Category: LGBT

The Darlington Nurses and the Defence of Women’s Dignity

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

It began, as many moral crises do, with something small — a room, a rule, and a refusal to be silent. At Darlington Memorial Hospital in County Durham, a group of women working in one of Britain’s most trusted public institutions found that the ordinary expectation of modesty and safety could no longer be taken for granted. When a male colleague identifying as female began to use the women’s changing room — despite confirming that he was not taking hormones and was trying to conceive a child with his girlfriend — the women raised concerns. They did not call for punishment, only for privacy. But management’s response was to order them to undergo “re-education,” to expand their “mindset” and become more “inclusive.”¹

When twenty-six nurses signed a collective letter to human resources, they were removed from their own changing area and assigned to a converted office that opened directly onto a public corridor. The new space, they said, was degrading, exposed, and humiliating. One of the nurses, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, later described suffering panic attacks at the thought of changing in front of a biological male.² What began as a question of policy soon became a question of conscience.

The women sought help from the Christian Legal Centre, which began representing them in what is now an active employment tribunal case alleging harassment, indirect discrimination, and breach of workplace safety regulations.³ Their stand quickly drew public sympathy as ordinary people recognised in their plight something emblematic of a wider unease: the steady dismantling of boundaries once considered self-evident — between man and woman, truth and fiction, reality and ideology.

The nurses’ case inspired a petition launched by CitizenGO under the title Stand with Darlington Nurses for Safe Spaces for Women.⁴ The petition calls for government and NHS leaders to reaffirm women’s legal right to single-sex changing rooms and toilets, grounded in biological sex rather than subjective identity. By the end of 2024, nearly 50,000 people had signed, transforming what began as a local workplace dispute into a national cause.⁵ It stands now as a rallying point for those who refuse to see womanhood reduced to a feeling or belief.

On 28 October 2024, representatives of the nurses met with Health Secretary Wes Streeting in Whitehall to deliver the petition in person. Streeting, though a Labour minister, spoke with unexpected candour. “Sex is biological,” he said, “and single-sex spaces matter.”⁶ It was a rare moment in British politics — an acknowledgment that compassion cannot be divorced from truth. Yet it also highlighted the contradiction now at the heart of public policy: the attempt to uphold women’s rights while redefining what a woman is.

At issue is not mere etiquette but the law itself. Under the Equality Act 2010, “sex” and “gender reassignment” are both protected characteristics. NHS trusts have adopted internal policies allowing employees to use the facilities of their chosen gender identity, claiming to act in compliance with equality duties. Yet the same law allows for single-sex services and spaces “if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”⁷ Recent judgments — including rulings cited by the Supreme Court and the Scottish appeals process — have reaffirmed that the term “woman” in legislation refers to biological sex, not self-identification.⁸ The contradiction, therefore, lies not in the law but in its misapplication.

For the Darlington nurses, this is not an abstract legal puzzle but a daily moral trial. They have spoken of losing faith in their profession’s leadership, of being mocked as “bigots,” and of finding solace only in the solidarity of their colleagues and the prayers of strangers. Their testimony cuts through the euphemisms of officialdom: they are not asking for privilege, only for the restoration of common sense — that women should not be compelled to undress beside men, however they identify.

The Trust’s “Transitioning in the Workplace” policy, which first allowed the disputed access, remains under review.⁹ The Health and Safety Executive’s 1992 regulations require employers to provide separate facilities for men and women unless private single cubicles are available.¹⁰ Yet such statutory safeguards mean little when administrators, afraid of controversy, interpret every protest as prejudice. In this sense, the Darlington affair reveals more than one institution’s confusion; it exposes the moral cowardice of a nation that no longer believes it may distinguish between truth and error without apology.

The Christian understanding of the body as a revelation of divine order offers an antidote to such confusion. “Male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27) is not a social construct but a statement of ontology. From this truth flow the principles of modesty, privacy, and respect — not as concessions to fragility but as protections of human dignity. A society that denies these foundations cannot long defend the vulnerable, for it loses the very language of protection. When the nurses of Darlington refused to be silent, they acted not merely as employees defending workplace rights, but as witnesses to a deeper reality: that compassion divorced from truth becomes cruelty disguised as care.

To sign the petition in solidarity with these women is not an act of partisanship, but of conscience. It is a declaration that biological truth and moral integrity are not negotiable, that every woman deserves safety and dignity in her workplace, and that society must not sacrifice reality to ideology. The quiet courage of these nurses invites each of us to stand with them — for when truth is silenced in the hospital, it will soon be silenced everywhere.

In every age there are those who stand quietly against the prevailing wind, reminding the world that conscience still breathes beneath the bureaucracy. The Darlington nurses did not seek fame, yet their steadfastness has compelled both politicians and citizens to confront the consequences of ideological conformity. Whether their legal case succeeds or fails, their example has already begun to restore moral clarity. For in defending the meaning of womanhood, they have defended the very notion that truth can still be spoken without fear.

  1. Christian Concern, Safe Spaces for Women: Nurses Meet with Health Secretary, 2024.
  2. Christian Concern, Darlington Nurses Given “Dehumanising” Changing Room, 2024.
  3. Christian Legal Centre, Case File: Darlington Nurses, 2024.
  4. CitizenGO, Stand with Darlington Nurses for Safe Spaces for Women, accessed October 2025.
  5. Christian Concern, Safe Spaces for Women: Nurses Meet with Health Secretary, 2024.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Equality Act 2010, c. 15, Schedule 3, Part 7, s. 26.
  8. For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2022] CSIH 4; Re Sex Matters [2023] UKSC 33.
  9. The Times, “NHS Trust Policy Allowed Biological Men to Use Women’s Changing Room,” 2 Nov 2024.
  10. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/3004, Reg. 20.

Erased for Believing: What the Smith Judgment Means for Me

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

After signing a letter defending pastoral freedom, I was quietly excluded from civic roles in Brighton. No vote. No process. Just erasure. The High Court’s Smith judgment confirms what happened to me was wrong—and likely unlawful. Equality must not mean ideology..

