Enoch Burke was originally suspended from his role as a secondary school teacher at Wilson’s Hospital School in Ireland for refusing to recognise a student as having changed their gender rather than their biological sex, and not submitting to an instruction to refer to that student by the pronouns “they/them” and using their new name.
The circumstances that followed this – High Court injunctions, incarceration, public protests, dismissal from his job and, most recently, being dragged by his arms from the High Court as well as having charges of trespassing at his place of employment being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions – have overtaken the initial issue at play.
While his objections to the instruction to refer to the student as “they/them” and their self-identified gender are focused on his religious convictions, there has been little discussion about whether or not Enoch Burke was in fact right to put his foot down – whether his refusal to call the child by his or her preferred pronouns was in fact in the child’s best interests.
We are talking about a teenager below the age of being allowed, by law, to change their gender through a simple process. There is no law that legally allows a person under the age of 18 to change their gender identification as an adult is allowed to do. There is no law in place that requires or compels a teacher, or any other person, to recognise a teenager’s preferred gender when it differs to their biological sex, despite an Irish government minister asserting that there in fact was legislation in place that required this.
What has not been discussed has been whether it is a good or a bad thing for an adult – parents, teachers and others – to affirm a child’s preferred gender when it differs from their biological sex.
Leaving aside the question of religious beliefs and freedom of speech which have dominated the debate around this story, we must ask: should the teacher, Mr Burke, for the good of the child, which is argued as being paramount, have been required to comply with the instruction of the school and request of the parents of the child, as well as the child itself?
The identity, and therefore the age and level of maturity of the child in question, has been rightly protected, however it is worth noting that the evolving maturity and ability to understand decisions that impact the child are an increasing consideration in determining best interests of the child.
However, under the law, it is clear that a gender change is only allowable at the age of 18. There are very practical reasons for that – including having clarity under the law, rather than a subjective assessment on a case-by-case basis that would be impossible to police, enforce or adjudicate on.
All that said, speaking of someone under the age of 18, there is no legal requirement for Mr Burke to alter his speech based merely on the request of the child or parents. Some argue that out of politeness and consideration for the child he ought to have done so. Some argue that to comply is to be compassionate – better to do so than create a scene – and that calling a child by his or her preferred pronouns is harmless. Others argue that it is in the child’s interest to affirm their preferred gender identity.
But is this the case? Is it benign to do this? Is it beneficial? Until very recently, the reaction would have been not to entertain or encourage the requests of the child in this regard, but in the last few years it has become almost a given that the child be affirmed in their preferred gender.
Irrespective of the absence of legislation, it has become increasingly commonplace, even the only response, to affirm the child’s request.
But there is a growing body of evidence that this approach is neither helpful nor beneficial to the child. A report from NHS England in October 2022 says that most children who think they are transgender are going through a “transient phase” and will grow out of it. It recommends a “watchful approach”, rather than rushing into medical treatment, and suggests that doctors should consider the possibility of autism and other mental health conditions.
Around the time Enoch Burke was being jailed, the NHS was recommending that adults follow Mr Burke’s approach of avoiding what is called the “social transition” of children and adolescents who have stated they wish to change their gender.
The interim Cass report from February 2022 highlighted that the benefits of affirming social transition are not obvious, they are not guaranteed and that affirming social transition is not a neutral act. Its long term implications at an individual and population level are simply not even close to being fully understood.
There are good reasons to be cautious. The assumption of those who support social transition is that every child is fully able to make these decisions, that they are 100 per cent able to understand themselves, their minds and their bodies and that their decision or request should not be questioned.
If you accept that position, then it makes sense. Of course, they should be affirmed.
But then there is the reality. Children and teenagers are not omnipotent. They are in a stage of confusion as they transition from childhood to adulthood. They are often insecure at a time in their lives when social pressures are felt most acutely and painfully, often when their peers are at their most cruel and unforgiving. Teenagers do many things they regret as they learn to navigate their lives, their bodies and their social sphere.
An adult’s responsibility is to enable them to do this safely. To protect them from bad decisions that may have long-standing and irreversible impacts.
Supporting gender affirmation and social transitioning is a case of the adults leaving the room. The Cass Report and the guidance from NHS England point in this direction. NHS England states that “in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence; and that for adolescents the provision of approaches for social transition should only be considered where the approach is necessary for the alleviation of, or prevention of, clinically significant distress or significant impairment in social functioning and the young person is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition.”
In most cases, the young people change their minds. They realise they were not who they thought they were. While it may seem like the “kind” thing to do to socially affirm the child’s preferred gender, when it is accepted that in the vast majority of cases, when provided with support rather than affirmation, the child reverts to their biological gender, then affirmation takes on a different context.
Consider the child who is “going through a phase” in the current social climate, where gender incongruence, confusion and transitioning are celebrated as a great thing. When they publicly announce and require their peers, teachers, parents and all others to acknowledge their gender change, often to great fanfare as they are hailed as “brave”, it can be difficult to then revoke that decision for fear of humiliation. They will be the boy who cried wolf. They will feel they let down all the people who went to bat for them. They become cornered by their special status.
Testimony exists from many children who have regretted their transition in this regard and who felt funnelled by an unquestioning system eager to affirm their social transition down a path of puberty blockers, hormone treatment and surgery. We all know about the case of Keira Bell who regretted her decision to transition and felt that she was too young to be able to decide to go down such a path. The path for many who end up choosing surgical transition, alongside regret, can be long-term physical and mental health problems.
