Description
To place this publication tidily within a context, I would call it, a professional testimonial. It is one voice becoming a part of a very big and open debate. The publication, in essence, asks for two things, leading academics to enter one room and for them to debate everything out and get back to us, and for a safeguard re. educational communication and content to be installed with immediate effect. As a teacher, it was the job to raise The Red Flag if need be, on behalf of the kids, the flag usually called other qualified professionals to their side. With this publication, I raise what I am calling The Black Flag, I call it this because hospitals refer to a bomb threat as a Code Black, it being a threat that may bring injury for all. The red flags are usually reserved for one child or one adult. Today, The Black Flag is raised, signalling the need for specialists to surround all of the children, just all of them, with safe knowledge, sound theory and healthily communicated boundaries. The Black Flag, it signals something new is in town, an amalgamation of red flags presenting as one single flag, as one side of a cycling argument that has nothing to do with every single child in the classroom. #stepback
*The Black Flag, it represents false knowledge and wisdom, it flags an unverified developmental theory that has gone viral, one that surrounds children from nursery to teenage years. Today, from my perspective, there are no responsible anybodies, because the entire world is engaged in a constant discussion around the social shifts that we see, and everyone has been a bit perplexed for some time now. I simply wish to see some healthy and safe boundaries communicated into place. This is not about people, it is about content and conversation, it is about early/premature exposure to adult content and conversation.
There is an active global debate presently surrounding the children, it regards gender being a choice that anyone can make. When an unresolved debate interferes with the young’s wonder years, I take up great issue with it, especially when their health and safety is put in jeopardy. I chose to become the kids’ collective advocate for a time and to attempt to win their societal safety, the sort already written into child protection and safeguarding legislation. I advocated for the banning of horror film advertisements, the likes of which I’d be in trouble for displaying in a primary school, horrifying as they are; I called for a curriculum content review, primarily as a response to the mini-manifesto; I positioned that the kids are better off with a TA in every classroom; and rallied beside those asking for current SENA legislation to be upheld in practice, so that theory is upheld also. Furthermore, I petitioned for a review of the care and adoption system, one I’d like to talk about too, and I did indeed advocate to bring about the end of forced adoption. This is all sensitive stuff, the whys of it were anyway, and so I chose to keep the dialogue mostly private in the end.
So, who am I? I am a fully qualified primary school teacher, I graduated first in my class at university and broke the standing record for the final examination, which was the only examination. I am qualified to join this debate, fully qualified. My professional instincts responded within a week of examining TQIA+ YouTube content and related articles/research, and I immediately moved to safeguard children in school with an informal crisis report. After writing, Mini-Manifesto for Change: TQIA+ Demographic, Let’s Talk About The Children, professional fear drove me towards the continuation of the debate, despite having no standing opponent. I debated with thin air, right up until the point that I knew I’d won something, safety for the kids and probably for teenagers too, within The Education Sector, that is.
After careful continued analysis and professional deliberation, I named the invasion of the child’s learning environment for what it is, developmental interference. A clear escalation of events is experienced by the young and vulnerable who engage with one side of this public debate, with the content available on YouTube or in leaflets. Kids learn what they are taught, kids learn by reading, listening and watching, and they have learned something that changes them! Perhaps something that confuses them..? That is what I saw, that is what I witnessed as a professional educator, confused kids! As the responsible adult, I choose to say it like it is, I must, and I have identified a global threat to the wellbeing of not only children, but vulnerable adults too. However, do rest assured that the rather abstract situation has now been classified and semi-cemented as, The Developmental Interference/Molestation Network (The DIMCN). *The abstract concept will only turn to cement after being excessively challenged.
Now, do allow me to expand on the safeguarding words (they are just protective words) before some of you live a predictable reaction; when changed becomes the destination and regret the mindset, I would assert that some people have been developmentally ‘molested’, first in mind, then in body. I remain curious about any leading content engagement, as to what specifically led to any lifelong acts of… self-harm? Yet this is not my puzzle to solve as a qualified and practiced educator, all I can say is that it was easier to classify the global situation once enough facts had been digested and analysed, once a preliminary study of available data had been completed. The interference with the body, the increase in reported cases of ‘sex-change regret’, it is what resulted in the word ‘molestation’ being relied upon, necessarily, only necessarily and as a noticeable safeguard. Before you freak out at the word molestation, take in the word’s full legal meaning, as referenced from Lexis Nexis, a leading global provider of legal and regulatory intelligence:
Molestation involves any form of physical, sexual or psychological molestation or harassment that has a serious impact on the health and well-being of the applicant. Violence is not a prerequisite. A positive intent to molest does not need to be established nor does there need to be some direct interaction between the respondent and the applicant or child. It is sufficient if the conduct is deliberate and that it has the consequence of causing or being likely to cause distress or harassment to the applicant or a child.
It is important to note that the two most confronting words, those being interference and molestation, in this instance, refer to the subsequent observable impact upon child development only, they do not speak directly to a person or institution’s intent. With ‘inclusion’ being the word of first defence on many fronts, we can see why service providers may have also become confused.
In defence of the word, network, I offer the following argument, as published in, The Big Debate:
Millions of people are connected to the central complex social narrative via the internet, and I see it as a narrative network, not a people-predator network. I must make this distinction, for myself, if not for anybody else, because I am not attacking anyone. I am only attempting to defend the children from early exposure to unregulated content that may prove harmful to natural development… This content/narrative network catches the attention of youths, parents, professionals, academics, judges and juries, and there is too much conflict, conflict that is finding its way to surrounding the children on every continent. I do believe that the big debate identifies a network made of digital dots, dots that span numerous academic areas of study; shall we ask the thinkers to connect them for us?
