Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

I thought I couldn't be shocked anymore (No Outsiders programme)

240 replies

LesbianMeansSomething · 23/04/2019 19:11

You know the No Outsiders programme which that gay teacher came up with all by himself to challenge homophobia in primary schools (and which just happens to promote a lot of the current transactivist ideology)?

Well, guess what? No Outsiders was a £575,435.85-funded project dating back to 2006, which this teacher and other individuals and groups such as Gendered Intelligence were involved in developing from the start.

What they were discussing is worth looking at for yourself: www.transgendertrend.com/no-outsiders-queering-primary-classroom/ but, to quote the article:

"There is an air of unreality about all this. ‘At what cost do we deny children’s and teacher’s sexuality? What do we lose if desire and pleasure are banned from the classroom? What is the place of the research team members’ own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research?’ Reading these questions, you have to keep reminding yourself that the bodies in question are those of adults and the children aged 5 to 11 who are in their care to learn."

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
ImGenderfree · 24/04/2019 09:19

Very interesting thank you. I have raised the Equality Policy already at DCs primary school. It does not have sex as one of the protected characteristics but has gender. I think it’s an old policy where the words were used interchangeably. In a brief discussion the HT explained that they will be working with Barnardos to look at their policies and provide training for staff and reviewing how they teach sex education and personal relationships in school. Her take was that the school should be inclusive from a non stereotypical point of view. I agree with this approach just not sure how it will work out in practice when put with the T. They hold termly meetings with parents on what the school is doing so I will raise it there also. Does anyone have any experience about the Barnardos programme in schools?

The education secretary (whose name escapes me) has also dropped the schools in it in saying that each school must determine how they will interpret and introduce the new curriculum and they must consult with parents. This allows parents the opportunity to question what will be taught.

Re the article on Moffat, if true, I would be very concerned about a teacher who would introduce a teaching programme against the Governors and HT wishes, this is bypassing Governance in a school. There should be an agreed policy on Sex Education that should be adhered to.

Bowlofbabelfish · 24/04/2019 09:15

it’s fine to tell children that some families have two mums/dads etc

Yes it is. And that should be where it ends at three. Sally has two mummies and they’re a normal family who go to the supermarket at the weekend and do normal stuff.

sexuality, as opposed to sex as a biological ‘you’re a boy and have these bits, girls have these bits’ is not an appropriate subject for a three year old. Gay, straight, anything. They need to know age appropriate names for body parts and how they work, that families look lots of different ways and the basics of ‘these bits are private and no one should touch me here.’

The idea of sexual desire and pleasure being appropriate for small kids in the classroom is very worrying. It’s grooming. The psychological aspects of relationships are for older kids. It is NOT age appropriate at primary.

This whole queering agenda is designed to destabilise reality, remove privacy and bring up a generation of kids who have no expectation of privacy, biological reality or bodily autonomy. Add that to lack of privacy culture online and a state cheering on medical intervention for children and telling them they can change sex and it’s a deeply worrying agenda.

Same sex relationships should be taught in an age appropriate way that makes them just as normal (and indeed dull) as straight ones. Sexuality, of any type, is not appropriate for the primary classroom. Not gay, not straight, not anything.

Whatisthisfuckery · 24/04/2019 09:15

I don’t think pleasure and desire have any place in a classroom, especially one full of primary school children. That’s one short step away from paedophilia. I have an 11 yo DS. At the moment he thinks the idea of sex is gross, in fact only the other day he told me he was going to stay a virgin. Not quite sure where he got that word from. He certainly doesn’t want to hear about sex at school. And what of the kids who are already curious? When they get home they’ll be straight on their phones or tablets or whatever looking up porn. It’s stupid, irresponsible and dangerous.

I know quite a few lesbian teachers. Acceptance for them is being able to say ‘I’m going to France with my wife over the holidays’ and not be ostracised by the management, other staff, pupils, or their families, or have whispers going around the school and constantly having to rebuff intrusive personal questions. I remember a woman telling me a story about how in her primary school all the teachers had to make a little display about them and their lives. The head told her that she wasn’t allowed to include her wife, while all the heterosexual teachers had pictures of their wives, husbands and partners. What any teacher, gay straight or bi gets up to in bed with their wives husbands or whatever doesn’t belong anywhere near the staff room, let alone a class full of pupils.

Now we’ve dealt with the obvious, consider this: I was never a girly girl, not in the slightest. I always wanted short hair, would kick up a fuss at the hairdressers etc. I had a football stuck to the end of my foot up until the age of about 14. I hated dolls, hated dresses and skirts, hated any makeup, nail varnish and generally all that preening stuff. I wasn’t interested in boys, unlike my sister and all the other girls, instead I wanted to be one of the boys. All my crushes from a young age were on girls and women, although I never admitted it for nearly 20 years. My parents are uneducated, so what the teachers and the school said was gospel. If I’d come home, as I might well have done, telling them I wanted to be a boy, and that I could be a boy, my parents would’ve called the school. The school would’ve then told them wrong body boy brain etc and they might well have swallowed it. Also, despite being aspirational working-class, and keen to get with the times, they were pretty homophobic themselves, hence my internalising my same-sex attraction, so it probably would’ve offered a comfortable, convenient, progressive way out of accepting a lesbian daughter.

