The WHO want your four year old to be taught about masturbation and gender identity

[GrabbyGabby]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/13/outrage-over-who-advice-on-sexuality-for-infants/

This is where queer theory gets you. Women have been sounding the alarm on the consequences of the promotion of queer theory in all realms of life. This is what it looks like when applies to sex ed for very young children.

So, before you dismiss people like me as modern day Mary Whitehouses, just take a read and ask yourself why? What problem is this solving? Why do very young children need to be taught about sex and sexual pleasure? Are they benefiting, if not, who is?

(article behind a paywall, but there is a trick that will allow you to read it. A quick google should tell you).

But they're out there shouting about how it's the homosexuals and the transpeople who pose all the risks and corrupting society.

just for the record, very many people can and do point out the risks to women and girls of trans ideology, who are not Christian fundamentalists and are not approaching it from that point of view. Many of them are homosexual themselves.

Indeed trans ideology undermines the very concept of homosexuality.

I think we are better off with just teaching girls before their periods start in the biology lessons about some basics and leave the rest to parents at home and for younger children concentrate on English and maths etc

What could possibly go wrong?

I'm very aware of that.

But in the US it is very much the Conservative Christian right who are leading pushing those views and gained so much political power abortion rights were overturned, book burning happens and allegations of art being pornography.

All in the name of 'protecting the children'.

Oh yes. It's misogyny on steroids. You won't find disagreement with me there.

I just wanted to make a distinction, because gender critical women are constantly being affiliated with the far right, or fundamental Christian groups, in an effort to discredit their viewpoints.

And that will teach children who are being abused that whats happening to them is wrong how?

As I said before people are trying to make out that explaining things around sex to children is to make it easier for pedophiles to groom them. Personally I think it's far easier for pedophiles to groom children if they dont know the basics like PANTs etc.

I think wanting children just have the basics is probably a bit of a reaction to how they have been exposed to so much pornography and sexuality at too young an age.

The Internet has turned sex education into a Wild West free for all. The outsourcing of it has been really detrimental. The government have lost control.

It's not happening everywhere, it's not all the time.

But it is happening.

Who can't grasp the concept that allowing adults to talk about sex, on their terms, to children won't attract paedophiles.

And it's places like Safe schools alliance who are so finely tuned to it, that when they say their radar is pinging, people listen.

Personally, I've never understood why the government can't come up with a syllabus for sex education and roll it out, age appropriately, across-the-board. Everyone is taught the same thing, at the same time, delivered in the same way.

Regulated and monitored. With input from a range of professionals.

it would close any loophole that is being exploited.

I think people are very naïve. Unless we teach children and discuss safe sexual health in schools they will get it all online. It is crucial children understand consent, understand what is appropriate touch and so on. The biggest risk to our kids is other kids. There was a report on Irish news this morning about the increase in young children consuming porn online and how this can contribute to the increase in children sexually abusing other children. They are getting a completely distorted view of what sex is and what constitutes a safe, healthy sexual relationship. This is the biggest risk to children going forward.

From what I see of the WHO guidelines is completely appropriate to the age groups of children. My daughter is 10 and we received an email about what they will be covering in their stay safe programme this week The aim of this programme is teach kids personal safety skills so they can look after themselves in situations that could be upsetting or dangerous. It covers things like valuing and enjoying normal affection, understanding the meaning of personal and private, what to do if a person touches them in a way that is unwanted or feels an unsafe touch, never to touch someone else in a way they don't like, never to keep secrets about touches and so on. I was discussing this with my friends recently we are all in our 40s and feel we could have been saved ourselves from a lot of crap from men in our late teens and 20s if we had had this sort of programme in school and had to courage to protect ourselves

Agreed.

I know a lot of young people, some of whom have engaged in harmful sexual behaviours because pornography is so easily accessible and social media is full of crap and their Internet use and social media communication with friends isn't monitored well enough.

Some year 5 and 6 kids know what emojis denote certain sex acts. I didn't, being terribly old (in comparison!) and I'm sure a lot of parents don't either.

I was sexually exploited as a teen as were many of my peers because we just didn't know enough.We were taught mechanics of sex and that was it. Nothing about consent or coercion, grooming or how vulnerable we were. It was a badge of maturity to us that we had older men grooming and exploiting us. Being plied with alcohol and drugs was just because we were so grown up and we were proud to be not like other immature girls our age 🙄. Thank God camera phones and onlyfans weren't around then as I'm sure I'd have been plastered all over the Internet if they were.

I'm not sure if you're quoting directly, but even to me, and I'm not an expert, the wording isn't right.

