BBC radio 4 invited Cleo Madeleine, a trans-identified man, to debate Stephanie Davies-Arai on guidance for schools on dealing with children who identify as “transgender”. Stephanie is the founder of Transgender Trend and Cleo is a former employee of Gender GP who now works for another transgender lobby group, Gendered Intelligence.

The programme is called Anti-Social.

Straight off the bat Madeleine claims that he was badly impacted by Section 28; which he claims banned discussion of homosexuality and gender identity.

Madeleine is in his thirties and Section 28 was repealed twenty years ago. This is the text of section 28. It is focused on homosexuality. It makes no reference to “gender identity” which was not a thing at a time. Moreover, despite identifying as “queer”, “Cleo” is in fact a heterosexual in a relationship with a woman and, as we shall discover in a later interview, he was only ever theoretically bisexual. The interviewer should have picked him up on this.

The interviewer interrupts Stephanie when she describes her own experience of being uncomfortable with her sex to challenge her that her gender dysphoria wasn’t persistent. He also interprets her statement about not closing off options for children, but providing them with support, as basically meaning “suck it up kids”. I also detect a not of disparagement when he questions Stephanie about a comparison to other identities adopted by teenagers, such as goths. I am aware that I am not an impartial listener so it would be interesting to hear if I am being hyper vigilant in respect of the presenter’s perceived bias.

There follows a good discussion about identity formation with a segment where Hannah Barnes discusses what research is available on the effects of social transition. She makes the interesting observation that one side thinks it’s a problem if children, who socially transition, progress to a medical pathway because the very act of affirming the child may be influencing the outcome. The opposite perspective sees this as proof positive that the child was really “trans”.

Cleo expresses his frustration, with both Barnes and Stephanie, that discussion of social transition always leads to discussion of medical pathways. Cleo points out that most of these children will not be legally able to access medical interventions. It is important to point out that in the NHS we are still prescribing puberty blockers to children as young as ten and we don’t know what reckless prescribing goes on in the private sector.

Stephanie also makes the point about the link between social transition and the medicalised pathway and contrasts it with the former standard protocol of watchful waiting. Cleo is again frustrated and points out that doing nothing is not a neutral act.

Here is what the CASS review had to say on the topic.

Next up Geoff Barton a teacher and general secretary of the association of schools and colleges. He also points out the kind of guidance they gave schools which seemed based on common sense. He did point out that some teachers felt it did not go far enough and favoured hiding the child’s identity from the parents. Most of his advice was pragmatic and sensible but I do have a worry about girls placing themselves at risk in a mixed sex changing room which he describes as “gender neutral”.

Toilets

Stephanie on mixes sex toilets and the impact on girls and their right to single sex facilities. Cleo finds this patronising.

Stephanie corrects Cleo in that there have been incidents where girls have been placed in harms way, in mixed sex facilities. Cleo argues that the children should be listened to and Stephanie explains that safeguarding is the responsibility of the Adults and children can be reluctant to speak out about a desire for single sex facilities, for fear of being labelled a “transphobic bigot”. Cleo again expresses a frustration with the reference to safeguarding, claiming gendered intelligence has fifteen years of safeguarding experience. I would say they have a track record of riding a coach and horses through the fundamental basics of child safeguarding.

We are in a dangerous place when raising safeguarding is being labelled a right wing conspiracy by members of the House of Lords. 👇. I give you Lord Cashman.

And this delicious rejoinder 👇

Response to Cashman

Now we here from Michael Moran on the legal context. He proffers a compromise that maintains single sex facilities whilst also providing gender neutral spaces for those students are uncomfortable in spaces that match their biological sex.

Cleo is not happy with this compromise:

I am always a bit frustrated that the discussion doesn’t focus on changing rooms because the issue of girls undressing, with fully intact males, exhibits the issues much more starkly. I suspect this is a deliberate editorial decision.

Parents

Next we move onto the role of parents. Of course the worst examples of parenting are used to argue that parents should be kept in the dark.

Parents who are a known safeguarding risk should, of course, already be referred to safeguarding leads. There cannot be a presumption that parents are excluded from the knowledge that their child is struggling with issues of gender identity. The same people who argue that there is an elevated risk of suicidal ideation, in this demographic, want to hide this information from the parents. Here Cleo asks Stephanie a loaded question. 👇

Clearly he wants to leave the impression that Stephanie wants to put children at risk. If parents are deemed a risk to their children protocols should already be in place to protect these children. Stephanie tries to make the point that affirmative protocols in schools risks invoking an unevidenced medical pathway that may in itself be a safeguarding risk. Parents as a general rule know their children best and should not be left out of the conversation on such a significant issue in the child’s life.

Pronouns

We then return for more legal advice from Michael Foran about the vexed issue of balancing the rights of pronoun people with people who have, legally protected, gender critical beliefs.

The presenter pushes back on Stephanie wanting clear laws on sex segregated toilets but questioning the role of the law in protecting the rights of teachers and fellow pupils from mandatory pronouns. He cuts Stephanie off when she attempts to links social transition in schools to placing children on a medical pathway. Because time is running out he must allow Cleo the final word. This gives Cleo the opportunity for an emotive plea which has little substance but manages to leave the impression that Stephanie does not want educators to focus on children’s well-being.

You can listen to the interview here if you have BBC.

Anti Social Trans and Schools

I will do a follow up on Cleo based on the other interviews he has given, and his podcast, it gives you the measure of the man.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack