Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

100 organisations ask Labour to abandon Tory revised guidelines on RSHE

285 replies

IwantToRetire · 12/07/2024 00:56

The Conservative government launched a consultation in May on planned updates to guidance first issued in 2019, following a review of the reforms.

It proposed age limits on “sensitive” topics, ordered schools not to teach about “gender identity” and to share materials with parents.

Ministers were accused at the time of stirring up “culture war” issues in the run-up to the election.

The consultation closes today.

To coincide with its closure, more than 100 organisations including the ASCL and NAHT leaders’ unions, the PSHE Association, Sex Education Forum, Barnardo’s, Refuge and Everyone’s Invited have issued a joint statement calling for a “fresh start” to the review.

“We are calling on the next government to discard the draft guidance and begin this process in due course, focusing on the needs of children and young people and supporting teachers to deliver a high-quality, inclusive curriculum.”

Lucy Emmerson, CEO of the Sex Education Forum, said age restrictions would be a “backward step making children more vulnerable to abuse and harm”.

PSHE association chief executive Jonathan Baggaley, warned he had “deep concerns about the development process and shortcomings of the draft guidance, particularly on critical aspects of children’s safeguarding, wellbeing and inclusion”.

And Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo’s, said introducing age limits to RSHE topics “risks children missing out on crucial teaching about abuse and exploitation”.

Continues at https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-faces-pressure-to-ditch-tory-rshe-reforms/

Labour faces pressure to ditch Tory RSHE reforms

Dozens of groups warn draft RSHE guidance 'falls short of what is required to help keep children safe'

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-faces-pressure-to-ditch-tory-rshe-reforms

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
7
MotherFeministWoman · 15/07/2024 09:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Well you clearly are not the smartest either. Your comment makes no sense in the context of the one it's replying to.

PepeParapluie · 15/07/2024 07:40

@ChickenonaMug I am so sorry that you went through that. But your post is very well articulated and you have very clearly explained the issues from the perspective of that child, and you’re totally right. It would be cruel to subject any child to that in school, but most especially those who the ‘more information’ type approach some people are advocating is supposedly aimed at helping.

CreateUserNames · 15/07/2024 01:29

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ScrollingLeaves · 14/07/2024 23:49

ChickenonaMug · 14/07/2024 23:13

Whilst RHSE can definitely be beneficial, it is almost certainly the subject that cause the most harm if done badly. And arguably the most vulnerable children to that harm are children who have been subjected to abuse. RHSE absolutely needs limits placed upon into to mitigate the risks of harm. Sometimes this limits need to be age-related because of the cognitive development of children and sometimes they might be to be trauma-informed limits.

There are many issues when delivering education to abused children. There is likely to be at least one sexually abused child in each class and do to the very nature of abuse and grooming then the vast majority of children will reach adulthood without disclosing to a protective adult. Therefore when delivering RHSE it will often not be known which children are particularly vulnerable as a result of abuse.

From the age of 7 (possibly younger) until into my teens I was subjected to sexual abuse. Here are some of the reasons based on my own childhood experiences why RHSE needs very definite limits.

RHSE will rarely, if ever, be able to empower children to stop abuse. This is what many organisations assert (including the NSPCC/Childline). At best it will be able to inform a child about how to get help and what that help might look like and that they are not to blame for the abuse and that there are laws which recognise their vulnerability and that mean that they won’t be blamed by reasonable adults.

Explicit RHSE, or even an hour long lesson all about sexual abuse, risks that child feeling deeply unsafe. Maybe because she (or he) fears that someone will figure out it has happened to her and she will feel exposed and ashamed. Maybe because she suddenly fears for the first time that images of her are being seen on the internet, like porn is. Maybe because she/he can hear the voice of her abuser in her head telling her that she wanted it. Whatever the reason is, the result may well be to disassociate from the lesson as far as possible- in much the same way she would when being abused. This is not only then deeply traumatising and harmful as it is associated in her mind with being abused, but it will also likely have the impact of closing down the idea of school as a place that would be safe to disclose. It will also put her on ‘alert’ to be ready to disassociate in way that will not draw attention to her during other RHSE lessons. IMO, little bits of advice about how to get help etc from a teacher known to them throughout the school year is far more likely to reach into an abused child’s mind without causing trauma.