How the misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty erased my voice—and why the courts now agree it was wrong.

As someone who has spent decades serving the common good in civic and interfaith life in Brighton and Hove, the recent Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police High Court judgment stirred something deeply personal in me. It affirmed a principle I’ve long held but which, until now, had no formal legal footing: public authorities have no right to exclude or marginalise individuals simply because of their legally protected beliefs.Subscribed

The ruling is a landmark for freedom of belief in Britain. Mr Justice Swift ruled that “public authorities must remain neutral as between competing political or moral positions”¹. This includes religious and philosophical convictions, even those that others might find uncomfortable. No public body has the right to punish a citizen for lawful, sincerely held beliefs.

This matters to me because in 2022, I was effectively excluded from civic representation in Brighton & Hove on precisely these grounds.

I had served as a long-standing community leader, having chaired both the Brighton and Hove Faith Council and Brighton and Hove Faith in Action (BHFA), a recognised partner in the city’s Third Sector Investment Programme (TSIP). In fact, I am the only individual to have chaired both organisations—roles to which I was elected by peers from across faith traditions, not political allies². I was also elected by the members of Community Works—the city’s umbrella network for voluntary and community sector organisations—to represent faith communities on their Representative Committee³.

The catalyst for my exclusion was my decision to sign, in late 2021, an open letter to the Government expressing concern about its proposed legislation on so-called “conversion therapy.” This term—ill-defined and ideologically loaded—was being used to describe a wide spectrum of activity, from coercive and abusive practices (which I wholeheartedly reject and condemn) to consensual pastoral conversations, prayer, or the teaching of biblical doctrine on sex and identity.

My concern, shared by many respected clergy and legal professionals, was that the proposed law could criminalise the freedom of individuals to seek help in living according to their faith and conscience⁴. The letter was co-signed by more than 2,500 clergy, rabbis, imams, and other religious leaders, representing a broad and diverse interfaith coalition united in their concern for freedom of belief and pastoral care⁵. I believed, and still do, that to forbid prayer, pastoral care, or spiritual counsel offered freely and without coercion would not only breach religious liberty but violate common sense and compassion. I signed the letter not as Chair of BHFA or the Faith Council, but as a Christian bishop acting in a personal and representative religious capacity.

Nonetheless, BHCC officers demanded meetings with BHFA trustees and expressed concern about my continued leadership. At those meetings, council officers not only criticised me personally but also made broader criticisms of mainstream religious doctrine—including the notion of sin. They cited the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as justification for their concerns, implying that the presence of someone holding my views might place BHFA in breach of equality expectations. On that basis, they suggested that the organisation’s eligibility for TSIP funding might be subject to review if I remained in post⁶.

My fellow trustees, anxious about funding and reputational damage, began to feel the pressure. Though there was no formal allegation, vote of no confidence, or challenge to my elected standing, I stepped down as BHFA Chair to avoid causing division—citing health and time commitments. But the truth is, this was a courteous act in the face of real coercion⁷.

What followed was more disconcerting. Though I had been re-elected by Community Works’ membership as Faith Representative, the organisation refused to ratify or publicise my appointment. I was delisted, emails went unanswered, and I was excluded from all activities—without explanation, consultation, or even a conversation. At a private meeting, their then-CEO disclosed that an LGBT-identified faith group had raised objections to my views, and that CW was informally reviewing my position. That process was never explained, nor was I ever given an opportunity to respond. My removal was silent and total—an erasure⁸.

This case also draws attention to a broader and increasingly well-documented problem: the misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by ideologically motivated activists embedded within public bodies. Originally designed to protect individuals from discrimination, the PSED is now often interpreted expansively and subjectively by equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) officers to suppress dissenting views—especially traditional religious or conservative beliefs. Critics have warned that the duty is being applied not with neutral procedural intent, but as a tool to enforce political conformity. This includes instances of compelled speech, censorship of alternative moral or philosophical positions, and the institutional marginalisation of those who dissent from prevailing ideologies concerning gender, sexuality, or race⁹. A Policy Exchange report specifically highlights how the PSED has been “instrumentalised” to sideline religious or conservative perspectives under the guise of inclusion¹⁰. It is a striking irony that a law meant to ensure equality is now being used to undermine pluralism and civic impartiality.

The Smith judgment has now made clear that public authorities and those acting on their behalf must not discriminate on the basis of lawfully protected beliefs. The High Court has affirmed that impartiality is not optional. In my case, BHCC acted improperly in pressuring BHFA trustees over my Christian views. Community Works, in turn, acted improperly in excluding me from the faith representative role to which I had been duly elected¹¹.

Unfortunately, the legal time limits to bring a formal claim under the Equality Act 2010 have now expired. Nevertheless, I have instructed legal counsel to write once again to Brighton & Hove City Council, Community Works, and BHFA requesting a public apology and formal acknowledgment of the wrongdoing I suffered. I do so not for personal vindication, but in the hope that future acts of exclusion and quiet discrimination may be prevented¹².

The Smith judgment has implications not only for local councils but for national government policy. The original consultation response to the proposed conversion therapy ban, like the behaviour of Brighton & Hove officials, seemed more responsive to activist pressure than to reasoned and representative religious voices¹³.

What happened in Brighton is not isolated. It reflects a broader trend in British public life: the narrowing of acceptable opinion under the guise of inclusion, and the ideological capture of civic institutions once committed to impartiality.

Faith representation, especially in a city like Brighton and Hove, should not mean conformity to a narrow ideological script. It should mean real diversity, robust dialogue, and equal dignity for people of all sincerely held beliefs.

The Smith ruling gives fresh hope that this may one day be true again.

It is now imperative that a proper and principled understanding of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) be restored and consistently applied across all institutions and public bodies. The PSED must not serve as a pretext for ideological enforcement, but as a genuine safeguard for fairness, impartiality, and lawful pluralism. Unless this corrective takes place, the Duty risks becoming an instrument of coercion rather than protection, accelerating the damaging and disruptive advance of harmful ideologies—particularly within schools, councils, and civic spaces—where genuine diversity of thought and belief ought to flourish.

