Childline has acted as a haven for struggling children for over 35 years. In 2006, it became part of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), to further its child safeguarding mission.
However, in recent years Childline has chosen ideology over safeguarding. I should know; I used to work there.
I was a volunteer counsellor at Childline between 2015 and 2020. In my time there, I spent thousands of hours counselling children through a variety of issues. Supporting the welfare and wellbeing of children was extremely fulfilling.
Over time, I began to notice a change in the presentation of children coming through to speak to me. Increasing numbers of children were telling me that they were ‘trans’; that they felt trapped in the wrong body. These children were also becoming younger and younger.
Some of the foundational principles of counselling include exploration, neutrality and not going into the conversation with a pre-determined outcome. However, I noticed that gender ideology was becoming more prevalent within Childline. I believed this was in breach of the core therapeutic ethics of the charity.
It became clear that Childline were collaborating more closely with Stonewall. The first time I became aware of this was when I attended a shift and noticed that there were Stonewall posters plastered throughout the counselling room. They read: ‘Some People Are Trans; Get Over It’. This immediately raised red flags for me, especially given safeguarding concerns that have emerged regarding Stonewall. Examples of this include Stonewall’s statement that toddlers can ‘recognise their trans identity’, recommending the book Are You a Boy or Are You a Girl (which suggests that children can be trapped in the wrong body) for two-year-olds, as well as glorifying double mastectomies in their Christmas cards. Stonewall’s CEO, Nancy Kelley has even previously compared ‘gender critical’ beliefs (that sex is binary and immutable) to anti-Semitism.
I soon discovered that Stonewall appeared to have significant influence over the Childline webpage on ‘Gender Identity’, a site frequented by large numbers of young people. This page reads more as propaganda than nuanced guidance with the welfare of children at heart.
Childline expressly state that: ‘some people’s gender identity doesn’t match what’s recorded at birth’. This immediately conflates the notions of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ and suggests a narrative to vulnerable children that it is possible to be born in the wrong body. They go on to say that: ‘gender identity isn’t just male or female. Some people can identify as non-binary’. This contradicts the fundamental truth that sex is binary.
The webpage reads as more of a road map towards ‘transitioning’ than neutral advice. For example, Childline suggest ‘changing how you look or dress’ and ‘changing your name’. They even recommend ‘using different pronouns’, such as ‘ze and zir’ or ‘zey and zem’. This is even though we know that ‘social transition’ may cause irreversible change to a young person’s brain. Worryingly, there is not a single mention of the fact that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition, which, for most children, will resolve itself over time.
I raised my concerns with senior management within the organisation at numerous meetings and even submitted a briefing document. I assumed that I would be listened to, especially given the significant implications for the welfare of vulnerable children. My concerns were acknowledged but ultimately ignored, with no action taken.
Around the same time, I had started to speak out publicly about my concerns regarding gender ideology and the risk of harm to children. Childline sought to limit my free speech from the outset by requiring me not to refer to the fact that I was a Childline counsellor in any of my advocacy.
When I requested them to re-consider their position in the interests of transparency, I found myself invited to a meeting with the head of Childline. At this meeting, I was informed, without so much as having a conversation, that my volunteering with Childline was being terminated with immediate effect and that I should not come in for my next shift. I appealed the decision, which was swiftly rejected, even though it was found that there had been numerous policy breaches relating to how my complaint was initially handled.
The fact that Childline terminated my contract after five years of service, without a single concern regarding the standards or ethics of my counselling, made it clear to me that this decision was based on ideology.
I hoped that there would be individuals within the organisation, particularly the supervisors I had worked so closely with over the years, who would come to my support. They never came.
Since my expulsion, it appears that gender ideology has taken hold of Childline even further.
Childline counsellors have reached out to me, in confidence, expressing concern that they are being encouraged to ‘affirm’ children wishing to ‘transition’, rather than explore the cause of their discomfort. I have even learned that there are Childline counsellors who announce their pronouns when speaking to a child and immediately ask for the child’s pronouns in return. This is the imposition of an ideological framework upon that child and is extremely dangerous.
Furthermore, the controversial and divisive ‘trans pride’ flag is now being hung up in the window of the counselling room at Childline’s Head Office in London. There is no place for ideological symbols like this in what is meant to be a neutral and impartial service. It is no better than if Childline decided to hang overtly religious symbols on the wall. It sends a message to counsellors and children alike that, if you believe in biology, you aren’t welcome.
There are also serious concerns over the lack of safeguarding in the counselling being offered to children. This can be seen through ‘Ask Sam’ – Childline’s publicly available messaging service, in which a child can send in a message and ‘Sam’ will respond with advice and guidance that can be read by all Childline users.
In 2019, a 14-year-old girl wrote to ‘Ask Sam’, stating ‘I’m struggling with my gender identity’ and ‘I hate my breasts’. Just four paragraphs into the response, ‘Sam’ suggests the use of breast binders, something we know can cause irreversible physical damage to a young girl’s body. This is deeply concerning.
In another letter, from 2021, a young girl states that she is ‘trans’ and suffering from ‘dysphoria’. She expresses worry about getting ‘pregnant’ in later life, even though she eventually wants ‘biological kids’. Within a few sentences of the response, ‘Sam’ suggests the option of ‘surgery and hormones’ for this confused, young girl. The response goes on to say that ‘because you’re male living in a female body, you don’t have the sperm to make a baby’. Most concerning of all is when ‘Sam’ suggests to the young girl: ‘have a surrogate mother carry the baby for you.’
For a children’s charity to be pushing ideology and dangerous medical advice upon young children is beyond abhorrent.
Gender ideology must be tackled throughout society, particularly in light of the growing number of ‘detransitioners’ – young people who have been left with physical and mental scars for a decision that adults should never have allowed them to make.
While there are undoubtedly caring, compassionate and skilled employees and volunteers in Childline, I have lost faith in the organisation on this issue. They have become captured by an ideology which poses a threat to the children they were set up to serve.
If the vulnerable children in our society are not safe contacting Childline, where are they safe?
*
The NSPCC previously stated in relation to James’s complaint that: ‘Childline counsellors support children to explore their feelings in a non-directive way. They offer advice on how to cope with anxiety, how to discuss issues with trusted adults in their lives and signpost to available external support. We stand by our approach.
‘Volunteers are the heart and soul of Childline and we value every second of support they offer children. But nothing is more important than the trust children have in the service.
‘We respect people’s rights to hold different views, but volunteers can’t give the impression Childline endorses their personal campaigns. It’s vital that children know that Childline is a welcoming place for all young people.’
‘We believe this is a reasonable expectation. We discussed the situation at length with the volunteer, tried hard to find a solution, but unfortunately we couldn’t find a compromise. The conclusion we came to and the reasons for it were relayed to him via a telephone call and a letter. We took the concerns he raised about the Childline service seriously and fully investigated them but this had nothing to do with the discussions about his volunteering.’
Comments