Aberdeen teacher complaining about being blocked from teaching LGBT+ to 7 year olds

I agree.

On a simple (but comparable) level, children will recognise and code age without seeing birth certificates, and will therefore feel confused and unsafe if adults around them in positions of authority told them that they were to treat an older man of 70 (no dementia etc) as a child of 10 simply on the basis of him saying he was - and if they didn't, they would be accused of bullying and bigotry.

But children don’t usually know what’s in other people’s trousers, so that’s not how they’re identifying people in everyday life anyway. My son doesn’t know whether the man serving him in a shop, his football coach, or a teacher has a penis or not. He identifies people using social cues, names, clothing, voices, relationships and the language other people use around him

Do you really think that people cannot identify a persons sex without seeing their genitals. If a child sees a man and woman in identical clothes with identical haircuts they will still be able to tell what sex they are due to their different bodies.

It just needs normalising rather than teaching a lesson on it

I’d like to gently point out that you have made a few assumptions about my background, which aren’t true and don’t reflect my experience.

You seem to have concluded that I don’t understand education, safeguarding, schools or children’s development because I don’t share your conclusions. In reality, I have worked in education and I now work in safeguarding and protecting vulnerable children.

That’s partly why I find your response rather patronising.

The OP was highlighting the disappointment of a teacher, who had planned a P4 lesson on Pride, who found her lesson was cancelled without explanation. There have been a lot of assumptions made about the content of said lesson, without any of us knowing what was planned to be taught. This specific incidence is not, in itself, evidence of ‘trans overreach’, safeguarding concerns, gaslighting or harming children. As far as the resource pictured shows, there was perhaps no intention of teaching anything about what to believe about gender identity.

I would also suggest that it’s somewhat naïve to believe that children can simply be shielded from topics that are being actively debated throughout society. Whether we like it or not, children are exposed to discussions about gender identity, sexuality and LGBT people through family members, older siblings, social media, television, news coverage and their wider communities.

That doesn’t mean schools should teach any particular ideology. However, it does mean that children will inevitably have questions. In my view, pretending these topics don’t exist is no more neutral than discussing them. In fact, it can leave children confused when they encounter these issues elsewhere.

We are talking about a topic that is discussed daily in the media, debated by politicians, considered by courts and policymakers, and affects real people in our communities. Young people are aware of these discussions. They see stories in the news, including tragic cases involving LGBT and transgender young people. To suggest that schools should never acknowledge the existence of these issues strikes me as neither realistic nor particularly educational. Of course, it should be approached in an age appropriate way and should be presented as neutral, rather than pushing an agenda. I haven’t seen evidence of agendas being pushed in my experience, but I can appreciate that there may be instances of that out there which you would be correct to challenge.

Yeah I don't see why the fact that some people love members of their own sex can't be taught in an age appropriate way. That not everyone has (just) a mummy and a daddy.

Coupled with the fact that people of both sexes can dress and act and do whatever they like. (Within reason!) That there aren't things for boys, and things for girls. Just things for everyone.

But children don’t usually know what’s in other people’s trousers, so that’s not how they’re identifying people in everyday life anyway. My son doesn’t know whether the man serving him in a shop, his football coach, or a teacher has a penis or not. He identifies people using social cues, names, clothing, voices, relationships and the language other people use around him.

Children cope with exceptions to rules all the time. They learn that most birds fly, then discover penguins. They learn that adding “-s” makes words plural, then encounter “children” and “mice”. Learning that some people use different names or pronouns isn’t necessarily any more confusing than countless other exceptions they encounter while developing language.

I also think there’s a difference between saying “sex exists” and saying that hearing someone referred to as “she” will undermine a child’s entire understanding of categories. Children are generally quite capable of understanding that people can be described in different ways without their whole framework for understanding the world collapsing. Although the points you make are interesting and I hadn’t really considered it before. I studied linguistics for a period, so I find it interesting. They are now trialling gender neutral language in some Scandinavian countries, as they are researching whether gendered language has an ideological impact. Fascinating field of work.

Whether someone agrees with social transition or not, I don’t think there’s much evidence that simply knowing a child or adult who uses different pronouns causes children to lose confidence in language, categorisation, or reality itself.

I suppose we’ll find out, one way or another. Thanks for the interesting points!

I know some trans people as do many on here.

What ‘misconceptions’ do you think we have?

If someone asked him to refer to that person as a ‘she’, I wouldn’t have any issue with it. It costs my son nothing to simply code-switch and respect that child’s wishes - even if my son doesn’t really believe it. I doubt my son would even question it to be honest. If his younger brother wants to be known as ‘tiger’ or ‘Lightening McQueen’, then he would call him that and would know his brother isn’t really either of those things.