School children, unlike most adults, cannot leave a lesson (without drawing attention to themselves or getting into trouble) therefore they are compelled to sit and listen and sometimes engage in the activities. An adult subjected to rape recently would not usually be forced to sit through a session that describes what rape is or what porn could show. A 12 or 14 year old girl will have no choice about listening to a lesson about rape or porn or drawing a picture of a ‘dick pic’, rolling a body parts sex dice, or indeed modelling a penis out of Playdoh, if that is what she is told to do the morning after she has been ***.

Many predators will have the ability to use what is taught in school to their advantage. I see some of what I was told by my abuser, in what children are taught today. For example, about consent, secrets, ‘love has no age’ or about how I was responsible for what happened because i didn’t react age 7 years, like other children might if they didn’t want it. (NSPCC and Jigsaw amongst others). There needs to clear limits on what can be said to children at each age based on understanding of how children interpret things and the strategies predators use to groom and manipulate children.

Sometimes giving children too much knowledge about abuse means that they interpret this as it being their responsibility to stop it happening. They then feel shame that they have not stopped it - making it potentially easier for the abuser to use their ‘shame’ and ‘guilt’ to protect himself and carry on.

Sometimes too much information given to a child could be used to explain away red flags in what a child is describing.
An abused child, may like any other child just not be developmentally ready to understand and process some information in a way that is not harmful to them.

Of course, I do not think that RHSE should only be established around the needs of children who have been abused. But the delivery of it should absolutely not cause further harm and trauma to them.

I also do not think that children should be given developmentally and age-inappropriate lessons because of arguments that it will help abused children to ‘protect themselves’.

Sorry if I haven’t written this very clearly.

Thank you for writing this from the perspective of someone who has been that very child who is supposed to be protected by school teaching about sexual abuse at a young age. What you say is so important for the guideline makers to know.

I am very sorry for what happened to you.

As soon I saw the bit about teaching ‘consent’ I thought how an abused child might interpret it. Grooming is getting consent. So an abused child will think they have ‘consented’.

As for, ‘Love has no age’ I have even seen that in a child’s book.

As you say here:
Many predators will have the ability to use what is taught in school to their advantage. I see some of what I was told by my abuser, in what children are taught today. For example, about consent, secrets, ‘love has no age’ or about how I was responsible for what happened because i didn’t react age 7 years, like other children might if they didn’t want it. (NSPCC and Jigsaw amongst others). There needs to clear limits on what can be said to children at each age based on understanding of how children interpret things and the strategies predators use to groom and manipulate children.

dougalfromthemagicroundabout · 14/07/2024 23:48

ChickenonaMug · 14/07/2024 23:13

Whilst RHSE can definitely be beneficial, it is almost certainly the subject that cause the most harm if done badly. And arguably the most vulnerable children to that harm are children who have been subjected to abuse. RHSE absolutely needs limits placed upon into to mitigate the risks of harm. Sometimes this limits need to be age-related because of the cognitive development of children and sometimes they might be to be trauma-informed limits.

There are many issues when delivering education to abused children. There is likely to be at least one sexually abused child in each class and do to the very nature of abuse and grooming then the vast majority of children will reach adulthood without disclosing to a protective adult. Therefore when delivering RHSE it will often not be known which children are particularly vulnerable as a result of abuse.

From the age of 7 (possibly younger) until into my teens I was subjected to sexual abuse. Here are some of the reasons based on my own childhood experiences why RHSE needs very definite limits.

RHSE will rarely, if ever, be able to empower children to stop abuse. This is what many organisations assert (including the NSPCC/Childline). At best it will be able to inform a child about how to get help and what that help might look like and that they are not to blame for the abuse and that there are laws which recognise their vulnerability and that mean that they won’t be blamed by reasonable adults.

Explicit RHSE, or even an hour long lesson all about sexual abuse, risks that child feeling deeply unsafe. Maybe because she (or he) fears that someone will figure out it has happened to her and she will feel exposed and ashamed. Maybe because she suddenly fears for the first time that images of her are being seen on the internet, like porn is. Maybe because she/he can hear the voice of her abuser in her head telling her that she wanted it. Whatever the reason is, the result may well be to disassociate from the lesson as far as possible- in much the same way she would when being abused. This is not only then deeply traumatising and harmful as it is associated in her mind with being abused, but it will also likely have the impact of closing down the idea of school as a place that would be safe to disclose. It will also put her on ‘alert’ to be ready to disassociate in way that will not draw attention to her during other RHSE lessons. IMO, little bits of advice about how to get help etc from a teacher known to them throughout the school year is far more likely to reach into an abused child’s mind without causing trauma.

