GCSE pupils taught toilets provided by biological sex is discrimination - according to new GCSE Revision book.

Children, parents and teachers also aren't very keen on legally incorrect materials or transactivists pushing their niche anti social beliefs at other people's children via exam boards.

Can't imagine why 🙄

Current GCSE pupils will have started on their syllabus 2 years ago and that will have been written at least 1-2 years ahead of that (so 2022-23).

It's very likely not to be the last syllabus that isn't reflecting the fws judgement. The syllabus will get there but for obvious reasons, the children, parents and teachers aren't fans of a syllabus changing while studying it.

Unless action is taken to make transactivism on children illegal, and they are all too weak to do this, it is going to go on and on. It is in all sorts of books.

I just had a depressing thought. Normally, I buy (and recommend) secondhand books in order to pre-date this ideology. But this textbook is the secondhand book of tomorrow, isn't it? This book is going to be on charity shop shelves in the next few months or so and will stay there for years.😔

The problem being unisex provision is always going to be inferior to single sex provision in terms of health and safety, because the design is completely private.

Yes, "dignity" is a very important consideration. Nothing undignified at all about these individuals accessing female-only spaces but heaven forfend they should suffer the indignity of having to use male-only spaces.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5521856-5521856-biggus-titus-of-oxford-university

I think it is discriminatory if you don't have some unisex provision, if we are going to say that with single sex toilets transmen have to use the female toilets and transwomen have to use male toilets, everybody should be able to use the toilet with dignity.

I'd say send it to the grown-ups in govt to deal with but seriously there aren't any.

Will sex matters be able to assist?

Does anyone know if there is an exam board not promoting transactivist ideology?

Even the grammar of that particular snapshot is clumsily unclear. What should be limited, exactly? "The misuse of freedom of speech to promote extremist views"? Or "the misuse of freedom of speech"? Or just "freedom of speech" itself? And how do you define "misuse" and "extremist", in any case, if this should be "limited"? As "limited" isn't an absolute, how do you make such judgements?

That's not simplifying complex ethical issues for younger students. It's mangling them beyond all recognition.

I can't believe it passed muster to make it into the classroom.

I'm shocked by the quality of this, given the publisher. Really worrying.

And from the article it conflates 'extremism' and 'terrorism' when explaining freedom of speech.

Leaving aside the politics, I'm surprised that something this misleading can be sold as a revision book - is the problem the publisher or the syllabus?

Just when I thought the mind couldn't boggle any further 🙄

I've just mentioned this to DD, who is taking French A level and her eyebrows almost touched the ceiling.

I suggested she sends it to their (native) French teacher. I hope she does, would love to hear the teacher's take.

As for 'Citizenship', luckily DD is no longer affected but she does appreciate that year 9-10s may well believe and internalise that shit.

Thanks to the PP who suggested a look at Pearson's mission statement. I'm off to take a look, preferably after a stiff drink.

'Discrimination' means being able to telll one thing apart from another thing; which is often a vital skill. Yet it always presented as a pejorative with negative implication.

Unless, presumably, they're protesting what they see as a human rights issue, in which case, to quote the guide, “human rights come ahead of the right of a country to conduct its own affairs”? From the few examples given, it's badly written, incoherent and dangerously dumbed down. Someone else needs to write the course (I do believe there's a need for (global and national) citizenship lessons - and then these authors need to take it themselves.

It's incredible how those who wish to gaslight children find it so easy to get work where they can directly influence the young. Such a surprise. 🙄

Oh FFS. So Pearson, a British textbook publisher, is rewriting the French, German and Spanish languages despite objections from - well - the French, German and Spanish. You couldn’t make it up.

Pearsons are at it in languages too

https://archive.ph/WAxAu

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/09/gender-neutral-gcse-french-lessons-international-row/

Sorry for the digression, but I'm flabbergasted that 'citizenship' should be taught to 14-to-16-year-olds in this way. I remember spending the greater part of a GCSE history lesson debating whether suffragettes were right to break the law; but the right answer, according to Pearson, is that a citizen has the responsibility "if protesting, to do so legally".

Pearson obviously don't care about religious groups who require single sex spaces either. Pretty much one track indoctrination. Absolutely shameful and I hope they lose a lot of business as a result.

Does anyone know about other exam boards? Queering education means breaking the law and binning safeguarding as far as I can tell.

Glad my local school doesn't do indoctrination, misogyny, safeguarding failure citizenship studies.

Whoever inserted this needs their hard drive checking. Who does it benefit to blur boundaries and safeguarding like this? Rhetorical question.

Toilets provided by gender are mixed sex toilets. Therefore all regulated single sex designs are null and void and have to be designed-out.