So to see PPs accusing other PPs of homophobia, when actually what they’re doing is objecting to potentially lesbian and gay kids, like I was, being tricked into thinking that their thoughts and feelings are because their body is wrong is disingenuous in the extreme. A lot of posters on this board are lesbians ffs, many who were like me as a child and teen, so I bloody well think we know what we’re on about. I get incredibly angry when people go waving homophobia around as a stick to beat others with when they clearly have no idea how much homophobia we still face, or that for ever people have been accusing us of trying to indoctrinate their kids when all we want to do is get on with our lives and have our relationships recognised in an appropriate way, just like everybody else. Talking about pleasure and desire in the classroom, the fucking classroom ffs, is precisely the indoctrination we’ve been accused of, only it’s not the gays doing it, it’s the trans lobby using homosexuality as a shield. It’s fucking shameful, and they know it is, otherwise they would be open about their own agenda, rather than wrapping it up in a cloak of gay rights and using us as human shields.

Oh, and as a final point, sorry for long post, some of these homophobic parents will come from and still have strong ties with countries that would rather trans their gays than allow them to live as themselves, so think on.

LangCleg · 24/04/2019 09:11

What does queer theory hope to achieve?

I just think it's onanism for posh people, frankly.

OrchidInTheSun · 24/04/2019 09:03

I don't know Datun. And why do they want to teach it to children? I honestly don't understand

Datun · 24/04/2019 09:02

What does queer theory hope to achieve? I still have trouble grasping it. It appears that it only works if it's allowed to tell lies.

LangCleg · 24/04/2019 08:59

We have to keep asking who benefits.

Indeed. Let's boil it down...

... what is the consequence of teaching young girls of primary age that stranger penis in their private spaces is nothing to be afraid of?

... what is the consequence of teaching children that their aesthetic tastes make their bodies wrong?

HandsOffMyRights · 24/04/2019 08:58

*What the TGT article makes clear is that programmes like this are propaganda, pure and simple.

We have to keep asking who benefits.*

This ^ every time.

BettyDuMonde · 24/04/2019 08:50

It’s bonkers that a bit of legislation designed to ensure adult employees are treated fairly by their corporate overlords is being used to (disingenuously) justify introducing postmodernism to kids small enough to still believe in Santa/the tooth fairy/the Easter bunny.

Unless our current 5-11 year olds are running HR departments instead of doing paper rounds, the EA2010 is no more relevant to them than RIDDOR or COSH.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 24/04/2019 08:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

vicviking · 24/04/2019 06:43

I haven't

The transgender trend article is quite clear what the esrc grant was given for - not just for LGBT teaching but specifically exploring how you 'queer' the primary school and destabilize notions of heteronormality for 4-11 year olds. Moffat was one of the early teacher researchers and has been quite dogged in his testing and spreading of this in school.
This isn't a programme teaching all the protected characteristics to the same depth. They have just been sprinkled in to give the programme some cover and to pretend it is not just a way of putting queer theory in action.
I am no fan of queer theory but would have no problem with it being taught to young people old enough to properly debate and question it - say uni students. But in the no outsiders program untruths are presented as fact to children too young to question.

I love that you think this is okay because you have the time, energy and wherewithal to march in and discuss this with the teacher at the first sign of a reading list.

Datun · 24/04/2019 01:49

Blatantly renaming the protected characteristics and then making a song and dance about the fake ones, amid hinted dire warnings of non compliance.

A woman who was involved from the beginning then denying all knowledge in order to fake being finally 'won over' about its merits.

Not having any books about disability, religion or sex, despite billing itself as an equalities issue.

Confusing the fuck out of little kids to the point they think they can change sex.

But what the fuck is this???

There is an air of unreality about all this. ‘At what cost do we deny children’s and teacher’s sexuality? What do we lose if desire and pleasure are banned from the classroom? What is the place of the research team members’ own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research?’

"Reading these questions, you have to keep reminding yourself that the bodies in question are those of adults and the children aged 5 to 11 who are in their care to learn."

Apparently ^^ those questions were answered during a seminar.

What were the answers? Because those questions sure as shit need a bloody explanation.

OldCrone · 24/04/2019 00:54

she came home asking me if it’s ok to be a boy instead of a girl,

What do you think this means, Ihaventgottimeforthis?