School children, unlike most adults, cannot leave a lesson (without drawing attention to themselves or getting into trouble) therefore they are compelled to sit and listen and sometimes engage in the activities. An adult subjected to rape recently would not usually be forced to sit through a session that describes what rape is or what porn could show. A 12 or 14 year old girl will have no choice about listening to a lesson about rape or porn or drawing a picture of a ‘dick pic’, rolling a body parts sex dice, or indeed modelling a penis out of Playdoh, if that is what she is told to do the morning after she has been ***.

Many predators will have the ability to use what is taught in school to their advantage. I see some of what I was told by my abuser, in what children are taught today. For example, about consent, secrets, ‘love has no age’ or about how I was responsible for what happened because i didn’t react age 7 years, like other children might if they didn’t want it. (NSPCC and Jigsaw amongst others). There needs to clear limits on what can be said to children at each age based on understanding of how children interpret things and the strategies predators use to groom and manipulate children.

Sometimes giving children too much knowledge about abuse means that they interpret this as it being their responsibility to stop it happening. They then feel shame that they have not stopped it - making it potentially easier for the abuser to use their ‘shame’ and ‘guilt’ to protect himself and carry on.

Sometimes too much information given to a child could be used to explain away red flags in what a child is describing.
An abused child, may like any other child just not be developmentally ready to understand and process some information in a way that is not harmful to them.

Of course, I do not think that RHSE should only be established around the needs of children who have been abused. But the delivery of it should absolutely not cause further harm and trauma to them.

I also do not think that children should be given developmentally and age-inappropriate lessons because of arguments that it will help abused children to ‘protect themselves’.

Sorry if I haven’t written this very clearly.

I am so sorry for the harm done to you when you were such a small child.

Your post is very well written.

Thank you.

ChickenonaMug · 14/07/2024 23:13

Whilst RHSE can definitely be beneficial, it is almost certainly the subject that cause the most harm if done badly. And arguably the most vulnerable children to that harm are children who have been subjected to abuse. RHSE absolutely needs limits placed upon into to mitigate the risks of harm. Sometimes this limits need to be age-related because of the cognitive development of children and sometimes they might be to be trauma-informed limits.

There are many issues when delivering education to abused children. There is likely to be at least one sexually abused child in each class and do to the very nature of abuse and grooming then the vast majority of children will reach adulthood without disclosing to a protective adult. Therefore when delivering RHSE it will often not be known which children are particularly vulnerable as a result of abuse.

From the age of 7 (possibly younger) until into my teens I was subjected to sexual abuse. Here are some of the reasons based on my own childhood experiences why RHSE needs very definite limits.

RHSE will rarely, if ever, be able to empower children to stop abuse. This is what many organisations assert (including the NSPCC/Childline). At best it will be able to inform a child about how to get help and what that help might look like and that they are not to blame for the abuse and that there are laws which recognise their vulnerability and that mean that they won’t be blamed by reasonable adults.

Explicit RHSE, or even an hour long lesson all about sexual abuse, risks that child feeling deeply unsafe. Maybe because she (or he) fears that someone will figure out it has happened to her and she will feel exposed and ashamed. Maybe because she suddenly fears for the first time that images of her are being seen on the internet, like porn is. Maybe because she/he can hear the voice of her abuser in her head telling her that she wanted it. Whatever the reason is, the result may well be to disassociate from the lesson as far as possible- in much the same way she would when being abused. This is not only then deeply traumatising and harmful as it is associated in her mind with being abused, but it will also likely have the impact of closing down the idea of school as a place that would be safe to disclose. It will also put her on ‘alert’ to be ready to disassociate in way that will not draw attention to her during other RHSE lessons. IMO, little bits of advice about how to get help etc from a teacher known to them throughout the school year is far more likely to reach into an abused child’s mind without causing trauma.

School children, unlike most adults, cannot leave a lesson (without drawing attention to themselves or getting into trouble) therefore they are compelled to sit and listen and sometimes engage in the activities. An adult subjected to rape recently would not usually be forced to sit through a session that describes what rape is or what porn could show. A 12 or 14 year old girl will have no choice about listening to a lesson about rape or porn or drawing a picture of a ‘dick pic’, rolling a body parts sex dice, or indeed modelling a penis out of Playdoh, if that is what she is told to do the morning after she has been ***.