There's a lot of complexity around the concept of 'teaching' children to stay safe.

And of course, grooming ensures that the touching, initially, does feel nice, and does feel safe. Which is why you can't use those concepts as approved criteria.

There was outcry when the NSPCC changed their wording from the basic fact of touching to depend on the child's reaction to the touching.

I was sexually exploited as a teen as were many of my peers because we just didn't know enough.We were taught mechanics of sex and that was it. Nothing about consent or coercion, grooming or how vulnerable we were.

I agree with this entirely. Girls should absolutely be armed to the teeth over how to maintain their boundaries in the face of relentless porn. And boys should be taught to see the misogyny in it.

Some of the sex education that Warwickshire had to withdraw approved of porn. Made it almost aspirational. And a 12-year-old watching it. It was all very gung ho and cool.

🤮 God, I am glad my kids are grown now, and missed this vile and minging boat. I swear I would have pulled them out of school, and home-schooled them if this had happened back then (in the 00's.)

*'m not sure if you're quoting directly, but even to me, and I'm not an expert, the wording isn't right.

There's a lot of complexity around the concept of 'teaching' children to stay safe.

And of course, grooming ensures that the touching, initially, does feel nice, and does feel safe. Which is why you can't use those concepts as approved criteria.*

Quoting from the email from the school about it. I agree that it is complex and we will never be able to 100% protect children but any element of awareness raising and discussion in a safe school environment will protect some and will possibly give them the confidence to at least question certain situations a bit more

I understand that, and on the face of it it sounds reasonable.

But it's my understanding that the concept of teaching children to stay safe is fraught.

Because children often (mostly?) can't stop themselves being abused. And so the issue of self blame arises.

As I said, I'm not an expert, but I've tagged one! So hopefully some clarity will be forthcoming.

Thank you for tagging me @Datun. This is indeed alarming and the more we learn the more we realise how safeguarding is both poorly understood and is being systematically dismantled

Safe Schools Alliance are calling for a public inquiry to establish exactly what is going on and how widespread these safeguarding failings are.

This is a serious issue. Safeguarding is preventative and concerns must be raised and listened to BEFORE children are harmed. Minimising concerns is a safeguarding red flag in itself.

The independent research we have published gives further background safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2023/04/29/unesco-who-sexuality-education/

We are still trying to establish the provenance of the WHO video but we have confirmed that the translation from Dutch is accurate. twitter.com/markmaycot/status/1657555408355991555?s=46

Our spokeswoman recently gave evidence to WESC on safeguarding failings in RSE - the evidence session can be viewed here fb.watch/kxFMOHHruT/

There have been several recent reports out on failings in RSE

www.newsocialcovenant.co.uk/RSE%20BRIEFING%20FINAL%201631%20(IS)_small.pdf

policyexchange.org.uk/publication/asleep-at-the-wheel/#:~:text=In%20this%20report%2C%20Policy%20Exchange,in%20a%20few%20secondary%20schools.

And just today:

civitas.org.uk/publications/show-tell-and-leave-nothing-to-the-imagination/

This has previously been discussed in depth in several threads on FW

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4805601-who-advice-on-sexuality-for-infants

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4796258-where-did-pie-go-who-and-unesco-new-guidance-has-routes-in-queer-theory-sex-positivity-and-believes-children-are-sexual-from-birth

These are extremely serious issues that everyone needs to be engaging with - not issuing knee jerk denials.

We are glad to see this being discussed on AIBU and not just on the feminism board. This is a topic that all parents need to understand and educate themselves about and we urge you to look at the resources we have posted here to help understand the seriousness of what is happening.

You are right Datun. Children should never have to shoulder the responsibly for keeping themselves safe and a lot of the rhetoric that we see on this topic just adds to the self blame that children who have been abused already experience.

That is why safeguarding is so important as safeguarding is preventative.

Children need to be taught about consent and boundaries and how to recognise grooming and abusive behaviour. A lot of what is badged as "helping to keep children safe from abuse" does none of these things.

The programme I was talking about does do those things, it also covers peer to peer bullying and so on. As I have said upthread the biggest threat to children is often other children. Safeguarding is effective at protecting children from adult abuse but not so effective at protecting children (as in u18s) from peer to peer abuse imo. Lest not forget as well that most children's abusers are adults known to them and most often immediate family including siblings.

The programme I was talking about does do those things, it also covers peer to peer bullying and so on. As I have said upthread the biggest threat to children is often other children. Safeguarding is effective at protecting children from adult abuse but not so effective at protecting children (as in u18s) from peer to peer abuse imo. Lest not forget as well that most children's abusers are adults known to them and most often immediate family including siblings.

