to be offended by this as a homophobic policy in a school?

[Section28WasRepealed]

I have just come across a 'Sex Education and RE' document from a prestigious school in Birmingham - a very diverse city, obviously.

There are a few points in it which raise my eyebrows, but this document, dated September 2010, basically promotes Section 28 - the homophobic legislation which had to be repealed after a lengthy campaign, and has since been apologised for by David Cameron.

The most offensive parts to my mind are:

The school has a responsibility to ensure that pupils understand those aspects of the law which relate to sexual activity and cannot avoid tackling controversial sexual matters such as homosexuality, AIDS, contraception and abortion. On these particular matters:-
i. There is no place for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the 'norm', or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils.

and

If the teacher believes that a pupil has embarked upon, or is contemplating, a course of conduct likely to place him or her in moral or physical danger, or in breach of the law, the teacher has a general duty to warn the pupil of the risks and may, depending on the circumstances and the professional judgements involved, advise the parents, Head Teacher, or specialist support services.

Perhaps homosexuality is not the norm, but it is a norm. What is wrong with advocating it? It is an absolutely valid orientation and not a choice which can be influenced anyway. How can one defend a child against homophobic bullying without being a defender of their right to be sexually attracted to somebody of the same sex?!

& just what is 'moral danger'? Who judges it? & in context of this document and the other points expressed, do we want the author of said document to be making such judgements about our children?

So basically, AIBU to think that this is incredibly badly worded, at best? Or is this normal and even acceptable within schools?

I don't think they are all the same person. I just think there's no point in responding to it, because saying that somebody is looking to be offended isn't actually any kind of argument. They're not explaining why singling homosexuality out as something that isn't advocated isn't a homophobic stance.

Well, firstly, I don't think that wording they're chosen is accidental.

Secondly, (and I appreciate this may be a bit of a random tangent) as it stands, the model of teaching they're apparently espousing, doesn't sound like it'll be breaking down harmful attitudes towards sex for the heterosexual schoolchildren, either. For example, homophobic attitudes lead some young people to feel that they have to "prove" their heterosexuality by having sex, regardless of personal readiness.

It's the way it is worded Kitty

Had they said we do not promote sexual experimentation, that would be fine.

Had they said we do not promote any sexual oriantation other another, that would also be fine.

They singled out homosexuality, that is why it is wrong.

It may just be badly worded yes, but it may be a homophobic policy, no way of knowing for sure unless you are at the school in question to see how this is carried out.

Thank you jessie !!

Very very true :)

I am ashamed to say I lost my virginity at 14 years old, I was bullied for being gay and having a boyfriend who I had slept with shut the bullies up and in a way proved that I wasn't.

It may just be badly worded yes, but it may be a homophobic policy, no way of knowing for sure unless you are at the school in question to see how this is carried out.
Agree.

Don't be ashamed! I'm so sorry you went through all that.

God, the obsession with conforming to sexual norms, there was, and probably still is for teens

From my son's school's sex and relationship education policy:

'Students will be given accurate information for the purpose of enabling them to understand difference, of preventing or removing prejudice and to respect themselves and others. They will learn to understand human sexuality; learn the reasons for delaying sexual activity and the benefits to be gained from such delay and learn about obtaining appropriate advice on sexual health.'

That to me makes more sense. I don't understand how you can teach children about sex without basing it on the core value of respecting other people and their sexuality. How else do you teach consent?

Well, if it's badly worded, it says nowt positive about the school, either.

It's a different league of bad communication than the old trusty I helped my uncle J/jack off his horse, but it is such, all the same.

" Pendeen, homosexuality is a sexual orientation "

Milly R

I am well aware of that that. I imagine most peple are aware of that.

The school are making a point by stating:

" There is no place for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the 'norm', or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils "

and thus expressing their policy quite clearly. That is a reasonable statement.

People on this thread appear to be desperate to find something in there which does not exist.

The OP says that this is not just a sex education document - it is a sex education and RE document.
Nuff said.

"People on this thread appear to be desperate to find something in there which does not exist."

