THERE was shock expressed last week when Castleview Primary in Edinburgh encouraged male teachers and pupils to come to school wearing skirts. Some of the reaction came from those who challenge the transgender activism that promotes gender fluidity as the new normal.

However, it should not come as too much of a shock to find a Scottish school embracing the outlook of transgender activists as this is the approach promoted by the Scottish Government and the education authorities in their document, Supporting Transgender Pupils In Schools.

The 70-page document is a fascinating read because it demonstrates how one-sided and elitist the Scottish Government has become on the issue of transgender children.

In society, in politics, in culture and indeed within academia, all sorts of questions about the exponential growth of transgender children exist. Fundamental questions about the myth and reality of changing your gender are highly contested, seen most recently in the controversy around philosopher Kathleen Stock who argues that biological sex is real – not psychological.

Stuart Waiton: What's really behind anti-racism agenda in our schools?

As Stock notes, trans activists dismiss biological reality and talk about gender identity as your authentic self, the “true you”. From the activist perspective, to question a child who changes their gender identity is immoral. This is the approach that our schools must now follow.

If a child of 12, for example, tells a school that their gender identity has changed, this must be accepted, indeed embraced, as the new truth.

The guidance explains that “Being transgender is not a child protection or wellbeing concern in itself”. However, “If others”, like a parent, “deny this, it may have a detrimental impact on the young person’s wellbeing”.

In other words, a young child changing their gender identity is not a wellbeing concern, whereas anyone questioning this is a wellbeing concern. Consequently, schools have a system in place to allow these children to change their identity at school and to keep this hidden from their parents. Or as the document states, “it is best to not share information with parents or carers without considering and respecting the young person’s views”.

Using what appears to be a form of statistically useless advocacy research from Canada, we are informed that not supporting young people who decide to change their identity hugely increases the possibility of them attempting to commit suicide. As such, the message is quite clear, parents who have concerns are a potential danger to their own children.

Teachers are educated to understand that, if, for example, a 12-year-old girl says that she is actually a boy, then she is a boy. Despite the reality that many children change their minds later in life, the document instructs teachers, “Don’t say, ‘it’s just a phase’”. For our government, it cannot be a 'phase' because it is the truth.

Stuart Waiton: Scots university suspends lecturer as sop to woke warriors

There is no consideration given to the possibility that a child may be confused, or that the trans phenomenon has been encouraged by social media and political activists, nor indeed that the school’s own promotion of gender fluidity may be assisting what has historically been called gender dysphoria.

Schools, for example, have to ensure that children from the age of eight, “demonstrate an understanding of diversity in sexuality and gender identity”.

Where it is found that parents do not comply with the new truth, we are informed that this is “because they have inaccurate or incomplete information”. If this is the case staff are instructed to create situations where the young person (and one assumes the truth-bearing teachers) “have their views heard”, helped by a “support plan for the transgender young person”, thus creating a “safe space for transgender young people to be themselves and have their identities respected”.

The end result is a system that would treat a parent like Professor Kathleen Stock – as a problem to be managed, as ill informed, a potential threat to her own children, indeed as someone who must be kept in the dark about the truth that her daughter is actually her son.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.