Yes, which is why programs calling for a review of sex education by evangelical Christians who value 'the family' like the New Covenant should be treated very cautiously especially when headed by individuals like Danny Kruger who seems to have a very confused understanding of women's bodily autonomy when it comes to reproductive rights.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-62030114

Safeguarding children is like whack a mole.

Safe schools alliance is run by volunteers and they deal with safeguarding in schools, including analysing all RSE material.

Personally, I see it as exactly the sort of organisation that should be government funded, rolled out across the country, with a remit to tackle safeguarding across-the-board.

"We represent parents, grandparents, teachers, governors, and health professionals from more than 30 local education authority areas in the UK. Many of our supporters are parents, carers or grandparents of LGB or trans-identifying young people. Many are lesbian, gay or bisexual. This motivates us to ensure that schools keep every child safe and are inclusive of all."

@Dulra I do not think you understand safeguarding. Safeguarding is not there to protect children from adults. It is there to protect children full stop and that includes from other children and from adults known to them.

Love your intelligent, calm posts that also recognise the dangers of the conservative Christian right and why GC women and men should not immediately embrace them as allies.

That's led to things being way fucked up in the US and although we are a very different more secular country and culture, it would be naive in my opinion to think it couldn't happen here.

2fallsfromSSA
I do understand safeguarding I have written the safeguarding statement for my own organisation. If you read my post I said I don't think it is as effective against peer to peer abuse

Quoting from the email from the school about it. I agree that it is complex and we will never be able to 100% protect children but any element of awareness raising and discussion in a safe school environment will protect some and will possibly give them the confidence to at least question certain situations a bit more

Yes, I agree. There is a difference between empowering and responsibilising and it is also the case that we are teaching children skills and ideas for adulthood too (in age-responsive ways).

I am not sure where the idea that safeguarding and protection should stop here at the feet of the child came from. Approaches should of course be multi-pronged and have multiple points of responsibility and they initial WHO documentation supports that.

This documentation is also aimed at places where there are no adults to protect children and/or where adults are the abusers (for example, in cultures, including evangelical Christian ones where girls are married early and taught not to say 'no' and who are often blamed if they are abused).

Datun Today 10:47
There's a lot of complexity around the concept of 'teaching' children to stay safe.

And of course, grooming ensures that the touching, initially, does feel nice, and does feel safe. Which is why you can't use those concepts as approved criteria.

There was outcry when the NSPCC changed their wording from the basic fact of touching to depend on the child's reaction to the touching

I so agree with what you say here.

A groomer knows exactly how to initiate the child’s reflex pleasure responses from little touches mixed in with giving the child attention and treats, and what the child will see as affection. The groomer can do this so subtlety - even using the withdrawal of touch or affection, so it is the child who responds in such a way as to get more. This means the confused child may believe it was their decision and their choice.

Love your intelligent, calm posts that also recognise the dangers of the conservative Christian right and why GC women and men should not immediately embrace them as allies.

Thanks, Trolly! I've been an active feminist for a very long time and I have a visceral aversion to alliances with the Christian right over most issues (I mean, in the old CND days I sang the odd happy clappy song on protests with more moderate Christian groups but the right ... no, just, no).

I was sexually exploited as a teen as were many of my peers because we just didn't know enough.We were taught mechanics of sex and that was it. Nothing about consent or coercion, grooming or how vulnerable we were. It was a badge of maturity to us that we had older men grooming and exploiting us. Being plied with alcohol and drugs was just because we were so grown up and we were proud to be not like other immature girls our age 🙄. Thank God camera phones and onlyfans weren't around then as I'm sure I'd have been plastered all over the Internet if they were

Thankfully, this was not my experience but it still resonates because that was how I was taught too and I can't even remember much being taught about it being pleasurable -and I do know of some girls who experienced what you did. It is partly why I vote for empowering young people as part of safeguarding.

I think there is deep and justified terror among some women here that there are those out there wanting to trans their children (or, children in general) and there are some pretty dodgy practices happening in schools where children are taught some very dubious things. We need to be vigilant here. But this does not mean that everything taught is similarly tainted.

I'm simultaneously reading the thread on FWR about all this.

How does explaining to children how to masturbate and interrogating them about their genitals on film sit with 'your private parts are private'?

https://twitter.com/markmaycot/status/1657555408355991555?s=19&t=UUt-ZHrXP0nQGSlD4G8x4w

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4805601-who-advice-on-sexuality-for-infants?reply=126184197