Selsey Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  1. Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, [2025] EWHC 1782 (Admin), para. 95.
  2. “Concerning the Minister’s Consultation Response,” Selsey.org, 16 Sept 2023, https://selsey.org/2023/09/16/concerning-the-ministers-consultation-response/.
  3. Community Works coordinates the faith sector and manages Brighton and Hove’s Third Sector Investment Programme (TSIP).
  4. Ibid.
  5. The open letter was submitted to Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, then Minister for Women and Equalities, by the Christian Legal Centre and a coalition of religious leaders.
  6. Correspondence and trustee accounts confirm BHCC officials invoked the PSED during meetings with BHFA in early 2022.
  7. “Concerning the Minister’s Consultation Response,” section: Unlawful discrimination in civic society?
  8. Ibid., section: The erosion of civic neutrality.
  9. See e.g. Joanna Williams, How Woke Won (2022), and recent EDI audits critiqued in The Critic, March 2023.
  10. “Fair Equality or False Neutrality? The Misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty”, Policy Exchange, 2020.
  11. Smith, paras. 79–96; also Equal Treatment Bench Book (Judicial College), February 2021, on impartiality and freedom of belief.
  12. The limitation period under the Equality Act 2010 is three months less one day from the last act of discrimination, subject to discretion of the Tribunal.
  13. Selsey.org, ibid., final section reflecting on institutional neutrality and ideological capture.

Impartiality on Parade: High Court Judgment on Police at Pride Signals Warning for All Public Bodies

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

The High Court ruling in Smith v Northumbria Police found police participation in Pride unlawful due to ideological partiality. The judgment has wide implications, warning public bodies—like councils, schools, and NHS trusts—that sponsoring or endorsing Pride events aligned with gender ideology may breach duties of impartiality, misuse public funds, and violate the rights of those with protected beliefs under equality law. Public neutrality is not optional.

Smith v Northumbria Police sets precedent against ideological partisanship in public institutions—from forces to councils, schools, and services

In a defining moment for the principle of impartiality in British public life, the High Court has ruled that Northumbria Police acted unlawfully by participating in a Pride event in a manner that conveyed ideological alignment with gender identity politics. The ruling in Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) makes clear that public authorities have no legal entitlement to side with one set of beliefs over another in live political or philosophical debates¹.

While the case concerned a police force, its implications are far broader. It places public authorities—including councils, schools, libraries, NHS Trusts, and publicly funded cultural bodies—on clear notice: you may not lawfully take sides in live political or ideological disputes, even under the banner of “inclusion.”

Mr Justice Linden’s ruling emphasised that the Progress Pride flag is not ideologically neutral, especially given its strong association with trans activism and groups that explicitly exclude gender-critical individuals². Participating in or sponsoring Pride under that symbol, or in association with activist groups that explicitly exclude dissenting views, creates a reasonable perception of partiality. That perception alone is unlawful in many public contexts³.Subscribed

The Limits of the Equality Act and PSED
The case exposed the misapplication of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by police and other institutions. Northumbria Police had claimed that their support for Pride, and by extension gender ideology, was justified by the need to “advance equality of opportunity.” But the court firmly rejected that reasoning, stating that:

“The Defendant’s actions created the reasonable impression of partiality in a contested moral and political debate. The Equality Act does not override the police duty of neutrality.”⁴

The same logic applies to publicly funded schools who promote Pride Month without balance, councils that fly ideological flags from civic buildings, and leisure centres, libraries, or hospitals that host activist stalls without acknowledging protected beliefs on the other side.

Participation in politically or ideologically aligned events—such as Pride, where gender identity ideology is now deeply embedded—must be scrutinised. Not only must public authorities avoid taking sides; they must not even create the impression that they do⁵.

Schools, Councils, and Cultural Capture
Many public institutions have become complicit in this ideological overreach. Examples include:

  • Schools compelling student participation in Pride-themed assemblies or displays, while failing to acknowledge the protected status of gender-critical views under the Equality Act⁶.
  • Council-run gyms and swimming pools festooned with Progress flags during June, with no balancing representation of dissenting beliefs.
  • Libraries and museums co-hosting drag events, “ally training,” or exhibitions steeped in gender ideology, with no input from alternative perspectives.
  • Town halls sponsoring Pride floats while event organisers explicitly bar groups who express biologically grounded views of sex.

All such conduct is now in legal question. The Smith ruling confirms that the appearance of alignment with one side of the gender identity debate is enough to breach duties of fairness and impartiality, even if the underlying intent is framed as “inclusion.”⁷

This is particularly acute in light of recent cases affirming that gender-critical views are protected under UK equality law and the European Convention on Human Rights⁸. Public institutions who display Progress Pride symbols, or participate in events where such beliefs are rejected or excluded, are now vulnerable to legal challenge.

Public Funds, Political Activism
The ruling also intersects with long-standing restrictions on political activity by public bodies. For example, the Education Act 1996 requires schools to maintain political neutrality, especially when teaching controversial topics⁹. The Local Government Act 1986 prohibits councils from spending public funds on material that promotes a political view¹⁰.

The embrace of Pride—especially in its modern, gender-ideological form—may now be viewed not as neutral community engagement, but as partisan expression. Public funds spent on ideological branding, flag raising, or stall sponsorship may constitute misuse of public money.

Towards a Reset in Public Institutions
For years, Pride events have enjoyed automatic institutional support. But as the Smith judgment shows, this support can no longer be taken for granted when such events are clearly aligned with contested political agendas.

This ruling restores an essential constitutional principle: public authorities must serve all citizens impartially, regardless of creed, conscience, or belief.

They must not act as champions of ideologies, no matter how popular or progressive those ideologies claim to be.

What Now?
In light of the Smith judgment, public institutions must:

  • Reassess participation in Pride events, especially if official branding, uniformed staff, or sponsored materials are involved.
  • Cease use of the Progress Pride flag or similar symbols that imply endorsement of contested ideological positions.
  • Review all equality and diversity training to ensure it is ideologically neutral and includes protected belief perspectives.
  • Respect political neutrality in schools, ensuring pupils are exposed to all lawful perspectives on sex and gender.
  • Apply the Public Sector Equality Duty fairly, acknowledging the rights and dignity of all protected belief groups, not just the fashionable ones.