This is an important point. Many adults unthinkingly promoting trans ideology make this sort of comparison. However they don’t take into account the fact that in schools, children are being told to accept that little Johnny is really a girl or Mx Smith, an obviously female teacher is actually not female and they can’t call her Miss like all the other female teachers, so the kids are far more likely to believe them.

This is in no way similar to little brother wanting to be called ‘tiger’ when older brother knows enough about what a tiger is to understand that little brother is just playing and is reassured by the fact that mum doesn’t start treating little brother as if she really thought he was a tiger.

Children often take trusted adults quite seriously. As an example I know a little boy who was told by his mums friend that he would go pop with the amount of jam sandwiches he’d eaten. He ran home in floods of tears because he was terrified of popping. This is has become a jokey family story and thankfully the little boy didn’t actually pop but his fear was real.

Trusted adults that are parents and teachers are abusing the trust of the children by lying to them. That is unforgivable.

I don’t think hearing that another child prefers a different name or pronouns would automatically make him question his own identity

It’s not about the subjective concept of his ‘personal identity’, it’s about undermining his understanding of basic categories by giving him inconsistent and conflicting information.

One of the ways children learn about the world is by identifying and understanding categories - I remember my kids doing it - understanding some rules they’d been given to enable them to identify and name something and then applying and refining them as new information is learnt.

A nice simple set of rules around language and identifying the sex of others for children is fundamentally undermined by telling them to refer to a boy by a girls word - ‘she’ or suggesting that ‘she’ is really a girl despite having a penis.

Or making them call an identifiably male teacher ‘Miss’, or telling them that an identifiably male teacher is not actually male or even female but neither. All if the nice consistent rules are out of the window, the child has lost a basic building block for their world. I have a very old memory of learning about categories and how it works through my misconception. Fortunately it was to do with categorising shoes so it had no effect on my life.

I think many adults, sadly even teachers, don’t understand or have not considered how fundamental this learning is for children. The willingness of otherwise sane adults to pretend they think that Dave is really a woman and to deny basic reality to children regardless of the consequences has really shaken me. Biology teachers pretending they think there are more than two sexes, or that people can change sex, doctors and lawmakers pretending they think that identity is more important than sex - it really is like a collective madness.

It will be interesting to understand what damage this inflicts on children’s confidence in linguistic and concept rules and categories in the future. We’ve never tried gaslighting a population on this scale before. Let’s hope for the best, eh?

Well done for finding Mumsnet and this thread to share so many of your views. If you read a little bit wider than this thread you'll find extensive evidence of the extreme transactivist views that have been promoted in countless schools. Many of us have worked in schools for years and safeguarding and are fully up to date with what's been pushed at children by adult queer theory groups.

The "polarised" debate has been done to death on here. What is actually happening is that responsible adults - especially but not solely parents - are now pushing back against the tide of age inappropriate materials relating to GI and the practices that include compulsory mixed sex undressing and toilets, gaslighting about science and facts etc. So although your last paragraph is an interesting perspective, this thread is about trans over reach in schools and where safeguarding children is concerned, I don't recognise a "both sides" of the debate.

Pleased to see my employer is continuing to take a sensible approach on this issue! I would be intrigued to know what was in the lesson plan. It really is long overdue that teachers are reminded that they are there to teach children not push their political viewpoints. Activist teachers have been a strong driving force of this whole ideology.

Unfortunately most people are basing their knowledge of trans people on the loudest social media voices. Which, just as it isn't for any other group, isn't representative. Talk about stereotyping!

I find it interesting that you’ve described people asking for respect, inclusion and reduced bullying as “entitled”, while at the same time arguing that an entire group of people should be dismissed as “nonsense”.

Throughout this discussion I’ve seen a lot of claims about what schools are supposedly teaching, but very little evidence of children actually being told that they must abandon critical thinking or accept ideas without question.

Teaching children that different people exist is not the same thing as demanding that they stop thinking for themselves.

In fact, I’d argue that critical thinking involves engaging with people whose experiences differ from our own, not simply dismissing them as deluded, entitled or part of a conspiracy. It’s obvious that for a lot of people, what you deem to be ‘unacceptable’ is actually acceptable. Otherwise there would be no debate. There will be extremes on both sides of the debate, but I very much doubt that the extreme views represent the majority opinion on each side. Those extreme voices are the voices that get picked up on the most and advertised the most, because we live in a society that profits off of ‘shares, likes and scandal’. Which polarises the debate even further. I don’t think I’m extreme, I’d consider myself quite reasonable to be honest, but to be branded as unable to employ critical thinking skills or as part of a cult, as someone else suggested on this thread is actually just a bit ridiculous.

