On 4 May 2022, Xris Reardon of Working It Out gave a witness statement to the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings
What the Statement is About
Xris Reardon, in their role as LGBTIQ+ Lead and Schools Inclusion Coordinator at Working It Out, gave evidence about:
- The work their organisation does in schools and the community.
- How LGBTIQ+ students often experience discrimination, stigma, and a lack of safety.
- The importance of inclusive policies and training for staff.
- How safeguarding failures in schools can leave children vulnerable to harm, especially those who are already marginalised.
The statement argues that supporting LGBTIQ+ children through visibility, acceptance, and safe school environments is essential to their wellbeing and protection.
Key Themes and Quotes
Working It Out’s Role
“Working It Out is Tasmania’s gender, sexuality and intersex status support and education service, providing support to individuals and training to organisations.”
They describe their role in school programs to increase awareness and ensure policies support LGBTIQ+ inclusion.
Challenges Faced by Students
Reardon highlights the difficulties LGBTIQ+ young people face:
“Many LGBTIQ+ students do not feel safe at school, whether because of bullying, harassment, or the absence of supportive policies.”
The absence of safe environments contributes to mental health risks and isolation.
Safeguarding and Inclusion
The statement links safeguarding with inclusive practice:
“Creating safe environments for LGBTIQ+ students is part of safeguarding – ensuring that they are not exposed to additional harm simply because of who they are.”
Reardon stresses that safeguarding policies need to recognise LGBTIQ+ children as a vulnerable group who require explicit protections.
Training and Awareness
They note gaps in staff preparedness:
“Many teachers and school leaders want to support LGBTIQ+ students, but lack the training, resources and confidence to do so effectively.”
Training and clear departmental policies are seen as crucial safeguards.
Critical Analysis of Xris Reardon’s Statement
1. Framing Safeguarding as Inclusion
Reardon equates safeguarding with LGBTIQ+ inclusion, suggesting that making schools “safe” for LGBTIQ+ students requires policies of affirmation and visibility.
Risk/Gaps: Traditional safeguarding frameworks focus on protecting children from harm (abuse, exploitation, neglect) rather than affirming identities. By redefining safeguarding primarily as “inclusion,” there’s a risk that schools may overlook or dilute their core duty to protect all children from abuse.
2. Uncritical Approach to Gender Ideology in Schools
The statement assumes that affirming a child’s stated identity (including social transition) is an essential safeguarding measure.
Risk: Current reviews in the UK (Cass Review) and elsewhere warn that affirmation may not always be neutral or safe. It can act as a gateway to medicalisation, bypassing parental involvement and professional oversight.
Gap: The statement does not consider alternative safeguarding concerns—for example, the risks to girls if single-sex facilities are eroded, or the safeguarding implications of allowing staff to keep secrets from parents.
3. Absence of Discussion on Conflicting Rights
The statement focuses narrowly on protecting LGBTIQ+ students, but:
Gap: It does not acknowledge the competing safeguarding needs of other students, especially girls who may feel unsafe sharing changing rooms, toilets, or dormitories with males who identify as female.
Example: Safeguarding frameworks normally balance rights and risks across all groups. Here, the focus on one group risks sidelining others.
4. Reliance on Training and Policy Directives
Reardon stresses the need for staff training and departmental policy, suggesting that a lack of confidence or resources prevents teachers from properly supporting LGBTIQ+ students.
Risk: If the training is ideologically one-sided, it could pressure staff to affirm contested beliefs without question, silencing those with safeguarding or professional concerns.
Gap: No recognition that teachers may need clear safeguarding protocols for handling disclosures (e.g., parental involvement, medical referral), rather than just “inclusion” training.
5. Safeguarding Blind Spots
By centring safeguarding on identity affirmation, the statement risks creating blind spots:
- Overlooking safeguarding failures such as excluding parents from key decisions.
- Failing to recognise that not all children who question their gender benefit from affirmation, and that some may later regret it.
- Ignoring the broader safeguarding culture, where contested ideologies in RSHE may conflict with fact-based, age-appropriate teaching.
Conclusion
While Xris Reardon’s statement highlights the real challenges faced by LGBTIQ+ students—such as bullying and stigma—it presents a narrow and contested view of safeguarding.
- Strength: It rightly calls for safe, respectful environments for marginalised children.
- Weakness: It equates safeguarding with affirmation, without acknowledging risks, conflicting rights, or the evidence base on gender distress.
- Implication: If adopted uncritically, this approach could undermine traditional safeguarding duties, compromise parental rights, and expose children (both LGBTIQ+ and others) to new forms of harm.