On the face of it, Sandra Adams, a Dublin-based mother of two, seems an unlikely campaigner to be on the front line of the culture wars.
“I supported the repeal referendum and marriage equality ... If anything, I’m more of a social democrat in terms of philosophy,” says Adams, who has previously worked as an arts producer and community worker.
Right now, one of her main concerns is campaigning for what she calls “fact-based, scientifically accurate” education and opposing the presentation of gender identity in schools as fact.
“People are entitled to believe whatever they wish. I don’t query that,” she says. “But if you go into a school and teach that ‘everyone has a gender identity’, that’s simply not true. We have to teach facts, not ideologies.
“Children don’t have a stable sense of identity and can be easily influenced and manipulated. So, it’s profoundly irresponsible to say you can change sex.”
Karen Sugrue, a mother from Limerick, holds very different views.
A teacher, psychotherapist and co-chair of Mammies for Trans, she insists gender identity “isn’t contested science” and there is no reason to fear it being raised in the classroom.
“The World Health Organisation understands that gender is not a binary, it’s a spectrum, as does the Irish Government and the Department of Health,” she says. “They are very clear on that, so we’re on very solid ground.”
She says we should teach children about diverse families and identities in an age-appropriate way, especially in light of attempts to make political capital on the back of so-called “wedge” issues.
“We saw it with Donald Trump. One of the first things he did was to make an issue of gender. Not guns or drugs. It was gender. In Ireland, there are lots of bad faith political actors who will stoke up controversy on this instead of housing, health or waiting lists, which they can’t solve,” says Sugrue.
The process of drafting a new curriculum at primary level – the biggest shake-up to teaching and learning for two decades – has attracted huge levels of interest and hundreds of submissions from parents, as well as lobby groups and other stakeholders.
On one side are both self-described liberal and conservative parents, campaign groups, religious organisations and others who argue that “radical gender ideology” is not appropriate for children and that young people with gender dysphoria need specialised and compassionate medical care, not what some term “woke indoctrination” at school.
On the other are parents – of trans children in some cases – groups of academics and nongovernmental organisations who say the new syllabus needs to recognise the diversity of LGBTQ+ identities and who insist that silencing conversations around identity will have detrimental effects on the lives of many vulnerable pupils.
[ Gender identity not included in draft primary school curriculumOpens in new window ]
The curriculum is being drafted against a backdrop of polarised online debate, viral videos with claims of highly sexualised or inappropriate curricular content, while the Enoch Burke saga – the second-level teacher opposed to what he terms “transgenderism” and who has violated court orders to stay away from his former school – continues with no sign of a resolution.
The body charged with developing the new primary syllabus is the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), a statutory body of the Department of Education.
Policymakers say it is timely that an updated curriculum is developed to “equip our children with essential knowledge, skills, concepts, attitudes, values and dispositions” to prepare them for life further into the 21st century.
Under the draft reforms which have been several years in the making, primary school pupils will spend more time learning foreign languages as well as Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) and a broader arts curriculum, including dance and creative media.
The “wellbeing” section of the draft curriculum is the most contentious. It includes an emphasis on relationships and sex education including new areas of learning such as consent and diversity in family structures.
There is, however, no reference to transgender or gender-identity issues.
(It does feature in the separate and recently updated social, personal and health education curriculum for older junior cycle students, typically aged 12-15).
Notwithstanding this, the NCCA noted that a “diversity of opinion was shared on gender identity and LGBTI+ terminology that do not feature in the draft wellbeing curriculum” at primary level during its consultations.
Many submissions, it says, were based on “misinformation or disinformation” on what is in the draft primary syllabus.
The curriculum is due to be finalised shortly and will be sent to Minister for Education Helen McEntee for approval in advance of its publication later this year.
Those opposed to teaching around gender identity, however, remain wary. Gender critical-campaigners point to teaching resources or tool kits aimed at primary students that teach gender identity as fact.
Adams, for example, cites the HSE booklet Busy Bodies for teaching children aged eight to 12 about puberty, which is distributed to schools.
“As well as a biological sex, we all have a gender identity,” the cartoon booklet states. “This is how we think of ourselves as a boy, a girl, neither or both.”
Adams says, whatever about curriculum reforms, teachers are being directed to “ideologically driven” tool kits for the classroom.
“We rightly trust our teachers. It’s an amazing profession – I’ve lots of teachers in my family – and they have such positive influence on children ... so this undermines the trust we need to have in our teachers.”
Other gender-critical campaigners point to an overarching primary curriculum framework document, which states that the syllabus will be “concerned with the best interest of every child, considering that they vary in their competence, language, family background, age, culture, ethnic status, religion, gender and sexual identity.”
They question if this reference to “gender and sexual identity” means the topic will, ultimately, find its way into the classroom. An NCCA source insists this is not the case.
On the other hand, groups such as BelongTo – which supports LGBTQ+ young people – say the reality is that young trans people are in primary schools in Ireland and have a right to a supportive spaces where it is safe to question their sexual orientation and gender identity.
