To be really, really pleased about the explicit ban on the proactive teaching of gender identity?

[BiologicsBeforeIdeology]

It's just such madness that we even got here. My family has been badly affected by activists pushing this madness on my Autistic son, who now half believes he's a girl because some nitwit came into the school and told him people who feel uncomfortable and like they don't belong are trans (not maybe gay, not maybe Autistic, not maybe just Puberty, but trans)

I won't apologise for wanting to safeguard children. This is not a Section 28 thing, it really is protecting vulnerable kids.

"Gender identity
The guidance will introduce an explicit ban on the proactive teaching of gender identity. It will say that the idea that children can change their gender by using different names, pronouns and wearing the uniform of the opposite sex is highly contested. If pressed by pupils, they should instead focus on the facts of biological sex.
Teaching children about gender identity could lead to them questioning their own gender when they may not have done otherwise, the guidance will suggest. Children can be taught the law about gender reassignment — that people can legally change their gender from the age of 18 — but children will be told that that they cannot legally be classified as members of the opposite sex."

More info on the changes https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4a2b0d57-13c9-409a-a40b-104d7a0499b2?shareToken=ed46490f36a6c9fbb0f70d6bf03c0a99

@SwordToFlamethrower - nobody is saying periods would not be taught, at any age frankly, the wording is "explicit sex" before 9 and quite clearly birds and bees stuff can come in earlier (and should)

I really do agree but I don't think the guidance says that at all?

It doesn’t say periods won’t be taught about?! Most schools seem to cover that in year 4/5 anyway so about age 9. It’s under PHSE/biology not sex Ed.

There's a lot of willful mis-reading about what that guidance says

@SwordToFlamethrower I may be misunderstanding what Taylor is saying but I'm chilled to the bone by the suggestion that the way to help a nine or ten year old girl who is being sexually abused is to provide her with explicit sex ed.

This is important as it gives a specific breakdown of what age each topic has.

Please can you provide an example of gender identity in Shakespeare? (Obviously not just actors and characters dressing up as the opposite sex because women couldn't be actors/characters pretending to be the opposite sex for the plot).

The evidence shows that if children are taught in an age appropriate way about the correct terms for body parts alongside things like personal boundaries and who is and is not allowed to touch, this has a protective effect. Sex ed for young primary age is not explicit, and nobody has suggested it should be.

That young girl who is vulnerable to sexual abuse will be able to ralk about it and raise the alarm if she has been taught key basics young.

I tend to agree with this. I think it should be taught in the same way as comparative religion: with an awareness that some/many people believe in and live by it but with complete clarity that it is a belief and exists alongside scientific fact.

While neither I nor anyone I knew used those terms when I was an adolescent in the Dark Ages 80s, adolescents and teens absolutely do and did feel uncomfortable with growing breasts, breaking voices, sudden smelly sweat, periods and all the rest of it.
Puberty is normal, yes, but it is and has long been very difficult and disruptive as well. I don't disagree about exercise, socialising etc being a good idea, but there were many points in my adolescence when going for a walk or cooking something would not have helped me feel any less terrified of my changing body and mind.
I think the important thing is that kids are taught that, however much they may dislike or fear having breasts/a deep voice/erections/whatever, these do not mean that they can –or should – identify away from their sexed body, or that suddenly having a deep male voice means they may not continue to like painting their nails unless they call themselves Sheila.

@SwordToFlamethrower it seems Dr Jessica Taylor hasn't read the document at all if she thinks it bans sex ed before age 13. There's a whole section about sex education in primary schools and only says that there are some topics that should not be addressed in primary school. It doesn't say that there should be no sex education before age 13. There are quite a few things that are recommended to be taught in years 5 and 6.

"By the end of primary school pupils should know ... How to recognise if family relationships are making them feel unhappy or unsafe and how to seek help or advice if needed ... the importance of respecting boundaries including permission-seeking ... how to recognise and report feelings of being unsafe or feeling bad about any adult ... how to report concerns or abuse and the vocabulary and confidence to do so" - that's all in there for years 5 & 6 as well as guidance for basic age-appropriate sex eduaction and that that this should link to what is already in the national curriculum for science in Y5&6 for learning about conception and birth.