The title of the identified ‘interfering’ and ‘molesting’ content network is confronting for a reason, the words protect the children. Therefore, I motion to protect the young with the words, The Developmental Interference/Molestation Content Network (The DIMCN), with reasons justified enough throughout The Big Debate, at least for now (I invite anyone and everyone to challenge the network title, to debate around it to its extinction, if it is possible, which I do not think it is). After naming, ‘The Content Network’, I continued to debate into thin air, noting that the public would require a strong justification for such a professional and deliberate choice. Once that chapter was won, I invited anyone who wanted to change the network name to meet me in a court of law, because it is what it is, and the title confronts the realities of the highly impactful and proven-to-be harmful open debate.
However, I thought better of inviting in more trouble, and after careful contemplation, came to the conclusion that I would prefer to throw the publication into the centre of an academic debate ring, so that the network title can be thoroughly challenged. I am not attached to the words, I simply think they portray the nature of the psychological phenomenon/invasion, while setting a backstop behind the door to otherwise safe education systems, worldwide. Lots of people have been scared, parents have been rage-filled, and I listened, before responding as that primary school teacher I once was (the one I hope never to be again, sorry guys, I chose to have a life). I also listened to the vocal academics, to very clever people, and happened to notice that they are the only individuals who are able to successfully articulate around the debate at this time, which just sets off alarm bells for me.
I have identified a global threat to child health and safety and communicated my grave concerns upwards, hoping that those with the power to shield the kids, will. That is what I did, and this entire endeavour was an act of safeguarding. I have said my piece, both publicly and in private, leaving the more confrontational data for a court of law, or perhaps for the academic world, since this appears to be a clinical debate that has slipped into the form of an active and alarming educational debate. It is not our department’s to own, nor to partake in, frankly! I will not comment on the situation ever again, not unless the situation re-enters the classroom once it is predictably expelled. As a word of warning, a wake-up call even, please recognise that an active debate should never impact every child’s life, never, it is a terribly unsafe thing to be happening. Furthermore, inclusive it is not. When inclusion is contemplated as a qualified teacher, one comes to fathom that what is safe for one, it might not be safe for all, but that what is safe for all, will forever be safe for one. There are a few simple caveats, but that is the start of a completely different debate.
Included with purchase:
0) The Big Debate – Cover & Contents.
1) Mini-Manifesto for Change – TQIA+ Demographic, Let’s Talk About The Children.
2) At The Lectern – Debate attachments and expansion of argument.
3) Dear LGBTH/I – OWN IT! A letter calling for a separation of narratives.
4) KS1 & KS2 age-appropriate family education resource packs. For parents/guardians only, to use with their children. The learning journey will come to act as a child-defence strategy within the home, and as reinforcement of commonly held ‘shared agreements’ and long-term concrete concepts. Packet also includes worksheets for families with naturally born intersex children.
5) ‘Thinking Points’, a collection of 20 posters.
6) ‘Resetting The Tone’. Too easy!
7) Closing The Debate.
8) The Collective Advocate – An informal disclaimer.
*The notorious ‘Letter 27’ was originally published online in 2024/2025 as a part of the growing ‘real-time publication’, Letters to The World, as was the letter to LGBTH/I communities. Both letters have since been edited. *Purchase grants access to 17 individual downloads.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
As an educator, one designs, produces and presents resources, it is the foundation of all teaching and learning. All day long, one presents content to children, leads interrogations around it and scaffolds comprehension of it by reinforcing concrete concepts with visuals, all before exploring the realms of, The Abstract Thought. In other words, kids need imagine knowledge before ‘knowing knowledge’. For example, counting starts with objects, then thoughts travel to visuals and illustrated representations, before moving into mental mathematics. When you ‘plan to prepare resources’ for the topic of gender studies, I do believe that you cross the line between legal practice and illegal practice as a professional educator, because of what it forces the kids to imagine. That is why The Mini Manifesto was written, it is why I extended the arguments into a full debate.
I do hope that I have closed said debate before any member of the opposition steps up to the lectern, for I do believe we are all in the same boat of confusion today, and I offer time to digest the arguments presented.
——————-
*An initial draft of the debate was written in the summer of 2024, it was published online shortly after. I continued to stand at the digital lectern for close to a year; throughout 2025, the publication developed alongside a series of public and private events. The debate has since been edited to reflect and respect perspectives held from beyond the finish line.
——————-
DISCLAIMER: An amalgamating thought sequence upholds the title of, The DIMCN. Awareness of theory, two decades of reading and reflecting alongside lived experience, in view of pedagogy, the science of teaching, it all contributed to a sense of informed choice; additional upholding thoughts are recorded elsewhere. This publication holds roughly ⅕ of, ‘The Big Debate.’
PROFESSIONAL DUTY & OBLIGATION: When a qualified medical professional, or even a first aider, comes across an injured party, they own a lawful obligation to intervene, to help. I liken this professional testimony to fulfilling such a duty. In other words, I saw an education related emergency, and I ran towards it, or rather, I wrote around it. When a teacher raises a flag, it is never their choice what happens next, never. With this publication, I see my duty as fulfilled, and I intend to never remark around the social narrative publicly ever again. It is not my business. The only reason that the subject became my business is because I observed that it had breached the field of mainstream education, somewhat prematurely. The social narrative was decided as my business because it became the business of the learner, and I was their teacher once, one who knew what to do next, wave the flag.
——————-
Change, the word is everywhere. While I wrote for change, I utilised music to get ‘super pumped‘, the life I lived will only ever be conceptualised, no stories told, I prefer privacy and the head space to work.
