BISH - "proudly supported by....."

Oh my God! The explicit stuff on page 32 onwards. .! In that sort of "hey kids it's all totally cool" language..what the actual fuck??
I'm all for telling kids the truth about sex when they ask and in age appropriate language. Ds knew the basic biological facts about how babies were made at 4 because he asked me. (woman, man, penis, vagina, sperm, egg in case you're wondering Justin).
I have also discussed pornography and consent with him.
I have not considered alerting him to the various places he might like to be touched, or what specific sexual positions he might prefer. I figure that young people need to know a) the biology b) about having boundaries and c) about contraception.
What they may or may not like in bed is something that(surely?)they will figure out in their own time, gradually, with someone their own age.

How DARE this fruitloop tell children to draw porn ( expecting them to view it first??) or think about wether or not they might like anal sex?
Who do I complain to? I'm fucking livid.

A better way of putting it, you know in terms of accuracy and all, would be to say:

There are structures that begin at the same embryological place, the intermediate mesoderm, that differentiate depending on the presence of a Y chromosome. They share similarities embryoloically, but are different in males and females.

But we know biological accuracy isn’t really important these days.

If I was a kid hearing this and not already knowing better I'd be terrified!

I had a very active imagination as a child, and would have been picturing pulling someone's pants down and having various assorted arm/shark/laser beam appendages spring out. Like a Swiss army knife, but in the pants of the harmless looking person sitting next to you on the bus.

They could at least have mixed up which was on what side of that sliding scale of masculine/feminine - rather than make so pointedly stereotypically gendered - even my 5 year-old's school work make sure they mix up what the 'right' answers are on a list!

Now I've seen a fair number of cocks. But they were none of them - not one - like a clitoris.

Nothing more to say on this, except, God I love MN. And yes. Even some pictures I have viewed of women who've grown their clitoruses with hormones, they're still, clearly not penises.

"some people have their genitals modified without consent, this is known as FGM".... What does the F stand for? Don't worry about that folks!....

Like KFC - lets try to forget that it's deep fried chicken bits by only ever using the initials.

"Our genitals are on a spectrum in terms of: how much erectile tissue sticks out (clitorises and dicks and inbetween); where the prostate is; where the wee hole is; whether the gonads are inside or outside; vagina size. Many people are in the middle of this spectrum with how their bodies are configured."

Why is this person getting paid to lie to children? No, we don't all have a prostate (that just sort of floats from one location to another), and no, we don't all have vaginas of various sizes (is he calling male rectums vaginas or is this about the iguinal canals again?)

My prostate is in my ear.

I imagine men would be a lot more willing to have a doctor put there finger there to check it. I mean, how the fuck can a prostate vary across a gender?

Here's the link to the guide

It's a shame. On the site there are some areas that are covered well. I don't think anyone should write sex education advice for young people without the input of several other people. Females, educators, psychologists etc...

I was looking at this website a few days ago. Justin's invitation to schools to book him to deliver RSE popped up in my Twitter feed, probably because I follow reputable - I think - organisations like the Sex Education Forum. I was interested because I have complained to my DDs school about their lack of robust (head in the sand) approach to SRE and what teenagers face today.

I clicked on the resources for 14+. I was alarmed to read the guide to first time sex which writes nonchalantly about anal sex and sex toys.

The guide to first time sex manages not to write the word boy or girl make or female once with its 'advice' Astounding. At a time when health clinicians are being instructed in how to communicate to patients with plain language to aid health literacy, there are people out there busily writing shit to confuse our children. I don't want my teenagers anywhere near this anti-scientific crap. I'm worried that with the introduction of compulsory SRE and an updated curriculum that it is going to be hijacked by people like Justin who have little knowledge of child sexual and psychological development. Anal sex for first time sex for females?! OMG.

Ok I know this looks like stalking but I was curious as to the qualifications of this self proclaimed guru. I didn't find much science!

A Desmond in Law from Leeds
A Train the Trainer qualification
An NVQ (could be level 2 or 3) in P/T Youth Work

*Both of those later 'qualifications' can be completed quite easily in a few weeks/months and although people may drop out, there is no such thing as a 'fail'

Perhaps he thinks his personal experience of 'sex and relationships' is enough to give him guru status? Could his enthusiastic endorsement for porn and masturbation give us a clue as to where he gained that 'expertise'?

BISH seems a strange choice of name, I wonder if it's coincidence

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bish

And here is the person that wishes to enlighten our youth with his wisdom

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=41&v=OGxY6wE2JC0

(shudder)

Dammit.

I recommended Bish. I am clearly not up to date.

This is utterly depressing and should not be allowed.

Gutted.

Wow, that sounds seriously fucked up.

Thank you to everyone who is raising really important issues in the threads in this forum.

A longtime lurker (and hopefully, future parent), I have finally been prompted to register and comment due to the contents of this "guidance."