A Turning Point
This judgment may prove to be a watershed moment in resisting the ideological overreach of state-funded bodies. It affirms that the law is not a tool of cultural revolution but a shield for all citizens, especially those whose views have been maligned or suppressed.

For gender-critical women, for faithful Christians, for traditional moral thinkers, and for ordinary citizens concerned by institutional drift into activism, Smith v Northumbria Police offers a powerful affirmation:

Your beliefs are lawful. The state may not take sides. Impartiality is not optional.

Thanks for reading Selsey Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share

Footnotes

¹ Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin)
² Ibid., §§15–16
³ Ibid., §144
⁴ Ibid., §139
⁵ Ibid., §§63–66
⁶ Equality Act 2010, s.10; Forstater v CGD Europe [2021] UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ
⁷ Smith, §48
⁸ For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16
⁹ Education Act 1996, ss.406–407
¹⁰ Local Government Act 1986, s.2

Quiet Conformity: The New RSHE Mandates and the State’s Imposition of Gender Ideology

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

How England’s updated sex education guidance undermines parental rights, marginalises religious truth, and reshapes children’s identity through legal compulsion.

In July 2025, the Department for Education quietly issued a revised version of its Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) Statutory Guidance, replacing the 2019 framework that had shaped England’s approach to teaching children about relationships, sex, and wellbeing. While couched in cautious bureaucratic language, this updated guidance deepens the ideological commitments of its predecessor—particularly in relation to the affirmation of gender ideology in both primary and secondary education.Subscribed

The new statutory document reasserts the primacy of the Equality Act 2010, stating that schools “must ensure that they comply with the relevant provisions” of that Act, under which “sexual orientation and gender reassignment are amongst the protected characteristics”¹. As in the 2019 edition, gender reassignment is treated not merely as a category for legal non-discrimination, but as a legitimate and affirmed identity to be integrated into school life and curriculum. In practice, this compels schools to treat a child’s declaration of transgender identification as a protected personal reality, and any failure to do so could be classed as discriminatory.

The curriculum expectations are unequivocal. The guidance mandates that “all pupils [are] to have been taught LGBT content at a timely point as part of this area of the curriculum”². This is to be “fully integrated into their programmes of study… rather than delivered as a stand-alone unit or lesson”³. In other words, affirming LGBT content—including trans-identification—is no longer optional, even for schools with religious character.

This development is more than pedagogical; it is ideological. The 2025 guidance instructs schools to “avoid language which might normalise harmful behaviour among young people—for example gendered language which might normalise male violence or stigmatise boys”⁴. Though framed as safeguarding advice, such language mirrors the ideological presuppositions of radical gender theory: that traditional sex distinctions are not only outdated but potentially harmful, and that gender itself is a social construct detached from biological reality.

While the document nominally allows schools with a religious character to “teach the distinctive faith perspective on relationships,” it immediately qualifies this by insisting that “teaching should reflect the law (including the Equality Act 2010) as it applies to relationships”⁵. Thus, a Catholic school may still teach the Church’s anthropology—that man is created male and female, that sex and gender are not severable—but it may not do so in a way that would undermine or fail to affirm transgender identification, lest it fall afoul of equality legislation. The Church’s witness is thereby marginalised, tolerated only within limits set by the State.

This has profound implications for parental rights and religious liberty. While the guidance upholds the right of parents to request withdrawal from sex education, it reaffirms that there is “no right to withdraw their pupils from relationships and health education”⁶—subjects that now regularly include ideological content on gender identity, relationships, and sexuality. Nor may parents prevent children from being taught about transgenderism in integrated contexts under the banner of inclusion or safeguarding. From three terms before their sixteenth birthday, the child may override even a parent’s request to withdraw from sex education⁷.

The erosion of natural and moral categories does not stop at curriculum content. The RSHE guidance, though not primarily focused on facilities, indirectly affirms policies that challenge the integrity of single-sex spaces. By insisting that schools create environments that are “inclusive of all pupils” and that they avoid any action that “discriminates against protected characteristics”—including gender reassignment—it places institutional pressure on schools to accommodate self-declared gender identity in areas such as toilets and changing rooms. However, what the guidance omits is just as telling: it does not affirm, clarify, or remind schools of their existing legal right to maintain single-sex facilities under Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010, which permits such provision where it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”⁸

In fact, schools are still legally entitled to provide toilets, showers, and changing spaces separated by biological sex, especially in consideration of safeguarding, dignity, and privacy. Yet by failing to state this explicitly, the Department leaves headteachers and governors exposed to activist pressure and confusion—inviting the assumption that to limit access to facilities based on sex, rather than gender identity, would be discriminatory. In reality, it remains lawful for schools to provide single-sex spaces and to make case-by-case decisions about access, particularly where safeguarding or the rights of other pupils are concerned⁹.

In this way, the State places itself not only as the provider of education, but as the final arbiter of human identity. It is not simply transmitting knowledge, but shaping the self-understanding of the child—defining what it means to be a person, a man, a woman, a moral actor. As Catholics, we must reject such an overreach. It is not the role of the State to dictate the content of the human soul, nor to impose a pseudo-anthropology that severs body from identity, nature from vocation, and freedom from truth.

The Church teaches with clarity and compassion that our identity is not self-constructed, but divinely given. “Male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). This foundational truth about human nature is not a matter of bigotry or fear, but of love—of fidelity to the God who made us, and to the flourishing He desires for each person.

It is not enough for Catholic educators to quietly comply, nor for parents to outsource their children’s moral formation to an ideologically compromised system. We must act. Catholic schools must form the whole person in truth—not only in religious instruction, but across the curriculum. Parents must reclaim their rightful role as the first educators of their children. And the Church must equip its faithful to resist the slow imposition of untruth through policy dressed in pastoral concern.

