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

Like an example above of the mother who was bothered by her young DD wanting to wear her brother's clothes - isn't that gender stereotyping? Is she worried her DD wants to be a boy, just because she tries on some different clothes?

Did you read what she said? Her daughter thought she could change into a boy. So yes, she was worried that the school had taught her daughter that she could change sex. Do you really not see a problem with this?

I know people may think me naive, and I know many parents & children wouldn't think to challenge schools & teachers, but t the risk of being glib I think to object to No Outsiders is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That is a sizeable grant yes, but for a two year research project employing a lot of people. I'd like to see how the money was spent, and how the links have been drawn over the intervening 13 years, whether that dodgy seminar was simply a one -off 12 years ago, and whether Andrew Moffat just liked the catchy name and used it for his inclusivity programme.
I stand by it - from what I've seen, I like the aim of No Outsiders and the transgender identity stuff is the same old same old we see from anywhere from CBBC to the Guardian, so we should address it with the same tactics - making sure we still have a voice, not being reactionary and giving our children the information we think they need to make an informed choice.

Following the source for one of those quotes, the parents also object to the fact that their child is hearing the message that 'it's ok to be gay'.

And why is that relevant? Is it OK for non-homophobic parents to object to their children being taught that they can change sex? But the homophobic ones deserve to be punished by having their children taught nonsense? I'm struggling to follow your argument.

But I think we've missed the boat in trying to separate gender related issues from sexuality (and sexism, and racism and all the other things that No Outsiders purports to address).
So as parents, we can and must add our input to whatever messaging the school gives across, whilst supporting the overall message of equality.
Like an example above of the mother who was bothered by her young DD wanting to wear her brother's clothes - isn't that gender stereotyping? 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.

Ihaventgottime I have struggled with this whole story. It's the wrapping of the T within the perfectly appropriate and valuable messages about LGB relationships that has bothered me. And while it absolutely might spark some interesting conversations in some homes, for many children, if it comes from a teacher it's gospel. And parents too - some are massively deferential to teachers, and to head teachers in particular.

And teachers are actually a very compliant bunch. (I was a late career changer and was really shocked by the lack of questioning of utterly pointless methods or gimmicks brought in purely because other schools were doing it and there was professional FOMO.)

This investigative piece has added to my discomfort - that is big money to have thrown at developing a scheme of work.

For example that load of bollocks which was the cinderella story a while back ('Jack' or something, was it called?)
The vast majority of children will hopefully see straight through that, if their parents have given them a well-rounded and factual upbringing.

Re 10,000 Dresses and the learning points suggested with it, I'm sure the vast majority of children will understand that no, wearing a dress does not make Bailey a girl.
To be fair, all of those discussion points in there can have a consistently gender critical response.
I wouldn't make Bailey stop wearing a dress.
I wouldn't make Bailey stop calling himself a girl.
I would encourage my Dcs to treat Bailey with respect and kindness.
I would however make sure that my DCs understand people cannot change sex, it's just that sometimes people feel happier expressing themselves in certain ways. I give my DCs enough credit to understand the complex messages and that I and school don't always agree, and that they can make their own minds up, just like I have.

Following the source for one of those quotes, the parents also object to the fact that their child is hearing the message that 'it's ok to be gay'.
Take that as you will. I have no problems with children in primary school understanding that it is OK to be gay.

Also, the CBBC documentary - I watched some of that too. A great opportunity to have the discussion with our children and help them understand the facts around sex, identity, gender stereotypes and why people might choose to describe themselves in different ways.

I am gender critical, just check my post history here (if you can, I've never figured out how to do that) but honestly, I think overall I'd be happy for No Outsiders to be part of my school's content. I'm going to have to have the tough discussions with my kids sooner or later, I'm happy overall for these broad issues to be discussed out in the open.

Ihaventgottimeforthis

Have a look at this site and the way they advise teaching this stuff
equalitiesplans.blogspot.com/2016/10/transgender-awareness-ks2-3-10000.html

Does Bailey feel like a boy? Does Bailey feel like a girl? At no point in the story does Bailey identify as a boy or a girl; does wearing a dress make a child a girl?

How do you ''feel like a girl' if you're a boy?

How does Leo describe what transgender means/ How did Mum feel at first when Lily became Leo?

Lily became Leo. What happened? Did Lily change sex?

Yes I did read the article, and I've looked around at other school websites to see how they're 'teaching' it.
I agree that the limited amount of actual info in that article indicates they're not separating sex from gender. But gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic, and people do live with a gender identity that doesn't match their birth sex. I don't agree that the way the message is being given is always correct, but I also noted the quotes from the parents saying their children were coming home asking questions. Which is a great opportunity for parents to carry on the discussion and present the facts as they want to see them.

For example if I see Princess Boy on my DD's reading list next year, I'll be in touch with the school to see what the actual content of the book is, and what messages they're putting out.
Overall, I feel the aim of No Outsiders, and the way it will hopefully be being delivered in many schools, is positive.

I haven't seen any evidence that No Outsiders is telling children they can change sex. That seems to me like complete exaggeration.