Oh really? Why is homosexuality even mentioned then?

Splinters - I wasn't ignoring you!

Sorry.

'or any other religion, I suppose'- can I quietly mention that Quakers in the UK would be generally fine with homosexuality. 'Quakers in the United Kingdom are similarly accepting, and at their annual business meeting in July 2009, formally expressed support for same-sex marriage, and are now lobbying the government for the necessary legal changes.[4] While the decision was not difficult in 2009,[5] the decision was only taken after 22 years since being raised at Meeting for Sufferings, and 46 years after the publication of 'Towards a Quaker view of Sex'. Controversial in its day, the book forms one of the first Quaker statements regarding sexuality, and includes affirmation that gender or sexual orientation are unimportant in a judgement of an intimate relationship and that the true criterion is the presence of "selfless love";[6] further consideration arose from Harvey Gillman's Swarthmore Lecture, in 1988.[7]
A number of British meetings, probably more than a couple of dozen since 1994,[citation needed] have celebrated same-sex relationships through an official meeting for commitment ? a public act of worship something very like the traditional Quaker wedding, but without legal significance. British Quakers also supported the 2005 introduction of the legal status of 'civil partnerships' in the UK, and were taken to their 2009 support of same-sex marriage with the idea that "marriage is the Lord?s work and we are but witnesse (OK so Wiki but y'know, it'll do)

School shouldn't be fussed if a sexual choice is the norm provided it is legal and non harming. It should not even need a mention in the policy document; the word sexuality will stand for all it needs to.

Itsokay that's not promotion; as CaptainPeroxide says with her RE link, also something I would consider when kids were being abusive to children with SN.

Horrid later link though.

I do think it's homophobic and am

no no not at all rycooler, it was a note to self about thinking through content of post rather than posting lots of little fragments as they occur to me..

Oh the joy of virtual conversations. I often wonder how it would work out if all the contributors to a thread were to meet up in real life and go round, speed-date style, trying to work out which nickname related to which RL person..

Pendeen, in my statement which you quoted, I was responding to your statements, not those of the school (which I'm sure you are well aware of).

You mentioned homosexuality and bestiality as sexual activities.

I am not imagining such things into existence - you described them that way. Which is why I was pointing out to you that homosexuality is a sexual orientation and as such, it is about relationships and is not merely a sexual activity. Therefore to not advocate an orientation is an entirely different matter to not advocating an activity.

splinters - oh we'd all get on fine. - ( thankfully) RL is a lot different to being on here. I'm really popular in RL.

No really - I am.

MillyR

To repeat, of course I understand and appreciate the distinction (most people do).

If you, however re-read the extract from the school's statement quoted by the OP, you will see it specifically mentions ".. homosexual behaviour .." and more specifically sexual activity. The second quote also refers to".. a course of conduct .."

It is behaviour which is the subject of the document.

Hence my comments on the OP's AIBU to be "offended" by the document and my observation that the OP - and indeed more than a few contributors - appear desperate to find something to be "offended" about.

There is nothing offensive in those extracts from the school's policies; indeed they represent a reasoned and reasonable statement of policy and standards.

Okay, let's say that it's badly-worded. What are they trying to say, and to whom?

I mean, when would a teacher represent homosexuality as "the norm"? How would that work?

Teacher: "I know that 80-90% of the adults you know appear to be heterosexual, but that's a statistical anomoly. Most people are gay"
15 year old: "how come my gay auntie has more trouble finding dates than my straight auntie? Aunt Liz is always telling Aunt Linda that she doesn't know how lucky she is."
Teacher: "Your aunt Liz is mis-informed. Homosexuals are taking over the world next year, there are THAT many"

It's an odd paragraph.

Exactly, ScaryJessie. Because actually they don't mean they won't teach that homosexuality is the 'norm' (as in the majority), but that they won't teach that it is 'normal' or 'acceptable'.

@itsokaytodisagree
"If homosexuality was normal within a species it would die out eventually. "

And?

This is the third old thread you have resurrected tonight, why are you bothering?