Where the State demands silent assent, we must respond with faithful witness. Where the culture says affirm, we must have the courage to say no—not out of malice, but out of love for the child, for truth, and for the God who is Truth incarnate.

Thanks for reading Selsey Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share

  1. RSHE Statutory Guidance – July 2025, p. 36.
  2. Ibid., p. 36.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid., p. 5.
  5. Ibid., p. 37.
  6. Ibid., p. 6.
  7. Ibid., p. 6.
  8. Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, Part 7, Paragraph 27.
  9. Department for Education, Gender Questioning Children: Non-Statutory Guidance for Schools in England, December 2023.

Help Stop Harmful Puberty Blocker Clinical Trials

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

Endorsement of the CitizenGO Petition: Stand with Keira and James – Help Stop Harmful Puberty Blocker Clinical Trials

I feel compelled to speak on behalf of the most vulnerable among us—our children. In light of the UK government’s recent decision to ban puberty blockers for individuals under 18 due to “unacceptable safety risks,” it is deeply troubling that the NHS intends to proceed with a £10.7 million clinical trial on these very same drugs¹.

This trial, set to run until 2031 under the oversight of King’s College London, comes despite clear medical and ethical concerns raised by leading experts, including those involved in the Cass Review². These drugs, once heralded as a harmless pause on development, are now acknowledged to carry significant, irreversible risks—especially to cognitive and physical maturation³.

The Scientific and Medical Concerns
The use of puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria is not supported by robust, long-term scientific evidence. The Cass Review, an independent inquiry led by Dr. Hilary Cass, found that the available studies on puberty blockers were of “very low certainty” and that the risks outweighed the unproven benefits⁴. Among the most pressing concerns are:

  • Cognitive Development: Puberty is a critical period for brain maturation. Research suggests that halting this process may have detrimental effects on memory, executive function, and emotional regulation. A 2020 study found that children on puberty blockers showed decreased IQ scores, possibly due to the impact on brain plasticity⁵.
  • Bone Density Loss: Puberty is essential for bone mineralization. Studies have shown that children placed on puberty blockers experience significantly lower bone density than their peers, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and fractures later in life⁶.
  • Fertility and Sexual Function: The long-term consequences of halting natural puberty on fertility and sexual function are not well understood. However, evidence suggests that children who progress to cross-sex hormones after puberty blockers may face irreversible sterility⁷.
  • Psychological Outcomes: Proponents of puberty blockers argue that they reduce distress in gender-dysphoric youth, yet the evidence is inconclusive. In fact, studies have shown that many young people’s gender dysphoria resolves naturally if puberty is allowed to proceed. Blocking this process may reinforce distress rather than alleviate it⁸.

The UK government’s decision to ban these drugs was based on the assessment of the Commission on Human Medicines, which found that the safety profile of puberty blockers does not justify their continued use⁹. The notion that an NHS clinical trial will provide clarity is misleading—existing evidence already raises significant alarm, and ethical considerations make further experimentation on children unacceptable.

A Pastoral and Moral Duty
Keira Bell’s courageous testimony, alongside that of James Esses, has already demonstrated the tragic consequences of prematurely medicalizing gender dysphoria. Their voices, and those of countless others who have suffered under ideologically driven policies, must not go unheard. It is unconscionable to proceed with clinical trials that will place more young lives at risk in pursuit of an agenda that prioritizes political expediency over scientific caution¹⁰.

For several years, I have raised my voice against the dangers of medicalizing gender dysphoria, particularly among children. In 2021, alongside over 2,500 Christian ministers and pastoral workers, I signed an open letter to the Secretary of State warning against irreversible interventions such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries¹¹. That letter reaffirmed our Christian duty to guide young people toward accepting their natural, God-given bodies rather than leading them down a path of lifelong medical dependency and regret. This commitment to truth and pastoral care has remained a cornerstone of my ministry.

Advocacy for Supporting Families
In addition to these efforts, I have been actively involved in supporting families navigating the challenges posed by ideologically driven educational materials. As a co-founder of PSHEbrighton, I have worked to provide a platform for families to voice their concerns, seek advice, and collaborate in advocating for comprehensive and factually accurate Personal, Social, Health, and Economic (PSHE) education¹².

In 2024, legal experts, including Karon Monaghan KC, reviewed Brighton and Hove City Council’s Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit and raised concerns about its legal robustness. The review indicated that the toolkit might be in breach of equality laws and could potentially violate the rights of young people, thereby exposing public authorities to legal challenges¹³.

Despite these well-founded criticisms, the council proceeded without adequately addressing the issues raised. Such actions exemplify the dangers of allowing ideology to override the best interests of children and the rule of law.

A Call to Action
Therefore, I strongly endorse CitizenGO’s petition to halt these harmful trials and urge all people of goodwill—especially those entrusted with the safeguarding of children—to lend their support. By signing this petition, we send a clear message: children deserve protection, not experimentation. Let us stand together for the safety, dignity, and well-being of the young, resisting dangerous medical interventions that history may well judge as a grave moral failing.

May God grant us the wisdom and courage to uphold the truth.

✠Jerome Seleisi
Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Click the logo to sign the petition
  1. The Times, “Puberty blockers banned because of ‘unacceptable safety risks'” (2024).
  2. The Times, “NHS to launch £10.7 million trial of puberty blockers” (2024).
  3. Cass Review, Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (2024).
  4. Ibid.
  5. Biggs, Michael. “The Tavistock’s Experiment with Puberty Blockers,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (2020).
  6. Klink et al., “Bone Mass in Young Adulthood Following Puberty Suppression,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (2015).
  7. Hembree et al., “Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (2017).
  8. Singh et al., “A Follow-Up Study of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder,” Journal of Sexual Medicine (2021).
  9. The Times, “Commission on Human Medicines advises against puberty blockers” (2024).
  10. Bell v. Tavistock, UK High Court Judgment (2020).
  11. Ministers Consultation Response, “Letter to the Secretary of State Opposing Gender Ideology in Law” (2021).
  12. PSHEbrighton, Supporting Families through Honest and Evidence-Based Education (2024).
  13. The Guardian, “Schools Using Gender Toolkit Risk Being Sued, Say Legal Experts” (2024).