Many predators will have the ability to use what is taught in school to their advantage. I see some of what I was told by my abuser, in what children are taught today. For example, about consent, secrets, ‘love has no age’ or about how I was responsible for what happened because i didn’t react age 7 years, like other children might if they didn’t want it. (NSPCC and Jigsaw amongst others). There needs to clear limits on what can be said to children at each age based on understanding of how children interpret things and the strategies predators use to groom and manipulate children.

Sometimes giving children too much knowledge about abuse means that they interpret this as it being their responsibility to stop it happening. They then feel shame that they have not stopped it - making it potentially easier for the abuser to use their ‘shame’ and ‘guilt’ to protect himself and carry on.

Sometimes too much information given to a child could be used to explain away red flags in what a child is describing.
An abused child, may like any other child just not be developmentally ready to understand and process some information in a way that is not harmful to them.

Of course, I do not think that RHSE should only be established around the needs of children who have been abused. But the delivery of it should absolutely not cause further harm and trauma to them.

I also do not think that children should be given developmentally and age-inappropriate lessons because of arguments that it will help abused children to ‘protect themselves’.

Sorry if I haven’t written this very clearly.

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 21:59

CreateUserNames · 14/07/2024 21:12

Exactly why it should NOT be mentioned when it is not relevant age! That’s the whole point of banning from age that’s too young!

Sorry you aren't making sense to me! What do you mean, it is not relevant age! Is English your first language!

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 21:57

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 18:54

eastern, resister do you have children and what kind of age are they?

Any answer to this?

CreateUserNames · 14/07/2024 21:12

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 21:06

Eh? You've lost me.
I can only assume many posters here either have very young children, no children or very adult children so have not had to run the gauntlet of porn/sexting and conversations you'd rather not be having. The genie is not going back in the bottle, no matter how much you bury your head in the sand.

Exactly why it should NOT be mentioned when it is not relevant age! That’s the whole point of banning from age that’s too young!

EasternStandard · 14/07/2024 21:10

Posters here are not limited. There’s clearly good insight into the issues and from informed perspectives:

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 21:07

MrsOvertonsWindow · 14/07/2024 19:41

And if google is your reference point as opposed to working with children professionally, parenting children etc then it's easy to get sucked in by propaganda and political ideology - rather than what matters when safeguarding children.

My "reference point" is charities who are experts, reading and talking to experts etc. Not FWR posters with very particular areas of interest and a limited interest in any other perspectives. HTH.

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 21:06

CreateUserNames · 14/07/2024 20:48

The point is porn does not have a place to be mentioned! It doesn’t matter what you think anyway!

Eh? You've lost me.
I can only assume many posters here either have very young children, no children or very adult children so have not had to run the gauntlet of porn/sexting and conversations you'd rather not be having. The genie is not going back in the bottle, no matter how much you bury your head in the sand.

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 21:03

IwantToRetire · 14/07/2024 20:33

Occasionally there are times when a thread on FWR would be more useful in the immediate term and possibly for future reference if it dealt with practical responses to an actual occurrence.

There is nothing to stop someone who wants to re-activate the discussion about what is or is not appropriate in schools to start a thread to do this. Having stray posts about this in amongst a thread about a political process that may impact on that, means that they get lost and the thread becomes just another rehashing of differences.

Added to which, as pointed out on another thread, as mumsnet went to the bother of setting up 2 forums so that those who dont think the issue of sex and gender is relevant to feminism, it seem bizzare to come to the forum about sex and gender. As though only to create negativity.

Feminist Chat exists for those who want to discuss women's issues but not through the prism of sex and gender.

You aren't the thread or board police, and don't get to dictate how threads go. Its pretty tedious you starting threads and getting annoyed when posters with a different opinion to you comment.

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 21:02

IwantToRetire · 14/07/2024 20:25

To get back to the purpose of the thread, which is about alerting those on FWR that a Government consultation looks like it might be derailed by vested interest groups.

Unfortunately this has been true for more that a few years - quote:

Some of these organisations' opposition can only really be explained by an irrational opposition to anything the Tories did. I can't believe that EVAW, Rape Crisis, Refuge, the IWF, White Ribbon, NSPCC, Barnardo's (the list is too, too long) don't think this approach is wrong. They think they have to posture.

Many of these groups are what are called 2nd or 3rd tier groups. ie they are not front line workers. They are in theory meant to represent those who are actually doing the front line work, but nine times out of ten are anything but that. They become career stepping stones for people who rarely have actually experience, but lots of confidence to comment. And of course exploit their privileged positions to further their particular political loyalties.

For instance I dont think EVAW have every made a comment about trans women and women only spaces, let alone know or have any experience of the pressure on children in (some) schools to conform to the notion of gender identity.

It maybe in the next few days they will admit to having been part of this letter, but in the meantime to sign a letter, based on their second hand exeprience, and doing it secretly is very, very dubious.

The consultation is about relationship, health and sex education. There is a lot more to it than gender identity. Many of the charities listed are experts in VAWG and domestic abuse. So of course they have an opinion and a right to comment on this.

Frankly I'm shocked by the willingness to write off womens charities just because you disagree.

CreateUserNames · 14/07/2024 20:48

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 18:24

We teach children about potential sexual abuse very young- e.g. pants rule. I mean that level of teaching. So that for the children who do see porn they know what to do
I've said this a lot, yet there is a continuous push to suggest I'm saying show kids porn, or describe it in detail. I'm not. I'm saying don't blanket ban discussion of it, which is the proposed change under consultation.

The point is porn does not have a place to be mentioned! It doesn’t matter what you think anyway!

IwantToRetire · 14/07/2024 20:33

Occasionally there are times when a thread on FWR would be more useful in the immediate term and possibly for future reference if it dealt with practical responses to an actual occurrence.

There is nothing to stop someone who wants to re-activate the discussion about what is or is not appropriate in schools to start a thread to do this. Having stray posts about this in amongst a thread about a political process that may impact on that, means that they get lost and the thread becomes just another rehashing of differences.

Added to which, as pointed out on another thread, as mumsnet went to the bother of setting up 2 forums so that those who dont think the issue of sex and gender is relevant to feminism, it seem bizzare to come to the forum about sex and gender. As though only to create negativity.

Feminist Chat exists for those who want to discuss women's issues but not through the prism of sex and gender.

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 14/07/2024 20:25

To get back to the purpose of the thread, which is about alerting those on FWR that a Government consultation looks like it might be derailed by vested interest groups.

Unfortunately this has been true for more that a few years - quote:

Some of these organisations' opposition can only really be explained by an irrational opposition to anything the Tories did. I can't believe that EVAW, Rape Crisis, Refuge, the IWF, White Ribbon, NSPCC, Barnardo's (the list is too, too long) don't think this approach is wrong. They think they have to posture.

Many of these groups are what are called 2nd or 3rd tier groups. ie they are not front line workers. They are in theory meant to represent those who are actually doing the front line work, but nine times out of ten are anything but that. They become career stepping stones for people who rarely have actually experience, but lots of confidence to comment. And of course exploit their privileged positions to further their particular political loyalties.

For instance I dont think EVAW have every made a comment about trans women and women only spaces, let alone know or have any experience of the pressure on children in (some) schools to conform to the notion of gender identity.

It maybe in the next few days they will admit to having been part of this letter, but in the meantime to sign a letter, based on their second hand exeprience, and doing it secretly is very, very dubious.

OP posts:
MrsOvertonsWindow · 14/07/2024 19:41

frenchnoodle · 14/07/2024 18:58

The good thing is, lots of bumping the thread up is happening.

And if google is your reference point as opposed to working with children professionally, parenting children etc then it's easy to get sucked in by propaganda and political ideology - rather than what matters when safeguarding children.

EasternStandard · 14/07/2024 19:32

PepeParapluie · 14/07/2024 19:15

I’m feeling like I’ve misunderstood Cassie somehow.

For clarity, in case it’s not obvious from my previous posts - I don’t think there’s anything wrong with warning children that sometimes there might be things (without going into any specifics) they see that make them feel scared or upset, and that they should talk to a trusted adult about those things.

I absolutely disagree that there is any general need to be speaking to groups of children of primary school age about pornography. I don’t see a way that that can be done in an age appropriate way.