The Activity Book is seriously disturbing. I appreciate young people (of an appropriate age) need sex education, but on the evidence I have seen this guy is NOT the person to be giving it, and I am seriously angry. One page of the Activity Book asks the reader to draw who they might "expect to see" in a mainstream porn clip. It's one thing to acknowledge the curiosity that might result in young people going online and looking at porn; it's another thing to talk about "mainstream porn" and getting young people to draw it, as far as I can tell to make some kind of a political point.

I will be complaining to everyone I can think of, quite honestly.

Yuk

Floralbunting that's an excellent post.

It's why I'm so sad the skeptic movement have foundered on this - repeated rational argument shd be right up their street. Up to us mumsnetters I suppose.

for whatever (I assume not work) reasons you were exposed to cults.

AndhowcouldIeverrefuse

Right... okay... does it mean I can potentially make DH pregnant via with my relatively undeveloped penis clitoris and his atypically positioned and shaped vagina? run of the mill penis wink So confused. People will end up wondering how the hell you use a condom

This is a very good point. If you're a condom company, and you're sponsoring this... I presume durex makes a 'spectrum' of sizes? I just went to the durex* website and every product I checked had only 2 or 3 sizes. Bigots.
Durex has a reproductive sex based product, but sex is such a complicated spectrum you can't possibly guess what someone's genitals are - who then will be buying durex? I feel rational and headstrong today, better buy a pack of condoms just in case! This is hilarious.

What's even more hilarious is the idea that teens
a) don't know how sex works/can't identify the opposite sex
b) won't have much fun absolutely humiliating any teacher that says 'a clitoris and penis are pretty much the same'

*amusingly, my phone autocorrected durex to fire!

Why do we let them?

I am wondering if it'd be quicker for us to build our own teaching materials than pick apart this antiscientific/Queer Theory propoganda/polyamoury/analsex at 15 pile of balls.

It's so weird, but the most useful real life application of understanding religious indoctrination has been in combating this TRA monster. Because having been inside religious cults, I see very, very clearly how this kind of thing operates. Make no mistake, it's a movement co-opting many religious techniques - thebewilderness often references this in her posts about trying to codify genderism in law.

Logic, science and calm argument are the best tools against it - but you must be aware that a true believer will think it entirely appropriate to use any means to shore up the dogma. Witness the lying about razors under stickers, and the endlessly boring circular tripe that insists the gender binary is wrong and then does everything to ensure it continues.

It's quite frightening, and I think I probably feel very much how people felt in the centuries past when superstition ruled the day and science was just getting started. You just have to keep holding the line, because truth really does matter.

BTW the "Sex and the Law section" www.bishuk.com/sex/sex-and-the-law/ is subtitled Guide to under age sex (age of consent), which then has Young people are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for any of these offences below if the people involved were the same or similar age and if the sex was clearly agreed with no abuse or exploitation.

I found the >= 14 but little mention of consent across the site a leetle weird, to say the least.

It must win at all costs, which is why it's adherents so often appropriate arguments from other situations that seem successful even if they contradict other things

This is so true, and it's why they often weirdly parrot your own words back at you even when they make absolutely no sense in that context.

As a doctor I have seen many many cocks. And many many lady bits.

But not once have I ever seen a cock where I thought 'Hmm, looks almost indistinguishable from a clitoris' or a clitoris which made me stop in my tracks because it was soooo cock-like.

Why do these people think they are qualified to teach? Why do we let them?

I've long ago given up on TRA logic being internally consistent. It's innate, but you can choose the identity that you like best. You transition, but you are always a woman, even with a penis. There are statistically hardly any trans people, but you all pass dozens every day and never even notice.

TRA orthodoxy is a chameleon that adjusts it's patterns to best fit the moment. It must win at all costs, which is why it's adherents so often appropriate arguments from other situations that seem successful even if they contradict other things. It's pretty much a parasite ideology.

Some people - people! - have FGM?
I raised an eyebrow at the laboured explanation of PIV sex on the bish website, which uses the term "women with vulvas".

But yes, that FGM piece.

Like, you might want to trim or grow pubes. Sometimes people want to get piercings. Or to have some skin removed or remodelled. Some people may have operations to extend or reduce their penis, clitoris or vagina.
sometimes people have their genitals modified without consent, this is known as FGM or FGC and is illegal.

My knowledge of FGM law is gained through reading this law here, and this guidance here, but look at the framing in the pic!

pubes - why not, it grows back! might itch a bit
piercings racier
skin removed or remodelled.
some people may have operations to extend or reduce their penis, clitoris or vagina.
some trans or intersex people may have treatments to change their bits

Great list of choices! And it's all about choosiness, and consent, isn't it? Because sometimes people have their genitals modified without consent, this is known as FGM or FGC and is illegal.

INCORRECT
everything on that list from piercings down is FGM, if the "people" is female, unless it is "necessary" for physical or mental health, or is connected with labour or birth, and is carried out by an approved medical practitioner.

You can't just nip down the tattooist and say (as a female people): "Clive I'm not loving the look here - could you take a bit off?" as Clive would be mutilating your female genitals, i.e. FGM, i.e. a crime.