Late last year, the Department of Health and Social Care updated the official documents for reporting the details surrounding the death of a child.
What happened shows how there is no sacrosanct corner out of bounds for the promotion of gender ideology.
According to the newly updated ‘Child death reporting form’, the three most important things you need to know about a child who has died are his or her age, sex and gender identity.
Should we care? This is data gathering, not the front line of the gender debate, encroaching on women’s single sex spaces or prescribing irreversible drugs to school children.
We should care, because it illustrates the extraordinary reach of gender ideology. This ideology undermines science and the truth – foundations of our society. If we roll out quackery, unchallenged and everywhere, we will eventually lose sight of the truth.
Gender ideology isn’t even harmless quackery like star signs. It causes terrible harm. We actually lie to our children in schools when we tell them they have an inner gender identity. Children are predisposed to believe adults. We breach a duty of trust and care when we lie to them – and we are doing that at a policy level in our schools right now. When some of those children go down a pathway of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and body-modification surgeries they are harmed for life. We’re actively promoting this harm, letting it roll out everywhere.
How does it happen? Case studies are instructive.
Via a Parliamentary question in December, Baroness Hayter asked for the rationale for the change to child death reporting. She received a blow-off from Baroness Merron. “This was to capture the language used by young people and their families to improve system learning and to support the prevention of future deaths.”
Sorry but “capturing the language of young people and their families” will not “improve systems learning and support the prevention of future deaths”. The fact that our civil service and a Baroness were willing to publish such a non-sequitur bodes ill.
I tried an FOI. The ‘National Child Mortality Database Programme’ (NCMDP) which collects and manages these data operates out of Bristol University.
Here are my questions:
The forms for reporting a child’s death have been recently updated to include a question about a child’s gender identity. Please see here.
1) Please can you send me any policy or positioning papers that you authored or received, which argue for/against, or set out the rationale, for this change to the relevant forms.
2) Please send me all emails received by or sent within the department that discuss changes to the Child death notification form and the Child death reporting form, relating to asking an additional question about a child’s gender identity.
3) Please send me any information you have about the final rationale for making this change, including where the original request or suggestion for the change came from, and who signed it off, along with justifying logic.
The short answer to how gender ideology gets embedded across our systems can be found in one (bonkers) email. Here it is:
That was it. Follow-on policy papers, rationale, justifying logic? No. “FOI Q1. The University does not hold any policy or positioning papers falling within the scope of your request.” “FOI Q3. The University does not hold any further information beyond the attached [emails] falling within the scope of your request.”
Here is what followed the email. First, this is the old Child Death Reporting Form capturing a ‘discussion by comment box’.
Then there is a “future annual updates log” which records changes and captures rationale. First, “sex” is changed to “sex registered at birth” – implying it can change! It might be worth trying to see the referenced “extended discussions”.
Then the gender identity question is added with the explanation being the email above. We also witness “non-binary” overriding “in some other way”, exemplifying how our institutions are governed by ludicrous passing fads. What will come next and are previous versions transphobic?
There is an interesting email that records the activity in response to my FOI:
This exchange confirms we’re not missing anything. One email and “someone from NHSE who was to do with social care (I can’t remember name)” are all it takes to remove science and embed ideology deep into our systems.
How can we undo all this if we ever have the political will? Abolishing quangos and bringing them back under democratic control will help. But it will also take something like Trump’s Executive Orders. Our civil servants must be ready to eradicate gender ideology from our systems wherever they find it. When it comes to gender ideology, we need a Trump of our own.
Caroline Ffiske is a Director of Conservatives for Women. Find her on X.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
How can sex at birth be indeterminate or unknown? Or are they rewriting biology?
It could be unknown if it wasn’t recorded for some reason and indeterminate (or indeterminable) in case of unusal chromosome combinations or other development deficits. This form presumably applies to children of any age, which means even those who die immediately or very shortly after birth because their bodies exhibit biologically dysfunctional mutations.
It seems to me that a child , being under the tutelage of his (her) parents until the age of 18 years does not have the possibility to decide what it is a different sex, nor to make informed consent for sex change drugs or surgery.
Time will prove me right.
Indeed. One should also remember that sex is determined at conception and can be observed by DNA analysis at any time (if you can get hold of the DNA easily while the child is in the womb) – it’s just a convenient, low-cost historical convention to observe it at birth.
I guess they feel compelled to do this because that’s the only way to sustain a lie.
The truth stands by itself, it does not need propaganda.
But to sustain a lie you have to invest a massive amount of effort. You need to come up with further and further methods to prop it up and prevent it from collapsing. You need to keep repeating it and spreading it, declaring and propagating it, enforcing it and promoting it, supporting it and justifying it. You have to set up expert committees and establish focus groups, mandating it and legislating for it.
And ultimately it still remains a lie.
Succinct ad brilliant. Thanks.
“This ideology undermines science and the truth – foundations of our society,”
Even Uncle George Orwell didn’t see this one coming.
Big Trans is watching you.
People have made much of Donald Trump’s rolling back of woke ideology in the US (even in these pages), but it’s worth remembering the USA is a different country. Speaking from the front line (education), it seems that EDI committees here in the UK are using Trump as a reason to push gender nonsense even harder than before. There is no way that EDI is on the retreat, at least in the public sector, so expect more of this.
I think this demonstrates there are too many people employed in Administration as they shouldn’t have time to do such inconsequential things.
I do not believe this started the day after the lady general election.
Prove me wrong!!
By lady I presume you mean last.
For a moment, I was trying to find a link to Thatcher
Dee being close to Ess
It can all cause a right ol’ mess
Why being close to Tee
Typing too hastily
But wont as we are to comment
Worry we don’t when typos foment
A momentary fracture in comprehenshun
And a welcome cessation of confushun
All’s well that ends well
This is all part of a concerted effort to undermine the democratic process and brainwash the population into accepting a wholly warped ideology. It has crept up on us over time and only requires the majority to be apathetic and do nothing. However, the scope creep is now so blatant that many are waking up to it. Hence the rise of new political forces to push free speech and proper debate back onto the national agenda. Difficult to do in Britain though, given the establishment’s efforts to suppress it.