In Ireland, just as there is limited rational discussion on many complex and controversial subjects, the conversation on gender identity reflects that on issues such as surrogacy. In every case, the government chooses the “progressive” path, the path of least “establishment” resistance.
While in Italy procuring surrogacy services, or “procreative tourism”, under a new law will result in two years in prison or a €1m fine, the Irish government pushes forward with legislating for exactly what most of Europe has banned on ethical grounds. The extent of discourse in the Irish government is to call anyone who disagrees with it a “bigot” who needs to “check her Christian values” as Senator Sharon Keoghan was so accused.
The discussion on gender identity reflects this narrow and largely uninformed “compassionate” approach. At the moment there is a seemingly irresistible wave on the issue as the government, teachers association, media and advocacy groups push forward with an unquestioning approach to gender identity. National curricula are being populated with gender theory while unsuspecting parents are kept out of the picture. The issue is presented as black and white with those on one side being portrayed as 100 per cent good, pure and compassionate, and those on the other as recalcitrant, retrograde, cruel and dogmatic.
But a proper understanding of the fact would indicate that the characterisations of each side should be inverted. Helen Joyce, author of bestselling Trans: Gender Identity and the New Battle for Women’s Rights is an Irish journalist who earlier highlighted the problems that affirmation can set in train, although her name is rarely mentioned in Ireland when commentary on these issues is sought.
She noted the near-ubiquitous approach taken by schools: “It is now common for schools to accept children’s announcements of new identities without question, and even to change children’s sex in school records without informing parents. I have heard from parents who discovered that pupils were told to use one name and set of pronouns for their child – except when the parents were around, when they should switch back to birth name and pronouns – and others who were told that if they continued to ‘misgender’ their child, social services would intervene.”
She cites examples where the majority of gender-questioning youth who were not put on a path of affirmation and puberty blockers desisted, while those set on a path found it impossible to get off. It is much more ideology that reality:
“The lack of decent research and misrepresentation of findings mean gender affirmation cannot even be described as a risky experiment on children, since ‘experiment’ implies someone, somewhere, is tracking outcomes and comparing them with other options. But what can be said with some certainty is that it is not so much a treatment for gender dysphoria as a means to ensure that cross-sex identification persists. That must be acknowledged when the costs and benefits are totted up.”
She also understands how easy it is for activists to manipulate figures. Whereas those who are funnelled down a path of hormone treatment and surgery become the story, those that desist (de-transition) are wiped from the statistics.
A new book by Hannah Barnes, Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children, sheds further light on the stories that have been lost behind the ideology. Just as others, including Joyce, attempt to highlight the complex reasons that children and young people may question their biological sex and feel they are in the wrong body, Barnes talks about the complex reasons that can lead to children seeing a gender change as a solution to negative feelings.
Reviewing her book, The Times summarises the complexities. “On the one hand, it feels incredible that such a disaster happened. How did an NHS service medicalise so many autistic and same-sex-attracted young people, unhappy teenage girls and children who simply felt uncomfortable with masculine or feminine templates, with so little knowledge of the causes of their distress or the effects of the medicine? And how did Carmichael, still the director of Gids, suffer no repercussions, whereas those who tried to blow the whistle say they were bullied out of their jobs? On the other hand, it is a miracle that the information is now out. For too long, too many people have turned a blind eye to problems arising from gender ideology, including healthcare for gender dysphoric children — because they have been focused on trying to be on the right side of history, they refused to look at the glaring wrongs.”
For Barnes herself, she sees that the challenge is about keeping all children safe. “But even among the clinicians working on the front line of this issue, there is no consensus about the best way to care for these kids. There needs to be debate about this, and it needs to come out of the clinic and into society, because this isn’t just about trans people — it’s bigger than that. It’s about children.”
The narrative in Ireland is that all stages on the continuum are just fine. We are a number of years behind the understanding that is evolving in the UK as children from Ireland continue to be sent to the UK for treatment by, potentially, well-meaning clinicians.
Yet we do not hear that gender-transformative surgery can have debilitating side-effects such as necrosis and death. We do not hear that puberty-blockers can have harmful effects even though the New York Times has even reported on them, nor that they fail to give young people time to figure themselves but rather place them on a path to cross-sex hormones.
You do not hear that puberty blockers have not been put through clinical trials for use in gender medicine nor that they are not licensed for this.
We are not told the problems associated with cross sex-hormones can create problems such as infertility and vaginal atrophy as well as more prosaic issues such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes.
Adults have a responsibility and duty of care to also protect children from themselves, from peer pressure – particularly online – especially when it comes to these very complex areas.
As Dr. David Bell, former staff governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation Trust, said about the UK, the same now ought to be true for Ireland.
“A child’s wishes must be taken seriously, but can be only one factor in reaching an overall decision about their best interests, in a highly charged and complex situation. Given the uncertainty surrounding diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria, the UK should, like Finland, Sweden and France, follow a more cautious path; we should end medication and medical transition for children and adolescents now.”
While Enoch Burke’s motivations may have stemmed from his religious convictions, the evidence shows that from the perspective of the child’s welfare and best interests, his actions are more effective than those that seek to demonise and ostracise him. In the long run, he may have started an important conversation that polite society was too meek to bring to the fore.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.