An Open Letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on Labour’s Proposed Trans-Inclusive Conversion Therapy Ban

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

On 19th October 2024, a coalition of concerned professionals, including Archbishop Jerome, Titular Archbishop of Selsey, and authored by gender-critical advocate James Esses, sent an open letter to the UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. The letter voices strong opposition to the Labour government’s proposed reintroduction of a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, citing fears that such legislation would have harmful unintended consequences, particularly for children experiencing gender dysphoria.

Core Concerns of the Letter

The letter warns that the proposed legislation, which seeks to ban practices aiming to “change or suppress someone’s gender identity,” risks criminalizing therapeutic approaches that explore the root causes of a child’s discomfort with their gender. The signatories highlight that under such a law, therapists could be prohibited from engaging in necessary, exploratory conversations that help children understand their feelings and consider all options, including remaining in their birth gender. The letter emphasizes that, contrary to the assumptions of proponents of the ban, the focus of therapy should not be predetermined but should allow for thoughtful exploration. The authors argue that this ban would force an “affirmation-only” approach, which could lead to irreversible medical interventions, like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, without proper psychological evaluation​.

Drawing on the findings of the Cass Review, which recommended that psychological therapy should be the primary treatment for children with gender dysphoria, the letter stresses that medical transitions carry significant risks, including irreversible physiological damage such as infertility, loss of bone density, and sexual dysfunction. Many of the children undergoing these transitions, the letter notes, later express regret. The signatories contend that by criminalizing therapists who wish to provide a more cautious, exploratory approach, the law would rob vulnerable children of the opportunity to come to terms with their own bodies​.

Archbishop Jerome’s Broader Advocacy

Archbishop Jerome, has been an outspoken advocate for safeguarding children in the face of what he sees as ideologically driven gender policies. As co-founder of PSHEbrighton (Personal, Social, Health, and Economic education in Brighton), ✠Jerome has been at the forefront of pushing for more transparency and balance in how schools handle sensitive issues like gender identity. PSHEbrighton seeks to ensure that schools prioritize child safeguarding by involving parents in discussions about their children’s education and mental health, and by advocating for more measured approaches to addressing gender dysphoria​ [✠SELEISI]​.

Through PSHEbrighton, Archbishop Jerome has emphasized the importance of allowing children to explore their feelings without rushing into medical decisions. This aligns with his position in the letter to Prime Minister Starmer, where he argues that therapy should not be restricted to gender affirmation alone but should involve a comprehensive examination of all contributing factors, including social and psychological influences. His advocacy reflects a deep commitment to child protection and the belief that current gender identity policies risk doing more harm than good​[✠SELEISI​].

A Diverse Coalition of Signatories

The letter to Sir Keir Starmer has attracted support from a wide array of professionals, including medical experts, legal professionals, academics, and child safeguarding advocates. Each sector brings its own unique concerns about the proposed legislation.

Medical Professionals

  • Dr. David Bell, a psychiatrist and whistleblower who exposed the practices at the Tavistock clinic, is one of the key signatories. He has consistently raised concerns about the medicalization of gender dysphoria in children and the lack of long-term data on the effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones​.
  • Dr. Marcus Evans, a former governor at the Tavistock clinic, resigned in protest over the clinic’s handling of gender dysphoria cases. He has argued that too many children are being fast-tracked into medical transitions without adequate psychological support​.

Legal Experts

  • Karon Monaghan QC, a prominent human rights barrister, warns that the vague wording of Labour’s proposed law could criminalize reasonable therapeutic practices that explore a child’s identity in a non-directive way. Monaghan points out that therapists may face legal challenges for simply pausing to explore alternative paths instead of affirming gender transition.
  • Dr. Anna Loutfi, another human rights barrister, echoes concerns about the chilling effect this legislation could have on the therapeutic profession, arguing that vague definitions around “conversion practices” could lead to widespread confusion and legal repercussions for therapists.

Academics and Child Safeguarding Experts

  • Professor Kathleen Stock, a gender-critical philosopher, has been a key voice in advocating for open dialogue about gender identity issues in schools and academia. She argues that the proposed legislation stifles open debate and forces educators to adhere to an ideological agenda without room for critical examination.
  • Stephanie Davies-Arai, founder of Transgender Trend, is a leading advocate for child safeguarding in the context of gender dysphoria. She has long warned that the medicalization of gender identity in children can lead to serious, irreversible harm. Davies-Arai calls for policies that prioritize mental health and psychological support over medical interventions​.

International Concerns and Potential Risks

Last month, a United Nations expert warned that a trans-inclusive bans on conversion therapy could backfire by putting girls and boys at risk of harm if governments rush their implementation [The Telegraph]. The letter draws attention to international examples, particularly in Victoria, Australia, where similar legislation has resulted in the criminalization of parents who oppose their child’s medical transition. The signatories argue that the UK risks following this dangerous path, where vague legal definitions could lead to parents being prosecuted for exercising caution. Moreover, the letter highlights that existing UK legislation already covers extreme forms of abuse, such as electric shock treatment and corrective rape, making the proposed ban unnecessary​.

Dr Jillian Spencer, former senior staff specialist in the Queensland Children’s Hospital’s (QCH) consultation liaison psychiatry team on her experience and the Affirmation Model…

Full speech available here

Conclusion

The open letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer represents a united front of professionals from various sectors calling for a reconsideration of Labour’s proposed trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy. The signatories, including Archbishop Jerome and James Esses, argue that the law, as currently drafted, could criminalize ethical therapeutic practices and harm vulnerable children by promoting an affirmation-only approach to gender dysphoria. They emphasize the need for a cautious, evidence-based approach that allows for psychological exploration and safeguards the rights of both children and their therapists.

Archbishop Jerome’s involvement, both in the letter and through his work with PSHEbrighton, reflects his ongoing commitment to child safeguarding and transparency in the education and healthcare sectors. The signatories collectively call for careful consideration of the risks posed by the proposed legislation, advocating for policies that protect children from irreversible medical interventions and support their mental well-being​ [✠SELEISI​].