What do you think i'm reading into this that isn't there? All I can see is that the child thought she could be a boy instead of a girl. But if it means something else, maybe you'd be kind enough to explain it.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:53

But I can continue to challenge the gender identity element whilst supporting the vast majority of the rest of the messaging. It's not all or nothing.

If anyone is sceptical of my gc views then do DM me and I'll send my twitter handle. To me this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

OldCrone · 24/04/2019 00:49

By allowing the gender identity element of the programme to overshadow everything else

But the gender identity element, with its lies that it's possible to be 'born in the wrong body' and that people can change sex, leads to puberty blockers and a life of medication and no sexual or reproductive function as adults.

It overshadows everything because of its potential to have horrifying and irreversible effects on some of those who believe in the ideology.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:47

Aagh I must go to sleep.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:47

Erythronium I haven't seen any evidence of actual teaching apart from the reading resources, so it would really depend on the messaging from the individual teacher.
I'm encouraged by the fact that the children felt this was something they wanted to discuss with their parents though, but I wonder what the parents responses were.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:45

In fact that whole Birmingham Mail article is worth sharing, to show how No Outsiders was presented to parents.
Ample opportunity one would think for people like us to challenge and question and ensure fact-based perspectives are also included.

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/muslim-mums-protest-outside-school-15729135

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:43

OldCrone that's not what the quote said, that's just what you're reading into it.
From the Birmingham Mail - 'My child came home and told me am I OK to be a boy? It's confusing children about sexuality.'

For me to be sure that the school was teaching that child they could change sex, I'd want to see those teaching resources, not an out-of-context quote in a local paper.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:39

I guess what it is Floral is that I don't interpret the messages of this particular programme as strongly as others do.
It may well be a Mermaids-lite, but my reading of it is that the gender identity crap is a small part of the whole.
By allowing the gender identity element of the programme to overshadow everything else, we do end up on the same side as homophobes and the ultra conservatives who want women to know their place.
Am I saying that we need to pick our battles carefully? Perhaps.

Erythronium · 24/04/2019 00:36

Do you think children take away from the teaching that they can change sex though Ihavent?

OldCrone · 24/04/2019 00:35

she's probably homophobic and that's her problem with the programme, rather than being gender critical and wanting sex and gender to be distinguished as protected characteristics.

In the quote, her problem was clearly that her child had been taught that she could choose to be a boy if she wanted to - in other words that she could change sex.

I don't think the fact that she is probably homophobic should mean that her concerns that her children are being taught woke fact-free nonsense have to be ignored.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:34

In summary, as I have to sleep, I don't interpret the No Outsiders programme as 'teaching children they can change sex'.
I know many of you do, I see what the programme does as conflating sex and gender and going down the familiar identity politics route, albeit in many of the examples with space for the children to interpret the answers. Which I don't like. So I would counter that with the school, and directly with my children.
But I still support the overall aims of the programme - similar to the rest of the curriculum really, my children are taught about modal verbs and dominating clauses and stuff, when they come home I tell them it's mostly rubbish. But I still agree with the overall aims.

FloralBunting · 24/04/2019 00:32

Is she worried her DD wants to be a boy, just because she tries on some different clothes? There does seem to be homophobic aspects to this too.

Yes, in case you missed it, it's the DNA of the trans movement to entertain the notion that if a male wears clothes coded female, or vice versa, it's an indication that they may well be in the wrong sex body. If a young person does a lot of things which may eventually have been pointers to them not being heterosexual, it's an indication they might be in the wrong sex body.

Damn right there are homophobic aspects to this - they are being merrily reinforced by a trans movement that misleads parents who might be unhappy with having gay children anyway into thinking that total nonsense like being born the wrong sex is somehow connected to being oriented towards the same sex.

Your optimism about being able to assert the truth when schools are teaching lies with authority is charming for your own children - but you are ignoring the many children for whom this kind of rubbish is profoundly damaging.

A friend of mine used to explain the effect of integral lies by offering people a nice piece of cake and explaining that she had only used a couple of teaspoons of arsenic in the recipe. The vast majority of the cake was good, wholesome stuff. It was just a little bit of poison.

Well no, I'm sorry, all the rainbow sparkly loveliness will not make up for telling kids pernicious lies about being able to change sex at an impressionable age, and it certainly won't cover over those disturbing sexualizing elements already quoted.

This is not sixth form 'let's read Mein Kampf so we can have a springboard to discuss why something as awful as Facism was so successful' thought experiments. This is primary 'learn how reality works at a basic level, so that we have the tools to be rational people'.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:29

Sorry OldCrone my point was that one of the parents quoted (out of context) from a newspaper article in the link in the top is not happy for her children to hear that homosexuality is OK, so for me that indicates she's probably homophobic and that's her problem with the programme, rather than being gender critical and wanting sex and gender to be distinguished as protected characteristics.
In a nutshell, a homophobic viewpoint is largely irrelevant to me. I'm more interested in factual concerns.

Swipe left for the next trending thread