Leaders and professionals must step up and tell the truth!

The fourth and final part of our interview with Dr Chrysostom focuses on the social influences on children and young adults. Not only are children and young adults being influenced by social media and the activists online, but our educational institutions are also essentially grooming children in false ideas which have no basis in reality or fact. Schools are, therefore, the start of a ‘systemic conveyor belt’ towards the creation of an individual who thinks that they might be better as the opposite sex.

The interview was carried out by Carolyn Brown, ScotPAG Convenor

Q: What do you think, in relative terms, has caused the huge increase in children thinking that they can change sex, and that they want to change sex?

A: In my view, the widespread acceptance of this ideology among impressionable adolescents and young adults has largely been driven by the medical profession’s misleading suggestion that it is possible to change a person’s sex and to surgically construct the genitalia of the opposite sex. Schools and social media promoting gender ideology have contributed by teaching the idea that an individual can be born in the wrong body and that it is possible to change sex. Social contagion between children is also a likely factor, especially teenage girls; several youth groups and other third sector groups have also contributed to increased numbers of children thinking that they are ‘trans’.

Under the guise of inclusivity and support, a growing number of educational institutions are adopting toolkits that teach children that they may have been "assigned the wrong sex at birth" and that their identity could lie anywhere on an ever-expanding gender spectrum. It is unfortunate that educational, care, and medical professional bodies have not called this whole area out, and it is equally unfortunate that many organisations have been resistant to robust research such as the Cass report. An example of the indoctrination going on in schools is the

Trans-Inclusion-Schools-Toolkit-Latest.pdf

Download PDF • 1.28MB

In the foreword of the trans tool-kit handbook, the following is stated:

“We recognize that trans children and young people are vulnerable to bullying, prejudice and poor mental health outcomes if they are not effectively supported.”

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.

Similar to Scotland’s RSHP, the 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. But they have made teaching about gender ideology and sexuality statutory. The quotes below are examples of what the schools are mandated to teach as part of this RSE curriculum:

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

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

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

The above statement sounds supportive, but in practice, many institutions will interpret this as a directive for affirmative-only approaches. More examples 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

• a third gender

  
  

The “Trans”-toolkit further teaches regarding so-called “transitioning” as follows:

“Finally, for the purposes of this overview, the term “gender identity” is used in this toolkit to refer to a person’s internal perception of themselves, which may not match their sex registered at birth. Not everyone regards themselves as having a distinct gender identity, some regarding the concept of “gender” as external and societally imposed rather than internal. But for others gender identity is central to the understanding of trans identity.”

This passage reinforces the false ideology that identity is an internal truth at odds with the body. It subtly justifies medical intervention as the corrective solution, and thereby drawing children closer to a path of irreversible medicalization. As does,

“Many people do not regard (internally experienced) gender as being binary but see it as existing on a spectrum and increasing numbers of people are identifying as somewhere along a continuum between man and woman, or as non-gendered (neither man nor woman). The concept of non-binarism is not new and has existed for many years across different cultures around the world.”

By presenting gender as a spectrum or continuum, the passage disrupts the child’s clear biological understanding of being male or female. For a young, impressionable mind, this can create unnecessary identity confusion where none previously existed, especially during the vulnerable stages of puberty. By emphasising that this view has existed “for many years across different cultures,” the passage gives historical and moral legitimacy to the idea of rejecting binary sex, but without acknowledging the risks of medicalising children and young adults in response. Historically there was never such medicalisation that happened with hormones or mutilating irreversible surgeries.

Under the heading “Transition” the tool-kit states:

“The steps a trans person may take to live in the gender with which they identify. Each person’s transition will involve different things. Transitioning might involve things such as telling friends and family, dressing differently and changing official documents. For some it may also involve medical intervention, such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries, but not all trans people want or are able to have this. A young trans and gender variant person cannot have surgery in the UK until they are an adult.

If there is strong reason for concern that informing a parent could have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of a pupil, schools should seek advice from the Education Safeguarding Officer who will support the school in their decision making and seek further advice if required.”

The passage frames medical intervention—including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery—as just one part of a broader menu of “steps” in a transition, making it sound routine, acceptable, and even expected. By stating, "for some, it may also involve medical intervention,” softens the reality of these interventions and fails to communicate the long-term, irreversible consequences or the lack of robust evidence for benefit, particularly in adolescents and young adults.

It mentions surgery in the same breath as, “telling friends and family,” or “dressing differently.” This dangerously equates lower-risk social changes with life-altering, high-risk medical procedures. This risks desensitising young people to the seriousness of surgical intervention.

By advising that schools may withhold information from parents if there’s concern about “detrimental impact,” the document encourages bypassing parental consent or knowledge. This not only disempowers families but can isolate the child from critical support networks, leaving them more susceptible to outside influence—including from clinics or activists with a vested interest in transition pathways.

I urge all parents to carefully review such items as schools ‘Transgender Guidance and Trans-Inclusion Schools Toolkits' before deciding whether to enrol their children in schools that follow this ideology.

This toolkit, while framed as educational guidance, forms the front end of a systemic “conveyor belt” that starts in the classroom and ends in the operating table. By affirming a child’s declared identity, promoting social transition, and framing hormones and surgeries as valid parts of “transition”, schools become unwitting recruiters into the gender medical industry. It is time to ask some hard questions. How did education become the starting point for lifelong medical dependence? These were healthy children in both body and mind. Their parents brought them to school, trusting the teachers. How many children must suffer before we find the courage to stop this conveyor belt?

---

Q: In your view, what next steps should society be taking?

A: I recommend the following steps:

• Pediatricians, general practitioners, and adolescent health professionals should STOP referring young patients to gender clinics or initiating any processes that could result in irreversible bodily changes or sterility

  
  

• The removal of healthy organs such as testicles, the penis, or breasts, when no underlying medical condition exists, should be explicitly prohibited by law

  
  

• Referrals regarding gender dysphoric-type issues should be directed toward psychotherapy rather than medical interventions. Any co-existing mental health conditions like autism, OCD etc should be managed as a mental health issue

  
  

• For patients experiencing suicidality, appropriate in-house psychiatric care and support should be made available and prioritised within the local health board. GPs may be informed for follow-up by the health board psychiatrist

  
  

• Endocrinologists should not be involved in the treatment of what is essentially a psychological and mental health issue

  
  

• Surgeons, in my opinion, have no role in addressing mental health conditions. These are children and adolescents with healthy bodies and should not be subjected to hormone treatments or surgeries that alter, tamper, or remove body parts

  
  

• Health Boards must not endorse or be involved in the provision of so-called ‘gender-affirming care.’

  
  

• Schools and social services, should stop promoting gender ideology with immediate effect. No child should be being taught that they are born in the wrong body or can change sex

---

We would like to extend our grateful thanks to Dr Chrysostom for sharing his important views with us!

Link to Part 1 - on the deceptive surgery of 'gender reassignment'

Link to Part 2 - on the harms caused by surgery

Link to Part 3 - on the ethics and the dereliction of duty of care