In the second post in this thread I quoted a bit from the Transgender Trend article which quoted two mothers, whose daughters had come home from school asking if they could be boys. Do you think it was a coincidence that they had just had these lessons, and they had independently had the idea that they could change sex? Or do you think it was because the lessons were telling them things like:

“Transgender” is when a person feels different from the body they were born into; we were all assigned a gender at birth and sometimes when we get a bit older we may feel differently about that. Some of us will live as a different gender from the one other people chose for us.”

and

The class then watches the CBBC documentary programme ‘I am Leo’ which is described as ‘very positive and perfect for understanding about life as a transgender child’. Leo tells viewers that he is an average 13-year-old boy apart from the fact he was born in a girl’s body.

Did you actually read the article ihaventgottime?

"we were all assigned a gender at birth and sometimes when we get a bit older we may feel differently about that ... Some of us will live as a different gender from the one other people chose for us;

This is what Moffat well funded programme is teaching children.

No one assigns a gender at birth - sex is noted. If you are telling children they can choose to identify out of that, you are telling them they can change sex

But I'm reluctant to bunny-hop from the basic message of 'inclusivity and acceptance' - which is necessary and good - to the chain of guilt-by-association, queering primary 11-year-old seminar.
If we view any sort of message for children about relationships & sexuality to be the thin end of the wedge leading to PIE, how on earth DO we go about discussing social issues in school?

Orchid I haven't seen any evidence that No Outsiders is telling children they can change sex. That seems to me like complete exaggeration.

To use the opposition's favourite phrase: educate yourself.

There have been at least a dozen threads about it on here with huge numbers of examples. The article this thread is about analyses several items in the programme that do just that.

The one that really gets to me is its recommendation of Pop'n'Olly material, that will make parents believe the YouTube channel is safe for their children to browse. The channel contains a video encouraging young children to fill out the recent government GRA consultation using pre-supplied answers from Stonewall.

What is a fact is that people have different sexualities and ways of expressing themselves, and that we should be empathetic and understanding of that.
The message that non-conformity to societal stereotypes is absolutely fine and should be accepted could equally be interpreted to address stereotypical assumptions that non-conformity means children were 'born in the wrong body'.

If the No Outsiders program was seeking to uphold the Equalities act, it would need to reflect each protected characteristic in its curriculum. The No Outsiders programme however, sees fit to cherrypick it’s protected characteristics.

Indeed the characteristics which do not fit it’s purposes, sex, are ignored/re-written.

Sex-based biological difference, just happens to be a useful classifier when examining the demographic at disproportionate risk of sexual violence, but why teach the kids about consent, boundaries and staying safe.

I am just amazed that Moffat was shortlisted for an international teaching award in recognition for this dogs dinner of a programme.

Orchid I haven't seen any evidence that No Outsiders is telling children they can change sex. That seems to me like complete exaggeration.

It's not okay to teach children that they can change sex ihaventgottime, no. I don't send my children to a religious school because I don't want them being told a bunch of beliefs I don't ascribe to. This is no different. These aren't facts,they are beliefs. And they have no place in state funded education

I never thought I'd see the day when parents would have to inform their 4 year old children that humans cannot change sex to protect them from a regressive and homophobic agenda they'll be taught in school.

I don't have a problem with the No Outsiders programme, I hear Andrew Moffat speak on the Today programme a few weeks ago and he sounded very reasonable.
Isn't it a good thing that children are coming home and asking their parents questions? It opens up a space for discussion in the family.
I know if my childrens' school was using materials that I felt were inaccurate and misleading (i.e Mermaids based info) I'd feel I could go into the school and ensure that information being discussed was factual, balanced and open for debate. And I'd be happy my children were coming home to me with questions.

I'm happy for secondary schools to talk to my children about pleasure and desire. But not primary schools. Children should not be sexualised.

They're also bullying/brainwashing children with references to the law. Since when did teachers teach children about particular laws at primary school?

And misrepresenting that law, to boot.

I don't approve of framing primary school curricula around EqA. Equalities law must balance conflicting rights. This is way above the heads of children at primary school level. And, as we see, the No Outsider curriculum pays little to no attention to important protected characteristics in the Act, particularly sex and religion.

Overall, we have a gross misrepresentation of the law. Something which is contextualised in this article's research on the genesis and funding of the programme.

Since we are currently dealing with an epidemic of sexual abuse and assault in our schools and it's therefore of the utmost urgency that we address the protected characteristic of sex, drop the peer on peer abuse obfuscations and teach girls how to assert healthy boundaries and boys to respect them, I see the No Outsiders programme as a gross dereliction of duty.

Adults who work with children to meet their own needs as opposed to wanting to meet the needs of the children is a recognised safeguarding concern. Why is that not being recognised here?

So how do we address someone talking about "pleasure and desire" with regards to 5-11 year old school pupils without being deleted, Mumsnet? Or is that elephant just going to remain seated in the middle of the room?

Should it not also be explained how "two dads" can have a child

The two dads I know of adopted their child.