Reported in: The Telegraph The Daily Mail Parliament News

Conversion_Practices_LetterDownload

Join 2,102 other subscribers

✠Jerome signs Public Inquiry request ref gender ideology infiltration

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

Together with other persons in public life, ✠Jerome has taken a bold step by signing a public letter addressed to the UK’s Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. This letter serves as a request for a Public Inquiry, a crucial and necessary investigation, into the impact and influence of gender identity ideology on public policies and institutions. It is worth noting that among the signatories, politicians, medical experts, academics, etc, ✠Jerome stands out as the sole cleric who has chosen to lend his voice to this important cause.

“Irrespective of one’s perspective, political, ideological or religious belief, the #CassReview has demonstrated that the welfare and approach to treating especially young people experiencing gender dysphoria or confusion about their gender identity is in a perilous state. A Public Enquiry is absolutely necessary for developing comprehensive safeguarding and best medical practice.”

✠Jerome, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

By signing this letter, ✠Jerome demonstrates his unwavering commitment to promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness within society. He recognizes the significance of thoroughly examining the effects of gender identity ideology, which has become a topic of increasing concern and debate in recent years. This ideology, with its various interpretations and implications, has the potential to shape and mold public policies and institutions in ways that may have far-reaching consequences for individuals and communities alike.

The call for a Public Inquiry is not made lightly. It is a call for a comprehensive and impartial investigation that seeks to shed light on the intricate relationship between gender identity ideology and public policies. Such an inquiry would delve into the ways in which this ideology has influenced decision-making processes, legislative frameworks, and the functioning of various institutions. By doing so, it aims to provide a deeper understanding of the potential impact on society as a whole.

✠Jerome’s decision to sign this letter is a testament to his dedication to the well-being and rights of all individuals. As a cleric, he recognizes the importance of upholding justice and equality, while also acknowledging the need to critically examine the ideologies that shape our society. By joining forces with other notable figures in public life, ✠Jerome is sending a powerful message to the UK’s Prime Minister, urging him to take action and initiate a Public Inquiry that will address the concerns raised by gender identity ideology.

This is not the first time ✠Jerome’s signature has appeared on a potentially controversial public letter about this subject. In November of 2021, he signed with 2’500 other Christian leaders a letter in response to the UK Government’s consultation on a Conversion Therapy Ban. This action resulted in him facing harassment and pressure to resign as the chair of trustees of Brighton & Hove Faith in Action, a multi-faith social action charity, from both Trans activists and local Council equality officers.

In early 2021, ✠Jerome, a dedicated member of the Local Authority’s Standing Committee on Religious Education (SACRE), played an integral role in providing comprehensive feedback on the revised fourth edition of the Brighton & Hove Trans Inclusion Toolkit for schools. Recognizing the importance of inclusivity and understanding the unique challenges faced by transgender individuals, ✠Jerome took the initiative to facilitate meetings between faith leaders, Anglican and Catholic Diocesan Education representatives, and Council officers. These meetings served as a platform for open and constructive discussions surrounding the implementation of the Relationships & Sex Education (RSE) curriculum in schools.

Driven by a deep commitment to ensuring the well-being and safety of students, ✠Jerome recognized the need for further action. In response, he has since co-founded PSHEbrighton, a collaborative effort involving affected families and concerned citizens. This initiative aims to address critical issues related to safeguarding and the application of the Trans Toolkit, as well as the delivery of the Personal, Social, Health, and Economic (PSHE) and Relationships & Sex Education (RSE) curriculum in Brighton & Hove schools, and beyond.

Through his continuing involvement in SACRE, membership of Academics for Academic Freedom and the Free Speech Union, as an associate of the Academy of Ideas, and his co-founding of PSHEbrighton, ✠Jerome has demonstrated his unwavering dedication to promoting inclusivity, fostering dialogue, and safeguarding the well-being of students. His efforts have not only contributed to the ongoing development of educational resources but have also created a platform for meaningful discussions and collaborations among various stakeholders. With his passion and commitment, ✠Jerome continues to make a positive impact on the educational landscape, ensuring that all students have access to a safe and inclusive learning environment.

✠Jerome’s signature on the public letter requesting a Public Inquiry into the influence of gender identity ideology on public policies and institutions is a significant act. It highlights his commitment to transparency, fairness, and the well-being of society as a whole. In his role as the sole cleric endorsing this letter, ✠Jerome’s voice carries significant weight. It serves as a powerful reminder of the need for open dialogue and careful examination of the ideologies shaping our society. Additionally, it highlights and examples the Church’s responsibility to actively engage with and address the public forum.

Join 2,102 other subscribers

The WPATH Files | ‘One of the Biggest Medical Scandals of the Century’

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

Supporters of gender-affirming care argue that it is rooted in scientific evidence. However, recently disclosed internal documents from WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) demonstrate that the field of transgender medicine lacks scientific and medical validation. WPATH is widely trusted by the American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Health Service, and numerous healthcare professionals worldwide, as it is regarded as the foremost international entity in the realm of “gender medicine.”

Andrew Doyle (GB News Free Speech Nation) and his guests, Michael Shellenberger, Mia Hughes (Journalist), Helen Joyce (SexMatters), Robin Moira White (a trans discrimination barrister), Genevieve Gluck (Reduxx), Dr Carrie Mendoza (Genspect USA/FAIR in Medicine), Dr Az Hakeem, Fiona McAnena (Fairplay for Women), Neal Hanvey MP, Ritchie Herron (Detransitioner) and Stella O’Malley (psychiatrist, Genspect) discuss the contents and implications of leaked documents from WPATH revealing the truth about the organisation and its approach.

YouTube player
Final_Wpath_Report_2Download

Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS
by Hannah Barnes (The Guardian)

The WPATH files exposed: confirmation of experimentation on vulnerable children

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

Michael Shellenberger, an esteemed investigative journalist renowned for his breakthrough coverage on crime, drug policy, and homelessness, has recently released a significant report titled ‘The WPATH Files’. Spanning an extensive 242 pages, this report is based on confidential files obtained from a whistleblower within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) organization, which claims to be the global expert in ‘trans healthcare’.