If someone asked him to refer to that person as a ‘she’, I wouldn’t have any issue with it. It costs my son nothing to simply code-switch and respect that child’s wishes - even if my son doesn’t really believe it. I doubt my son would even question it to be honest. If his younger brother wants to be known as ‘tiger’ or ‘Lightening McQueen’, then he would call him that and would know his brother isn’t really either of those things. This is very age specific though, so again it’s a simpler picture. My son would genuinely just go about his day without giving it a second thought.

I think at his age, the teaching surrounding this should be age appropriate and really focused on simple language. His young brain wouldn’t be able to comprehend more than that, at this stage. I’d say we have a very close and open relationship and he would likely ask us, at home, if he felt confused. It would be valid for him to have that thought, but it doesn’t automatically mean he would make that link and assume he is a ‘girl’ too. I don’t think hearing that another child prefers a different name or pronouns would automatically make him question his own identity any more than meeting a child with two mums would make him question whether he has a mum and a dad. I think most children my son’s age would shrug it off and just move on with their day. I appreciate that this isn’t always the same for each child and for each age group.

I am in no way saying that all children wouldn’t be confused and of course it’s correct that as parents if we thought what was being taught wasn’t age appropriate then we should have an avenue to raise those concerns. A lot of parents sadly don’t have these conversations with children, or aren’t as open with their children as perhaps you or I are, which is probably the part of the reason this has woven its way into the curriculum.

So true.
Transactivists have spent the last 10 or more years instructing society (including children) that it's transphobic, bullying, genocide and the rest to state that transwomen are men, that girls and women are entitled to single sex spaces when undressing free from the male gaze and that children (and adults) must accept that the words women girl, maternity etc are somehow shameful and must never be uttered.

The overreach is spectacular. The sheer energy that transactivists devote to endless word salads, excuses, comparisons, threats, blame and demands that society accepts the unacceptable - especially when it comes to schools and children - is unbelievable.

So I am extremely pleased that this transactivist teacher was issued with clear boundaries about what is acceptable in a primary school. It's also great that this thread is repeatedly bumped as it gives parents a chance to see how entitled those in education are who argue for gender identity to be imposed on very young children who have yet to develop the critical insights to analyse this nonsense.

My son is 5, so for him at this age I would simply say they are wearing a dress because they want to.

That would be ok. What about anyone who expects him to refer to that other boy in a dress as ‘she’?

if my son wanted to wear a dress then he could.

That’s great. How would you ensure he doesn’t get confused by the things that his teacher has told him (that little Johnny who wears a dress needs to be referred to as ‘she’ because he is ‘really a girl’) and starts thinking that because he wants to wear a dress he might also be a girl?

Children of that age are still learning about categories so if given illogical or inconsistent information, it will cause deep confusion about something fundamental.

Nobody expected my classmates to agree with everything about me. They were simply expected not to make my life miserable because I was different. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation for any child.

This is the trouble with trans ideology though - children are being expected to agree that their classmate that they know to be male is now female or vice versa.

And if they don’t, and don’t want to use incorrect language for their classmates sex, they are deemed to be bullying by many.

It is important not to confuse vulnerable with harmless.

Extremely important. As a tragic example, it seems like the man who there the boy into the crocodile enclosure was a vulnerable adult with mental disabilities.

My son is 5, so for him at this age I would simply say they are wearing a dress because they want to. It probably wouldn’t be a huge issue for him anyway, because his younger brother loves Princess Elsa from Frozen and wants to dress up as her at home. We also don’t place huge emphasis on kids wearing ‘boy’ or ‘girls’ clothes at home; if my son wanted to wear a dress then he could. If he wanted to wear pink unicorn shoes, then he could. That’s a separate debate to the ‘trans debate’ though - wearing specific clothing is mostly just experimental at that age and we just go with the flow. So I appreciate that’s a very simple take on a very complex issue.

I would also say that most trans people I know are open to questions, as they accept it moves towards better understanding. I appreciate that some might take offence. The beauty of human nature being we aren’t all the same.

It seems to be the most divisive debate that I can remember in my life. We won’t all agree on it and that’s fair. We will all have our reasons for thinking and feeling the way we do. I’m

My child might ask a question like, ‘why is that boy wearing a dress?’

That absolutely would constitute bullying in the minds of some trans activists. It’s lucky your child didn’t have any in his or her school but others are not so lucky.

My child might ask a question like, ‘why is that boy wearing a dress?’ That doesn’t mean he’s considered as a bully. Most children I know would ask a question, accept an answer and move on.

