A primary teacher who was sacked after refusing to call an eight-year-old transgender pupil by his name has taken her case to the High Court in a UK legal first. The woman has begun a judicial review against her local council after she was dismissed earlier this year.
The teacher was told at the start of the school year that she had a child in her class who wanted to change gender. But the teacher refused to call the pupil by his name, or refer to him with male pronouns, saying it 'went against her Christian beliefs'.
She was originally suspended and later dismissed on the ground of gross misconduct after arguing that the school's "transgender affirming" policies could harm children. She had claimed that it could damage the young student, known as Child X, to unquestioningly encourage the belief that he was "in the wrong body".
A permission hearing for judicial review took place at Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre. Richard O’Dair, representing the teacher, told the court his client had correctly raised safeguarding concerns about the pupil as a matter of teacher responsibility.
He said: "The claimant asserts she was acting in the best interest of Child X, so that is my first point. Safeguarding is an all staff responsibility and of course we know that what the claimant did in this case was to raise the matter with the school.
“Within the Employment Act, which encourages employees who have concerns to raise these concerns with initially their employers, those provisions are often referred to as the public interest disclosure provisions.
“It is in the public interest for the employee to raise concerns. It is fair to say that there is a dispute between parties as to whether the school had any relevant policy in this case.
"The claimant says they had a policy in acting in a way that is transition affirming.
"But in my submissions the key point here is that when the claimant raised her concerns, what the recipients were faced with is a body of clearly credible medical evidence which indicated that most pre-pubescent children recovered the equanimity through the process of puberty.
“Effectively at this point the claimant's argument addresses not only the approach of the school but its approach to Child X. When there is reasonable concern about harm to a child, the local authority must make enquiries to safeguard and promote child welfare.
“The local authority had received expert evidence and chose not to find more. There was evidence drawn to the local authority that Child X had very significant mental health problems
“The claimant referred to the fact in her witness statement that Child X reported drug abuse by the father and mother had been slapped by the father. And the claimant learnt that Child X was already thinking about taking puberty blockers which moved the transition a new level.
“So, we submit that given the medical evidence and what was known about Child X the local authority should have been making enquiries to ensure safeguarding of the child.”
Mr O’Dair went on to address Section 407 of the Education Act - the duty of a school to secure balanced treatment of political issues.
He added: “There is debate in the case law about what makes for political matters. What happened in this case was that the teaching staff went to a seminar where they were provided with resources of a kind and there had been no assessment for the impartiality of those sources.
“My submission is that the material which the teachers were supplied with was only an affirmation of transition. In the transition session, where lots of documents were provided, there was nothing to alert staff to the risk of transitioning, for example, under the pressure of a parent.
"And we say that was inappropriate because transgender issues are highly political. When teaching the children or teaching the teachers teaching the children the material has to be balanced.”
A decision on whether the case will proceed is expected to be made later by Honorable Mrs Justice Farbey. The teacher has also been reported to the Teaching Regulation Agency, and could be barred from teaching for life in future.
She said ahead of the case: “I was given a choice – go against your conscience and do what you believe would cause a vulnerable child long term damage, or face losing your career. I could not, based on scientific evidence, my Christian beliefs, and the heart-breaking stories of detransitioners, knowingly participate in harming a child.
“It is because I care so much about children that I am taking this action. This isn’t about me proving that I am right, but about the safety of a seriously distressed child.
“Teachers are being discouraged from questioning trans affirming policies when evidence shows that the actual result of the approach is to put the welfare of children at serious risk. More must be done to protect vulnerable children across the country from long-term mental, emotional and irreversible physical damage inflicted upon them by this dangerous ideology.
“Teachers are being coerced into teaching children lies. It’s not just dressing up or pretending; gender confused children believe their body does not match their identity. As they get older, they have to work harder at maintaining their appearance which leads to resorting to chest binders, puberty blockers and other physically damaging measures.
“I believe we are fearfully and wonderfully made. We should be encouraging children how amazing their bodies are not leading them down a path of irreversible damage. Seeing the impact on the child makes you cry. I miss the children; I didn’t get to say goodbye to my class.
"I had to be escorted through the school and now face losing the career that I love.”
Her case is being supported by Christian Legal Centre, the legal branch of the evangelical group Christian Concern. Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre. said: “This is another line in the sand. A brilliant, servant-hearted teacher had genuine concerns about the well-being of a child in her year group.
"The child was exhibiting distressing behaviour and the teacher wanted to do all she could to help the child. A kind teacher who acted in a kind way to raise concerns about a troubled child through the proper safeguarding procedures has been scapegoated and silenced.
“This has happened because her concerns expose the damage affirming trans ideology does to our young children in schools. Socially transitioning gender is no small thing for a child – it leads to much worse outcomes than waiting and seeing.
"Schools cannot simply take a child or their parents’ views at face value –they should always seek proper psychological assessment before allowing transition. This story exposes the confusion and untruths being embedded in primary schools which are developing into a public health crisis."
The case continues.
