To be really, really pleased about the explicit ban on the proactive teaching of gender identity?

Excellent post. I am in child safeguarding and agree with every word you posted.

Please point me in the direction of these responses

I've read the guidance. I've also read the responses from most people, charities and organizations working in this field .. this is not evidence based.

I said "seems to" in my post. A position I have come to, based on reading the guidance put out and on my own experience in safeguarding.

To save you time, I've added the pages here so you can see them yourself:

Main page
consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/

Draft guidance
consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/supporting_documents/Draft%20RSE%20and%20Health%20Education%20statutory%20guidance.pdf

Pages 15-16 say this on age limits:

"The age limits in this guidance seek to ensure that, as content is introduced that is designed to prepare young people to stay safe and keep others safe, children are not introduced too early to concepts that they may not have the maturity to grasp, or which may be distressing. Age limits are focused on topics which, even when presented in a careful and well-intentioned way, may inadvertently give the message to young people that they could or should be engaging in or exploring adult activities rather than enjoying childhood.

Schools should seek to follow these age limits at all times. However, flexibility may be necessary in order to respond promptly to issues which pose an imminent safeguarding risk to their pupils. In certain circumstances, schools may decide to teach age-limited topics earlier, provided it is necessary do so in order to safeguard pupils and provided that teaching is limited to the essential facts, without going into unnecessary detail. Parents must be informed in these cases and appropriate safeguarding measures put in place. For example, if a primary school becomes aware that pupils are circulating pornographic material on social media, or if a secondary school becomes aware of a problem with sexual abuse in Key Stage 3, it would be appropriate for the school to address this with pupils in order to tackle the behaviour promptly, make them aware of the risks and consequences and prevent it from happening in future. However, this does not mean schools should go into the details of the sexual acts in question.

It is essential that schools inform parents in advance where they plan to teach a topic earlier than set out in this guidance."

Consultation document
consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/supporting_documents/Review%20of%20the%20Relationships%20Education%20Relationships%20and%20Sex%20Education%20RSE%20and%20Health%20Education.pdf

I think this would be like saying, we need to teach all primary aged children about childhood cancers because this will help them identify symptoms and contact their healthcare providers for investiagtion.
Children can no more be held responsible for identifying abuse and seeking interventions from professionals than they can be for identifying serious pathology and seeking healthcare interventions.

I think there's an emotional comfort in clinging to the the idea that "education" has the magical power to stop abuses. They're children, they're vulnerable, if adults can't look after them things are going to go badly for them.

No, they are not, but the guidance says they should be taught about in Year 4, when children turn 9. It is exceptionally rare for girls to start their periods before the age of 9.

No one is banning parents from taking the responsibility to teach their own children about periods at whatever age they see fit.

@ResisterRex please, point me in the direction of these so called experts?

Do you know what gender identity ideology has in common with Section 28? The children most likely to be harmed by it are LGB children. There is a huge, HUGE difference between the LGB and the T, and they should never have been joined together.

Being gay has never been a social contagion, and even if it was, there are no long-term repercussions to stating you're gay as a teenager. Being 'trans' has been shown to be a social contagion in a similar way to anorexia and self-harm, and the long-term repercussions to those children who follow a medical pathway are life-limiting.

I would really urge you to do some research into how damaging gender identity ideology has been to LGB children (and adults). The Cass report would be a good place to start, but Trans by Helen Joyce, Gay Shame by Gareth Roberts and Time to Think by Hannah Barnes go into an excellent level of detail.

It does say this. It also says that where there's a safeguarding concern like porn circulating on social media, topics can be brought forward without lots of detail - and that if they're doing that in a school, they tell the parents first.

As a teacher, I definitely agree and would add that it is inappropriate and unfair that we get given zero training on how to deliver PSHE or personal development, sex education etc lessons but still have to deliver them. Sometimes these even have to be created and co planned by teaching staff.

I welcome this guidance and will also need more because even teaching in a single sex school there are children there identifying as the opposite gender already. It is an absolute minefield.

My understanding was that schools are allowed to discuss gender identity as a theory that some people believe in, but that they're not allowed to present it as fact? This sounds very reasonable to me.

It shouldn't mean saying to an individual student, "you're being ridiculous, there's no such thing as trans! A real boy/girl should do x, y, z" (these are in fact the toxic stereotypes on which the whole trans ideology rests, and which are roundly rejected by feminism). It should just mean celebrating individual personalities, without even necessarily mentioning sex/gender at all.

