School are unable to tell yr5/6 children that homosexuality is normal.

[EleanorHandbasket]

It's in their policies. We've just been to a meeting about what they are going to be learning over the next yr with regard to health and sex education.

In the handout it says that 'any questions raised by pupils that require an answer that exceeds the agreed content of this policy, eg homosexual sex, will not be answered in an open class discussion. the matter will be referred to the individual parents for further guidance on their child's emotional needs.'

My friend asked what that meant for a child asking 'is homosexuality normal?'. the teacher replied that they woudl be unable to answer that question because they can't be seen to be making a judgement either way.

I don't really understand why they can't say,'yes it's normal'. End of discussion.

The teacher said that's because some parents may have issues around it and that they have to cater to all the parents wishes.

Well, I think that by refusing to state that it's normal, as in some people are homosexual and it is totally a) legal, b) not a choice, and c) likely to be the reality for many of the children being taught (whether that's personally or to do with friends and family), that they are in fact making a judgement.

My other friend (who is a teacher) thinks that actually they are doing teh best they can within the confines of the policy and parents' wishes.

I'm just really uncomfortable with it. AIBU? And is there any point talking to the governers?

As a teacher, my standard answer to a pupil who said that they didn't agree with 'gays' 'cos of my religion' was "Your religion may say that it is wrong but the law of this country says that it isn't. In this classroom we follow the law of this country." I would say much the same to their parents if I was challenged and I see no reason why any HT of a non-denominational school can't do the same. Rest assured, if your child asks me I will say that it is normal. I had a young man stay behind one day to say. "You mean that, don't you? About it being OK to be gay? Thanks Miss." Its important stuff.

But isn't dismissing evolution as a fact tied up in religion? So it's similar to the issue where religious beliefs are being taken into account with teaching so people aren't offended by opposing views. The subject is science, not RE and I'm not sure a single scientist would believe the world was created in 6 days. So I think it is relevant to the discussion.

LDR - Im not saying it shouldn't happen in front of a peer group at some stage BUT there is emotional maturity to take into consideration. Personally I don't think a 9/10yo is emotionally equipped for playground gibes that might ensue.

Someone is going to throw up that some girls have precocious puberty and having periods at 8, that some boys develop and are sexually mature at 11 - that is the anomaly, it is not a statistical standard

By late 14's/early 15's children are far more emotionally equipped to deal with variances from the standard. Really I can only post from what I observe in a secondary environment - maybe my school is odd, it has excellent pastoral care, we have boys openly come out round about Y10 and there is no homosexual bigotry. Girls tend to come out in Y12. I don't know why there is that two year difference. Maybe boys have a statement to make? Maybe girls are more discrete? I really don't know.

But you know, I love my work environment - it's diverse and vibrant and TBH - no one gives a shit what you are so long as you are happy being who you are.

Why are you sure that the playground gibes will happen, though?

I know people for whom they didn't. And it sounds as if several MNers have children who're not remotely fussed at the idea of homosexuality at younger than 9 or 10.

Surely making it all taboo is one of the things that leads to playground gibes, rather than preventing them?

By early 15, many hetero children have had a boyfriend or girlfriend, right? What about the others?

I think it's horrible spending several years thinking 'I might be gay' and feeling that you are naughty or wrong to want to discuss it or even mention it.

What about children adopted in same sex relationships?
These are children that are young and whose friends see from a very early age that some people have same sex relationships. There is no playground gibes or anything.

LDR - you and I come at life from the same angle.

I tend to be very 'meh! this is the way it is, get over it'

Primary children still have very helicopter parenting, a lot of exclusive parental influence. Once you get to secondary, the whole school gate culture has been wiped away, horizons are broadened, peer groups enlarged.

So a 9/10/11yo will be largely influences by a small group who in turn are influenced by parental prejudice. By Y8/9 in secondary, parental influence and a much larger peer group, those prejudices are so much more diluted.

YANBU.

My friend is gay. She is married and they have 2 children. My DS (8) has NEVER questioned it to the point my friend and I have laughed about if he's even noticed!

However, my friends DC's notice all same sex couples and often mixed raced ones. Quite often comment.