“Ignoring their existence and silencing conversations around identity will have detrimental effects on the lives of these pupils,” it says.
It cites studies that show that LGBTQ+ young people face higher levels of suicide ideation and mental health risks.
“Rather than brushing this topic under the rug, we need to ensure that schools have the capacity and confidence to support all pupils in an age-appropriate manner, including those who are questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity,” it says. “All pupils deserve to feel safe and supported at school.”
Transgender Equality Network Ireland (Teni) also says there are trans children in Irish primary schools who want to feel as included as every other child, want their lived experiences to be shared with their peers and want to see themselves reflected in the curriculum just like other children do.
“Silencing and obscuring the experiences of trans children does not make those children disappear, it only brings a sense of shame and stigma to children already facing high levels of bullying and social isolation,” says Teni.
Gender identity is just one of the flashpoints around the curriculum.
Everything from critical race theory to Irish identity have come under the microscope since the social, personal and health education (SPHE) curriculum was updated at second level for junior cycle students.
Last year there was controversy when a publisher withdrew a schoolbook to accompany the revised syllabus that portrayed a “traditional” Irish family in a way that was described by critics as prejudiced and a crude caricature.
The book, Health and Wellbeing, gave two examples of representative Irish families. The first portrayed a family wearing Aran sweaters, with the children Irish dancing, eating potatoes, bacon and cabbage each day, and stated that they played no foreign sports, played Irish music, never travelled abroad and did not mix with other religions because they would be a “bad influence” on them.
This family was compared with a second family, which was multicultural and travelled abroad a lot because it was a good way to learn about other cultures and societies.
A spokesperson for the Educational Company of Ireland said the depictions were “designed to help students understand the importance of diversity in our lives” but it appreciated that its approach should have been different and “caused upset and anger, even though this was not our intention”.
In another development, a viral YouTube video with a teacher who claimed the updated SPHE course at junior cycle contained graphic and inappropriate sexual content for students has attracted almost 450,000 views. The content formed part of a Dublin City University training course for the new subject.
Tipperary teacher Mary Creedon said she was horrified by some of the material, which included a video of an illustrated woman figure demonstrating masturbation and an animated “sex map” of heterosexual and homosexual couples engaged in different sex acts.
DCU later said the video “completely misrepresented” the course and that any material shared was provided only to the teachers as adults in the context of their broader education on the programme.
These areas of teaching and learning are being updated largely on foot of a government-commissioned review of sex education in 2019, which found that the 20-year-old syllabus was out of date, too focused on biology and did not reflect the reality of young people’s lives.
Teenagers said they wanted a greater emphasis on issues such as consent, relationships, the effects of pornography on sexual expectations and LGBTQ+ matters.
The Government pledged to develop an age-appropriate curriculum across primary and second-level schools, including an inclusive programme on LGBTQ+ relationships.
The first step involved updating the junior cycle curriculum for social, personal and health education, followed by senior cycle last year.
For the NCCA, it has been a delicate balancing act of updating the curriculum and figuring out how relationships and sexuality education should be taught in schools.
“We know these topics are sensitive and there are very strong opinions on what should or should not be in there,” says one source involved in drafting the curriculum. “We’ve researched and consulted extensively, and anything we’ve done is founded in scientific fact.”
The NCCA works by drawing on national and international research, inviting consultation, holding focus groups, discussing changes with school communities and shaping proposals
The changes, say sources, are aimed at promoting dialogue and discussion about these issues in an age-appropriate way with an informed teacher.
Critics, however, claim the consultative processes are largely tokenistic and see only minimal changes in response to their concerns. This is rejected by NCCA sources, who point to examples of how draft and final blueprints have changed in response to consultation.
For some of those involved in policymaking, the disputes revive memories of similar battles in the 1980s and 1990s when sex education was first included in the curriculum, amid protests and pledges by some parents to withdraw children from classes.
“There were many of the same claims of ‘This isn’t age-appropriate’, ‘Not at this stage’ and ‘It’s not the job of schools to teach this’,” says one education source. “This [new curriculum] isn’t usurping the role of parents; they have a role and should be consulted about this.”
Ultimately, says another long-standing education observer, the fact that curriculum change is generating debate is healthy sign of a vigorous democracy.
“A curriculum reflects educational priorities which society, at a point in time, deems important for its young citizens,” says the source. “It embodies society’s broadly held view of what our children should learn into the 21st century. It’s only right that we have lively debates about this.”
Many schools say they have been quietly getting on with meeting the needs of small numbers of trans young people in conjunction with parents without controversy.
“It’s happening under the surface,” says one principal. “We work with parents. We do get emails and are forwarded messages from social media, questioning what we’re doing ... Our approach is to tread very carefully.”
Parents have the right to opt children out of any sex education classes, which is provided for under law, but teachers and policymakers are hopeful it will not come to this.
“All the research shows that children will talk to their parents about anything when they are young,” says one policymaker. “In their teens it’s more about their friends and the internet ... So, if schools don’t offer something that is solid and of substance, the internet and their friends are the only source of information.”