What is set out as inappropriate before age 13 is going into the detail of sexual offences, rape, sexual abuse and violence and exploitation, in explicit and potentially distressing ways.

There's another list of things that shouldn't be covered before age 11/y7 like sexuall harassment, upskirting, revenge porn & force marriage

The topic isn’t banned at schools, what is banned is promoting GI as a fact. So those children who don’t have ‘caring’ parents can still ask about it, but teachers cannot push their own ideology and encourage them to believe they can and should change sex.

I think it's a very vain hope Scotland will do the same thing. They'll probably introduce trans ideology at nursery level instead. They've been after our children for a long time. Their Named Person batshit crazy attempt to isolate parents from children didn't work so they've pushed the trans agenda hard and will probably push it even harder now. Two fingers to Westminster is always more important than safeguarding.

agreed.
i feel like some only read the bit about trans? not the part about no educaiton around sexual assault or rape until age 13? which is not a good thing.

Schools didn't screw up, the government did, their previous guidance explicitly said that schools should teach gender identity, with links to Stonewall as to how to approach it.

Helen Joyce has made this point.

from the article linked:

"Children should not be given “explicit” lessons on sexual acts until they are in Year 9, aged 13. At this stage they can be taught about sexual consent, contraceptive options, abortion, sexually transmitted infections and how taking alcohol and drugs can lead to more risky sexual behaviour."

personally, i think talking to kids in an age appropriate way about consent is the best way to try and prevent them falling victim. the only people who benefit from kids not being aware of what consent is, are people who will be taking advantage.

they say they will teach year 5s about people making them uncomfortable, but that isn't enough. they need to understand CONSENT. teach them the cup of tea version at the very least!

The Year 5 part sounds good to me: both age-appropriate and very clear about consent, safety etc, even if not using those terms. In particular, 'the importance of respecting boundaries including permission-seeking ... how to recognise and report feelings of being unsafe or feeling bad about any adult ... how to report concerns or abuse and the vocabulary and confidence to do so' sound to me pretty clear and useful.

The draft guidance states:

"Developing bodies
This should not be taught before year 4.
Pupils should know:

1. about growth, change and the changing adolescent body, This topic should include the human lifecycle. Puberty should be mentioned as a stage in this process.
2. the key facts about the menstrual cycle, including physical and emotional changes."

Year 4 is 8-9 years old, and there will be some girls who have started their periods already. I'm not sure why the DfE seem to feel the need to explicitly state children shouldn't be taught basic age-appropriate facts about puberty and menstruation before the age of 8/9.

personally, i don't think it's clear enough on the year 5s. making someone uncomfortable is subjective - if its a parent or loved one abusing them, they may not know enough to feel 'uncomfortable' so i just worry about it being too late by age 13.

basically it should be - no-one touches your genitals/looks at your genitals/makes you look or touch theirs. maybe that's because I'm coning from it with my past in mind and what could have saved me and others i know

I agree. Child sex abuse is not sex with a child, it's abuse of the child.

Children will still be taught in an age appropriate way as they already are now about boundaries, the pants rule, what do to if they are uncomfortable and who to tell.

I’ve just completed the online consultation (thanks to PP who linked it!). Only part I disagree with is not teaching about the dangers of online activity until Y3. I think there should be flexibility to teach this at KS1 if teachers have concerns about youngsters gaming etc. If little Jimmy in Year 2 comes into school talking about how he plays GTA with his teenage brother or Sally in Y1 has been watching YouTube clips from Five Nights at Freddie’s, I think the teachers need to be able to discuss this with their class.

But these are just the guidelines/outline; surely in the actual teaching context, discussions about 'what do we mean by making people uncomfortable' will lead to talking about touching/looking at genitals etc?