Guess which child(ren) have been bought up with the mutually respectful and loving relationship attitude? The other have been told it's not something to discuss because its wrong.

My argument as to why if the school won't discuss it they are giving the children the idea it's wrong.

My dd's know that friends of ours are in homosexual relationships, some are going through the long road of adopting children.

My children are aged between 3 and 8. They have no difficulty accepting homosexuality as 'normal'

And i can honestly say if one or all of my dds was gay i would not have any strong feelings about it and neither would DP.

At work we have posters on the wall: 'Some people are gay, get over it.'

Thanks for explaining - that makes sense about the change in secondary. I was thinking about primary and forgetting.

I still think a teacher should not be dodging the question, though.

I mean, I don't see how it would help if the teacher did dodge the question. I'm not being idealistic - I genuinely think it's likely to make things tougher for children in reality.

A friend works in a catholic school, currently revising their sex ed lessons in the light of parent comment that dc should not be taught about homosexuality.

secret whisper<

D'ju know what - TBH I don't think anyone really cares any more about other peoples bedroom habits apart from the curriculum administrators who think they have to be right on PC and cover everyones bases!

I know I don't. And reading here, I know you lot don't either.

The OP's original quote refers to 'homosexual sex' and I can see that the school might not want to talk about what gay people do in bed to 9-11 year-olds (though surely they could say 'there's no rule, whatever they want to!').

But it sounds like they haven't differentiated between gay sex and gay relationships. It's perfectly possible, and desirable, to know that some men love men and some women love women (and that it's perfectly normal and not a problem) without knowing anything at all about what people of any orientation do in bed.

Excuse the Mail link, I couldn't find the other papers.

But, no, I think people do care, actually, holly. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297053/Yob-killed-autistic-gay-teenager-Steven-Simpson-setting-18th-birthday-party.html

care = prejudice.

I don't care who is sleeping with who - I have no prejudice about it. And I don't think any of "us" give any mind space either.

A tiny minority - as typified by that set of circumstances, was worthy of reporting shows that. It's so abnormal it got mainstream press coverage.

True enough.

But since the reaction is extreme, it's worth worrying about. IMO.

Anyway, sorry, I don't want to derail the thread so I will leave it.

I don't understand your point holly. if the child is going to get teased for asking a question then how will it help if the teacher refuses to answer the question? why not just let the kids ask questions anonymously?

x post - i meant your earlier point.

murder is rare, but lots of people carw to the point of casual bigotry.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7324985.stm

It can't be described as 'normal' because it isn't the most common/typical relationship type. I think they should stay away from terms like that when discussing relationships, better to focus on more common, less common.

I don't understand what would be wrong with stating the facts, there are facts in this case so it is actually different from creationism/evolution for example. It is not a theory

Facts are 1 in 10(?) people are homosexual.

I do think it would be good for students to know some of the history of gay discrimination and how it still occurs today, especially in countries where it is illegal and gay people are treated horrifically. Also how some religions promote bigotry. I dont know where this would fit into the curriculum however.

Yanbu the question being deferred to a meeting with parents is definitely not acceptable.

"Normal" is a pretty rubbish word for discussing homosexuality though. The definition of normal in the free online dictionary is

"nor·mal

/ˈnôrməl/
Adjective
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun
The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Being homosexual is not the usual condition, being heterosexual is so from a statistical point of view homosexuality isn't normal, just as being black isn't normal in Scotland, most people are white.

That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with being homosexual, or a black person living in Scotland, just that "normal" isn't a good adjective to use to describe them.
Just because something is abnormal ie in the minority doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Having an IQ of 140 is abnormal.
If you're a statistitian definitions of normal get more convoluted with graphs, and then being homosexual could be defied as normal as a Gaussian graph of sexuality would have homosexuality within the curve, even though heterosexuality would be at the centre of the curve.

OK a bit convoluted but I think "normal" was an unhelpful word to use. There's nothing wrong with being unusual or abnormal.

Well it's not normal in the conventional sense of the word is it - ie the norm? The norm is heterosexual relationships whereas, what, 1 in 10 or whatever being homosexual?

"Normal" doesn't mean "majority". For example, a fairly small percentage of children have red hair, but does that mean it isn't "normal"? No, of course not.