It should also definitely mean not paying huge sums of money to outside companies to come in and teach 11yos that it's scientific fact that someone can be born in the wrong body.

Young children DO need to be taught the proper terms for their genitalia though, which is part of RSE- this is crucial for being able to articulate abuse. I assumed this is what @zaffa meant.

This is the bit that concerns me, but I really hope will be clear in the guidance (though I suspect it won’t be!) In my case, the issue is no teaching about contraception, etc. until Year 9 - we talk about birth rates in different countries in Year 7 and 8 and it includes the fact that access to and knowledge about contraception is a fundamental factor for reducing birth rates in less economically developed countries. Obviously, no details about how a condom works or anything like that - but is even mentioning contraception going to potentially put me on the wrong side of these rules…?

I know right? What are these people thinking? How is this an appropriate thing to teach a child?

No one is saying periods are shameful. The government seems to have rediscovered its own safeguarding responsibilities, as well as speaking to child development experts on what is age appropriate.

As to the periods thing, periods are not sexual or shameful. Yes, they relate to reproduction (a fact of life) but no- there absolutely should not be an age limit on talking about them. I genuinely feel like I've woken up in the middle ages.

Arguing about specific ages is pedantic. Even the guidance says if there is a good reason you can break the age rules. For example, we know lots of year 7s are engaging in sexual activity so alongside safeguarding this when we know about it we should and do talk about condoms.

The fact is the government should not be dictating this.

As to the 9yos having periods. Well perhaps a tiny number are. OK. But a lot of children this age still believe in Father Christmas. Those children aren't really likely to cope with some of the suggestions on here, which have to be being made by people who don't understand safeguarding or child development.

Lots of people are saying these are typical ages to teach these concepts anyway.

How about you list the ages where you think the topics mentioned in the guidance should be covered?

I'm not wedded to any particular age for any particular subject, but I do want experts to have input into getting it right. (And I don't want currently popular ideas about gender identity to be taught as fact).

@Tosstyhat your reply is really making me angry.
Twelve year olds don't "decide to participate in sexual acts with their peers." They are legally considered unable to consent to sex. That means the word for what is happening to them is rape. And, yes, sometimes it is 12 year old children who are raping or abusing their peers, but that is not a sign of maturity, it is a sign that the abusing child has been exposed to sexual activity themselves, i.e. is also a victim of abuse. We even have the suggestion on this thread that a nine year old commencing periods is a sign that she needs sex ed. This is revolting. These are little kids, yes they're hitting puberty earlier but that doesn't make them old enough for sex.

"Now, I'm not suggesting a full on condom demonstration to year 7s. But there are age appropriate ways of explaining the risks of unprotected sex. It also provides opportunities to discuss respect, consent, boundaries and positive relationships. It doesn't have to be warts and all (pardon the pun)"
But why not give the 11 year olds a clear demonstration of putting on a condom if they're already having sex? And you're ok with that? Why so coy all of a sudden? If these 11 and 12 year old children are having sex and that's nothing to worry about why can't we have a warts and all discussion with them about it?
You're squeamish about demonstrating putting a condom on a banana infront of an eleven year old because you know they're too young for it.

Respect? Involves not sexualising children.
Consent? It's not possible for a child under the age of 13 to consent to sexual activity. Sexual activity involving a child under the age of 13 should always result in a child protection referral.
Boundaries and positive relationships? That's a great thing to talk about with primary school kids. Positive relationships never involve the sexualisation of children.

Totally agree.

@Madeyemoodysswiveleyedrant I'm sorry but your claims simply don't tally with what the evidence tells us (and no, the stats don't come from porn sites). RSE is safeguarding.

Let's look at one particular example, FGM. New guidance says not to teach this until year 9. Most children who suffer this are in primary school or KS3. It's so wrong.

This guidance is an absolute scandal and anyone thinking otherwise knows absolutely nothing about how schools work.

@LilyBartsHatShop "adultification" or not, by your logic, if you don't educate them about STIs and contraception until years after they might have decided to participate in sexual acts with their peers, significant damage could have already been done. The idea of earlier sex education might make you feel uncomfortable but this is happening in real life.

Now, I'm not suggesting a full on condom demonstration to year 7s. But there are age appropriate ways of explaining the risks of unprotected sex. It also provides opportunities to discuss respect, consent, boundaries and positive relationships. It doesn't have to be warts and all (pardon the pun)