To feel sorry for the teacher who was secretly recorded?

[Forster2018]

Link to article here:

I would question whether she is suitable to be a teacher if she’s emotionally involved in an ideology which, it is becoming increasingly clear is harmful to children

YABU

That teacher was in breach of school policies and the law IMO.

People are absolutely sick of gender ideology being forced upon them. Ultimately the government has failed children and teachers. But if more teachers had used some professional curiosity and read up on their duties (under the Education Act and Equality Act for example) then we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Teacher unions have been awful on this.

Should they have recorded the conversation ' yes. No one would have believed them otherwise. Parents could have used it as a foundation for a complaint to the school. Uploading it to social media though crossed a line in my opinion

The girls were spot on . And factually nd scientifically correct. There are two genders and two sexed . Male or female

As they said - boy or girl . They win .

@OMG12 do indicate to me where I have actually engaged in any debate about gender or language on this thread? I think my contributions have been a comment whether there's much point in defining gender at the request of someone who already has a clearly defined viewpoint, and whether the teacher should have been covertly recorded.

If you can't evidence any sustained comments about language and gender by me , please leave me out of your snide little digs.

I'll say it again.

People's viewpoint is that gender isn't actually real, and we have come to that viewpoint because people like you, who think it is real, can't explain what you think it is.

So yes, there would be an awful lot of point in someone like you, who thinks it is real, explaining what you think it is.

It is your (collective) refusal to explain which makes us more convinced that we are right about it all being a load of Emperor's New Clothes bollocks.

Beliefs and viewpoints are not "FACT"
End of.

It was Data who talked about gender and was asked for a definition, not me.

So consider the question directed at you now then @ilovesooty.

Well you have answered your own question there really. - my thread started out setting out the need for an agreed definition. We need to know what your definition is. That is the point, yet you refuse to set that out. If you’re not willing to set out the definition why take part in a debate where that is fundamental.

You sound extraordinarily petulant. Are you normally like this if people don’t agree. What point are you actually trying to make?

So why don’t you go ahead and define gender for a start?

Direct it all you like. I haven't even been discussing gender on the thread except to make an observation about why Data might not see any point in engaging with your question.

But that's an absurd "observation" to make.

The point in engaging with our question would be to prove that we are wrong about gender ideologues being incapable of engaging with the question.

Refusing to engage with the question literally proves our point.

My definition of gender is that it's an imaginary, made up thing in an individual's head that encompasses their learned stereotypes about the 2 sexes and their own personality traits and quirks.

Absolutely unique to each individual.

And not something laws or rules and regulations for anyone else can be based on.

we need to know what your definition is

Who are we?

And why do you need to know, when I haven't been discussing it in the first place?

As you can see, I engaged in the thread initially to express a concern about the covert recording of the teacher.

You sound very petulant

Your opinion - but I haven't found it necessary to insult you. Please afford me the same courtesy.

Your opinion. You're entitled to it. I'm just as entitled to disagree.

You disagree that refusing to engage with the question proves our point about them refusing to engage with the question?

On what basis?

I don't feel any obligation to engage with a question originally directed at another poster, apparently on the basis of language she used.

For what it's worth, I am also very concerned about covert recordings being made of teachers.

I am very concerned that making covert recordings is the only way of evidencing what is currently going on in schools.

There's an active thread on the sex and gender board at the moment where a poster says that her son used his phone to take covert pictures of some slides - not a teacher, slides - to show the nonsense they are being taught about sex and gender in RSE, and he was caught, forced to hand over his phone and unlock it, the pictures were deleted, and the mum was called into school to discuss the incident. And even after all that, the school wouldn't let her see the slides or even tell her what her son is being taught about sex and gender.

Why the secrecy? What are they hiding?

Can you think of a single other subject kids are taught at school where the policy is to deliberately conceal what children are being taught from their parents?

This is a classic tactic used by paedophiles.

Maybe if teachers consider the fact they could be recorded at any time, they'll stop spouting utter nonsense to kids?

You did get involved to say no definition required.

They’ve done us a big favour.

Who knew it was that bad in schools. Shrouded in secrecy

No I didn't. I made an observation about why Data might not see the point in answering the question.

I think it's got to the point where the DfE needs to ban schools from teaching about sex and gender using anything other than materials from an approved supplier, and those materials must be available on the DfE website for all parents to access. If they make it compulsory for schools to take out a subscription with one of the approved suppliers, there will be no real intellectual property argument because the only people with any commercial interest in stealing the materials are teachers and schools, and if they've already had to pay for one very similar set they won't be bothered to steal another set.

Er, to prove us wrong about her refusal/inability to answer the question. Quite obviously.

Your interpretation, to which you are entitled.