U.K. maths teacher Joshua Sutcliffe has been banned from teaching indefinitely for allegedly “misgendering” a student in 2017.
Despite the U.K. having no laws forcing the use of preferred pronouns, a three-person, Teaching Regulatory Authority (TRA) panel ruled that Sutcliffe breached ‘professional conduct ethics’ for failing to endorse a biological female’s, male identity.
The TRA Trans tribunal recalled Sutcliffe praising a group of students during a maths lesson, stating, “Well done, girls.”
Referred to as Pupil A, the student who identifies as LGBTQ+ claimed Sutcliffe’s pronoun blasphemy was targeted, and deliberate.
This was supported by one teacher, who alleged they had informed Sutcliffe about Pupil A’s (protected status), telling him to refer to Pupil A with male pronouns. (p.16)
Citing his open opposition to gay marriage, Pupil A’s parents complained that the Christian maths teacher was ‘frequently misgendering Pupil A,’ arguing, “Sutcliffe had failed to use Pupil A’s preferred pronoun on five or six occasions.”
Reading between the lines, they also charged Sutcliffe with “revealing the student’s identity on live TV’s “This Morning” show.
Even though Sutcliffe had never mentioned the student’s name, Pupil A argued she (who calls herself a ‘he’), could have been easily identified by the circumstances described by the teacher during the interview.
Among Sutcliffe’s other alleged breaches were sharing dissenting views on homosexuality, gay marriage, masculinity, and Islam.
Extending their list of “concerns,” the TRA panel included incidents where the teacher had affirmed to his students the basics of binary biological science.
One incident recalled Sutcliffe teaching his kids that ‘biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed,’ and that physiology supported the man and woman union.
Not satisfied with the “transphobic” charge, the pro-noun police went further, implying the Christian maths teacher was also “Islamophobic.”
Sutcliffe was accused of exposing his pupils to ‘inappropriate content.’
His alleged crime was telling his students “To watch his YouTube channel,” where he shared criticisms of Islam.
Such as, Sutcliffe:
- Calling Mohammed, a false prophet.
- Calling Islam belligerent.
- Suggesting Muslims “have a false understanding of God because of Mohammed.”
- Stating that the “fruit of Islam is not peace, it’s division.”
- Describing Islam as bringing a great evil to the U.K, where no criticism of Islam is allowed.
- Calling out Mormon founder ‘Joseph Smith for being a false prophet, who preached false, and destructive heresies.’ (p.5)
Sutcliffe was also slammed for teaching his students about the value of masculinity via a PragerU video called, “Make Men Masculine Again.’ (p.4)
Accusing Sutcliffe of bias, the trio argued that his conduct was unprofessional because he had failed to, ‘Provide context or debate, which risked the video being perceived by the pupils as the sole position on the definition of masculinity.’ (p.18)
The Woke panel predictably ruled the PragerU content as ‘partisan, and controversial.’
Almost hypocritically, they stated that Sutcliffe had ‘acted inappropriately’ because he had failed to ‘present a balanced view and/or give the pupils the opportunity to discuss the alternative views.’
This is despite Sutcliffe presenting an alternative viewpoint to almost universal assumptions in support of same-sex marriage, Islam, “toxic masculinity” and transgenderism.
Throughout its 31-page ruling, the TRA trans tribunal repeatedly appealed to ‘intolerance,’ inferring that Sutcliffe was abusing children, by failing ‘to treat pupils with dignity and/or respect, and safeguard’ their ‘well-being.’ (p.5)
Although the TRA panel found Sutcliffe to be a good teacher, the panel accused Sutcliffe of ‘failing to distinguish between his role as a teacher with that of a preacher.’ (p.26)
Acknowledging his exemplary character, ‘in the light’ of witnesses, and ‘his significant contribution to his church,’ the panel still inferred that Sutcliffe was expendable, saying, ‘he hadn’t contributed significantly to the education sector.’
This is despite the panel recognising his teaching aptitude, and abilities.
Further hinting at the political nature of the case, the pronoun panel added, his ‘remorse’ about the incidents ‘fell significantly short’ of their expectations.
Considered to be at high risk of ‘offending’ again, Sutcliffe was therefore, ‘prohibited from teaching indefinitely, and cannot teach at any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation, or children’s home in England.’
The order stands until 15th May 2025, when the Christian maths teacher can ‘apply for the probation order to be set aside.’ (p.30)
Justice advocacy group, Christian Concern said, the ruling doesn’t add up.
“It’s at odds with the Education Secretary’s recent defence of a teacher at a private all-girls school who was accused of ‘misgendering’ after saying “good afternoon girls.”
Suggesting that Sutcliffe was being used to force teachers to live by lies, CC pointed to how the panel rejected expert backing and parental commendations.
One parent told the panel they had “never witnessed Sutcliffe being unkind to anyone.”
Another described him as, being “very good at his job and teaching. Patient, kind and considerate.”
They added, “My daughter enjoyed being taught by him and it was a very positive experience.”
Appearing on Times Radio, the now unemployed father, doesn’t believe neutrality is the answer.
It’s not unkind to speak the truth to children about biological facts.
The unkind thing is “encouraging these students to go down a really dangerous and really serious path.”
The U.K. teacher’s case is one of a growing number of LGBTQ lawfare cases targeting Christians for conscientious objection.
Australian victims of the movement which is aptly described as pro-LGBTQ+ fascism, include Sal Grover, Moira Deeming, Kirralie Smith, Lyle Shelton, Bernard Gaynor, Israel Folau, and suspended G.P., Dr. Jereth Kok.
Joshua Sutcliffe has 28 days to appeal.