As far as I understand it, the new guidance would permit the general chat, and make clear that specifics about porn is inappropriate under year 7. With a carve out in cases among specific classes where it might be appropriate to discuss it earlier because of something that has happened among that class. That sounds right to me.

(Just to say, I’m not saying the carve out would necessarily be appropriate to porn vs all the other age limits it would also apply to, but it is there and therefore I guess could be used if exceptional circumstances demanded it)

Same and I think from primary age this is done already and won’t change. PANTs is good as is education to parents and young children re online safety which is happening and won’t end.

Secondary I would consider rape culture re male teens finding various things funny and toxic masculinity. I would include adults propagating this environment. Also make sure you don’t re traumatise as per posts below.

PepeParapluie · 14/07/2024 19:15

I’m feeling like I’ve misunderstood Cassie somehow.

For clarity, in case it’s not obvious from my previous posts - I don’t think there’s anything wrong with warning children that sometimes there might be things (without going into any specifics) they see that make them feel scared or upset, and that they should talk to a trusted adult about those things.

I absolutely disagree that there is any general need to be speaking to groups of children of primary school age about pornography. I don’t see a way that that can be done in an age appropriate way.

As far as I understand it, the new guidance would permit the general chat, and make clear that specifics about porn is inappropriate under year 7. With a carve out in cases among specific classes where it might be appropriate to discuss it earlier because of something that has happened among that class. That sounds right to me.

(Just to say, I’m not saying the carve out would necessarily be appropriate to porn vs all the other age limits it would also apply to, but it is there and therefore I guess could be used if exceptional circumstances demanded it)

frenchnoodle · 14/07/2024 18:58

The good thing is, lots of bumping the thread up is happening.

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 18:54

eastern, resister do you have children and what kind of age are they?

EasternStandard · 14/07/2024 18:53

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 14/07/2024 18:47

See? Absolutely zero misunderstanding. Just a continued insistence on destroying children's boundaries.

I can guess but I’m relieved so many of you are clear and knowledgeable when it comes to this

I find some of the posts difficult especially when considering children, girls foremost but boys too

CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 18:53

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 14/07/2024 18:47

See? Absolutely zero misunderstanding. Just a continued insistence on destroying children's boundaries.

Biscuit
CassieMaddox · 14/07/2024 18:52

ResisterOfTwaddleRex · 14/07/2024 18:46

That's generous, Eastern. I don't believe there can possibly be a misunderstanding. How can you - having conversed in English for pages - misunderstand both the words in English in the draft guidance, and the words in English posted here? You can't.

Here's what EVAW say:

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/government-rshe-proposals-would-harm-children-by-limiting-vital-education/

Quality relationships and sex education based on consent and equality is a crucial part of preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG); giving young people the knowledge and skills to navigate romantic relationships in a healthy and respectful way. We’re deeply concerned that with its draft guidance, the government is failing young people in a number of ways:

Shutting down conversations about relationships and sex to supposedly ‘protect children’, when we know that conversely, this stops children from being able to identify unhealthy relationships, pushes sexual abuse into the shadows and leaves children less able to find help if they need it. Stopping younger children from having guided, informed discussions about sex and relationships will only put them at risk. There is overwhelming evidence that by giving them the support, skills and knowledge they need to navigate the world they live in, quality RSHE helps protect children’s rights and freedoms to a childhood free from abuse.

An overall lack of coherence in what can be taught, and when. While porn, image-based sexual abuse and sexual harrasment can be taught from year 7, sexual acts, sexual violence and domestic abuse cannot be taught until year 9. Given image-based sexual abuse is a form of sexual violence, and it is clearly impossible to teach about porn without being able to reference sexual acts, we’re concerned that these new age restrictions are not only incoherent and confusing for teachers and their pupils, they may deter schools from teaching RSHE at all. In addition, separating forms of gender-based violence in this way means teachers are unable to show how these acts are all connected, with their roots in the male power and entitlement that inequality produces

I agree with them. And respectfully, I'd rather listen to the opinions of organisations that know a lot about this, than the opinions of some Internet randoms who seem incapable of considering any perspectives apart from their own.

Government RSHE proposals would harm children by limiting vital education | End Violence Against Women

After over a year of speculation in Parliament and the press, the government has now (16th May 2024) published its draft Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) guidance and announced an 8 week public consultation. Last year, the government anno...

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/government-rshe-proposals-would-harm-children-by-limiting-vital-education