The information brought to light unveils a significant level of unethical conduct and medical negligence. Minors are undergoing procedures that are beyond their comprehension. Homeless individuals with schizophrenia are undergoing gender surgeries and receiving pharmaceutical interventions. Additionally, there are instances of extreme body modifications being performed without any valid medical rationale.

One of the most concerning aspects of the Files is the disclosure that the clinicians affiliated with WPATH possess knowledge about the cancer-causing properties of testosterone and engage in conversations regarding patients who seemingly succumbed – i.e. died – to hormone treatment.

They are also well aware of the regret experienced by young people who medically transition.

It is clear that the authors have invested significant time and effort into this report, and their dedication is evident in the quality of their work. The contributions made by Mia Hughes, psychotherapist and author Stella O’Malley (Genspect), and advisor to Genspect and Detrans help Dr. Carrie Mendoza (Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism) have undoubtedly made this report a valuable resource for readers.

“Advocates of gender-affirming care say it’s evidence-based.

But now, newly released internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical.

American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on WPATH. It is considered the leading global authority on gender medicine.

And yet WPATH’s internal files, which include written discussions and a video, reveal that its members know they are creating victims and not getting “informed consent.”

Victims include a 10-year-old girl, a 13-year-old developmentally delayed adolescent, and individuals suffering from schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses.

The injuries described in the WPATH Files include sterilization, loss of sexual function, liver tumors, and death.

WPATH members indicate repeatedly that they know that many children and their parents don’t understand the effects that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will have on their bodies. And yet, they continue to perform and advocate for gender medicine.

The WPATH Files prove that gender medicine is comprised of unregulated and pseudoscientific experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. It will go down as one of the worst medical scandals in history.“

Michael Shellenberger, X, 05/03/2024
Final_Wpath_Report_2Download

Address to Free Speech Union, Brighton

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

On Tuesday, September 26th, His Grace delivered a speech to the Brighton & Hove branch of the Free Speech Union, accompanied by the co-founders of PSHEbrighton, entitled “All protected characteristics are equal, but some protected characteristics are more equal than others” a paraphrase of a quote from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. The purpose of the speech was to introduce a support group for parents and allies who have concerns regarding the implementation of Personal, Social, Health, and Economic Education, as well as Relationships & Sex Education, in Brighton & Hove schools.

Drawing upon his extensive experience and profound understanding as a trustee of local charities, His Grace eloquently delineated the challenges associated with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). He shed light on the intricacies of its interpretation and implementation by officials at the Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC), particularly in relation to the directive of “advancing equality” as mandated by the PSED. This duty encompasses the protection of nine fundamental characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. In summary, those subject to the equality duty must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to:

  1. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.
  2. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
  3. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

However, the interpretation of the equality duty has been excessively broad, leading to its misapplication to the extent that BHCC officers perceive it as their responsibility to advocate for ideological concepts, rather than solely prevent and address instances of discrimination. In conjunction with the concept of intersectionality, this has led council officers to unilaterally assess and prioritize protected characteristics, sometimes favoring certain characteristics over others, which ultimately undermines the concept and the legal protections that are mandated by the Equality Act. As a result, the implementation of PSHE and RSE in local schools has been impacted, with BHCC officers including ideological concepts such as Critical Race Theory, Identity politics, and Transgenderism in their instructional guidance.

The lack of professionalism was particularly noticeable in the Trans Toolkit for schools, which was created by the All Sorts Youth Project, a local LGBT charity, and a BHCC employed consultant for PSHE/RSE implementation. This Toolkit was widely distributed with ideological claims but without proper professional citations and has since its first edition, been widely copied and employed by other local education authorities, winning acclaim from LGBT lobbyists like Stonewall. His Grace had the opportunity to provide feedback on the fourth edition of this Toolkit in 2020 (see Trans Toolkit feedback). He expressed his concerns, substantiating them with extensive footnotes from pedagogical academically peer-reviewed sources. These sources highlighted the discrepancies between the guidance provided in the Toolkit and the principles outlined in the Equality Act 2010 as well as the consensus among academic and medical professionals.

During his address, His Grace discussed the recent update to the Technical Guidance for Schools by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which now aligns with the Equality Act 2010. The revised guidance aims to eliminate any ambiguity and provides a clear definition of the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment, which safeguards individuals who have legally altered their gender identity. It has become evident that transgender activists have caused confusion by misrepresenting the application of protected characteristics to children. It is crucial to differentiate between ideology and the law, acknowledging that the Equality Act does not impose ideological rules. Terms such as gender identity, gender affirmation, and preferred pronouns do not fall under the purview of the Act. The well-being of children must always take precedence, and it is inappropriate to apply protected characteristics to children as if they were adults.

PSHEbrighton is currently providing professional assistance to parents in Brighton & Hove whose children have been affected by the current social phenomenon of transitioning and navigating the entrenched ideology within BHCC services. A parent anonymously addressed the meeting to share their case involving a pupil who is receiving support from both the school and social services, despite the objections raised by the parents to transition, including the prescription of puberty blockers and a fundraising campaign for a surgical intervention. This case unequivocally demonstrates the unwavering commitment of these professionals to their principles, regardless of the existing legal framework. Furthermore, recent inquiries made by PSHEbrighton members to the Council have uncovered the steadfast dedication of local politicians to these ideologies, as their responses contradict the growing awareness among professionals and wider society regarding the harmful impact of these ideologies on children.

The individuals expressed their genuine gratitude for the insightful knowledge shared by the presenters and were deeply troubled upon discovering the magnitude of the issue affecting the city. PSHEbrighton is actively striving to unite parents and allies, with the aim of tackling these concerns and advocating for the prioritization of “safeguarding first” as the primary principle in addressing the Trans phenomenon in educational institutions. His Grace remains optimistic that the group will provide not just moral and emotional backing, but also valuable guidance to those impacted.

For more information about PSHEbrighton, visit the website www.pshebrighton.uk