So what answer should he be given and why does he have to accept an answer if he knows it to be untrue or it makes no logical sense?

We don't shrug our shoulders, we teach them right from wrong, being mean is one of the wrong things. We also teach them lying is a wrong thing, which is why they need to be protected from a world view that is based entirely on lies.

What ever problems a child may have that causes them to reject the reality of their existence, is not for other children to deal with. If the education system concentrated on helping those who are struggling instead of trying to change every other child to fit a counterfactual ideology, it might genuinely help the children who are struggling.
I would say it's teachers who are the ones who are shrugging their shoulders, and palming the struggles of some children off as that's the way they are, despite what the evidence of they're own eyes is telling them.

I agree that no child should be bullied, and I also agree that children shouldn’t be compelled to say things they don’t believe.

Where I think we differ is that I don’t see respect and belief as being the same thing.
Schools ask children to be respectful towards people whose beliefs, identities or lifestyles they may not share all the time. We don’t generally require children to personally agree with someone in order to treat them kindly.

I also think there is a difference between teaching children that some people identify in a particular way and teaching them that they must personally adopt a particular belief about sex and gender.

As for preparing children for bullying, I think that’s sensible to an extent. But I’d be uncomfortable with telling any child that bullying is simply inevitable and that the main solution is for them to learn to cope with it. I’d rather schools continue trying to reduce bullying wherever possible, whether the child being targeted is autistic, gay, transgender, disabled, religious, or simply different from their peers.

To me, the goal isn’t to make children think the same. It’s to help them learn how to disagree without being cruel. I don’t think you disagree with this. I can see your point of view. Thank you for responding respectfully.

If you are referencing me, I’m not a teacher - thank god (say I and probably a lot of you in this thread 🤣).

If I was a teacher, I’d adhere to guidelines and teach what was appropriate at each age and stage.

All I was trying to say is that from the snippets of the Facebook thread above, a lot of assumptions are being made. I’d guarantee even with a teacher’s private group there’s a lot of debate about the lesson and the content. Sharing a resource doesn’t show much more than the resource. A teacher knows their learners and knows how to approach it. From the teachers that I know, they remain impartial and teach facts. As parents, we will also impart knowledge - as is our right to do so. Of course I am not saying people can’t challenge teachers, or ask questions about what their child is being educated about - I am simply pointing out that LGBTQ+ has a specific policy relating to inclusion from the Scottish Government and this resource arguably falls under that category. Of course you can disagree with that.

There is a big leap being made about this specific teacher, the resource and this meaning that they are pushing their own ideology on children. There is no evidence that this is the case. People can hold views and not bring them into the classroom. I know teachers who are not religious, but would never tell children that believing in God was nonsense. The same rule of professionalism applies here. Reporting a teacher for this, in my opinion, is unfair and probably won’t get very far. I agree, perhaps they should have aired their grievances with SLT with HR and followed protocol - but I imagine they thought that sharing their issues in a private forum meant for fellow primary school teachers was a safe place to get advice on how to proceed. I hope their naivety isn’t punished.

Teachers should teach facts.
Peopel can’t change sex.
stop telling kids that they can, you mess with their minds.

Absolutely. It’s not the LGB teaching that’s the issue. It’s the TQ+.

Let’s remind ourselves what that means.

The T is a harmful nonsense highly contested ideology that leads some children on a pathway to a lifetime of medication and surgery which will ruin their health and fertility.

The Q stands for Queer which is linked to Queer Theory. Many proponents of QT either have written in support of paedophilia or gave convictions for paedophilia. This is because one of the tenets of QT is breaking down normal boundaries particularly between adults and children in a sexual context.

The + . This sneaky little symbol covers all manner of concepts inappropriate for children. It seems to be a catch all for furries (a sexual identity driven by porn), MAPs and all sorts of ‘identities’. None of which are compatible with children or safeguarding.

The bit that amazes me is that some people are so prepared to desperate to wave away risk and inappropriate concepts and behaviour of adults with children.

As an example. Of the approximately 2700 Pride officers/organisers around the country, 8 are now convicted paedophiles or sex offenders. This is an extraordinarily high rate.

But instead of acknowledging a serious problem with some of the men they have welcomed and celebrated into Pride, and explicitly distancing themselves and seeking to clearly demonstrate that they are dealing with the attractiveness of Pride to paedophiles, they continue to ignore it and falsely advertise that Pride is family friendly.

This is a problem that has been recognised and called out by many LGB people but unfortunately the LGBTQ+ people are happy to continue as they are and harm to children will be collateral damage.

This is why the teacher’s lesson was a problem.