambiguity. It implies that identity is something to be re-evaluated, even altered, under external influence—potentially by educators or institutional programs. This raises serious ethical concerns, especially when applied to children who may not have expressed any confusion or distress about their identity in the first place.
The idea that schools should both "accept" and encourage change risks normalizing a model of intervention where stable identities are treated as provisional or in need of exploration. In effect, this could pressure children into questioning themselves unnecessarily, undermining their psychological development and sense of self. Even more concerning is that this kind of intervention may happen without parental awareness or informed consent. When taken together, the encouragement to “change their minds” is not neutral—it functions as an inducement, and it places ideologically driven experimentation above the wellbeing and autonomy of children.

Toolkit:
More from this tool-kit that is being taught to teachers and children are:
“What is cis-gender
What is non-binary
What does it mean by the following terms (Trans and gender variant):
transgender
gender queer
gender fluid
non-binary
both male and female (this may be at the same time or over time)
neither male nor female
a third gender
or who have a gender identity which we do not yet have words to describe.”

My reply: The biological reality is that humans are born male or female, a fact clearly defined by genetics and anatomy. Introducing children to terms like cis gender, trans gender, gender fluid, third gender, or identities “we do not yet have words to describe” risks creating unnecessary confusion during a critical stage of psychological and emotional development. Rather than teaching core subjects like science and maths to these children, this barrage of ideologically driven terminology can undermine their understanding of basic biological facts and contribute to identity instability.
I will post the section 2 very soon.

[Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch]

No child is born in the wrong body.

I cannot believe we are back to square one, with NHS England backing an experimental trial of puberty blockers on healthy, vulnerable children, ignoring the damage already done.

The No1 rule of medicine is "do no harm".

This is activist ideology masquerading as research. I'm urging MPs of all parties to sign this letter from me and Shadow Health Secretary @stuartandrew, calling for Wes Streeting to step in and stop this trial before more damage is done to children who are too young to understand what they are doing to themselves.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

MP signatures, so far, on our letter to the Health Secretary opposing vile puberty-blocking experiments on confused young children, urging an immediate halt to the trial.

I plan to send at 15.00.

If colleagues in Parliament wish to add their name, please let me know.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

I have just invited all MPs to sign this letter urgently calling on the Secretary of State for Health to immediately halt a new trial administering dangerous puberty-blocking drugs to young children.

We cannot allow experimental drugs to be given to confused young boys and girls. We cannot allow twisted ideologies to harm children.

This trial must be shut down - immediately.

If you agree, please ask your MP to sign and we will put as much pressure on in Parliament as possible.

Leave children alone.

[Genspect @genspect]

“We should stop talking to them about it, and start working with them on what’s really going on.”

In Beyond Gender, Mia Hughes (@_CryMiaRiver) asks Dr Paul McHugh whether today’s trans phenomenon resembles past identity conditions like multiple personalities.

His answer draws on decades at Johns Hopkins, and what happens when clinicians stop reinforcing the idea.

🎧 Watch now on YouTube. Link Below ⬇️

[Mum vs Gender Ideology 🐘 @MumVsGenderID]

@HelenWebberley stfu