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

I really feel for all the kids who feel for this bs at its 2015-2023 peak. It's too late for so many but thank god it finally happened

very good point.

Great news. Gender lunacy should not be being taught as fact.

Just a shame it won't apply in Scotland too.

I agree, I think this is huge step back.

Not teaching about contraception until year 9 is really concerning.

Just read this guide https://schoolsweek.co.uk/new-sex-education-guidance-proposals-what-schools-need-to-know/

And so many of these "not until this age" are really misjudged. I run a youth group and the infant and juniors are already picking things up from siblings and online.

But hey ho, trans chat will get banned so that's the main thing eh?

https://fairplayforwomen.com/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger/#:~:text=There%20were%20134%20reports%20of,in%20single%2Dsex%20changing%20areas.

The link from fairplayforwomen is about changing rooms, but I doubt whether mixed sex toilets in secondary schools are likely to be safer.

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.

Thankfully teachers are not in the habit of terrifying their 5-7 year old pupils.

I would encourage everyone to have their say in the consultation. It really makes clear how bonkers some of the new changes are. I'm inclined to think that some of it was thought up by people who've never spoken to a child. E.g no teaching on domestic abuse until year 9 because children younger than this are unlikely to understand it. Do they think that 11 year olds are babies?

Also, as someone raised earlier, it does state no teaching on contraception/STIs until year 9. Unfortunately, at a school I previously worked at, there were several sexually active Year 7s that the safeguarding team were aware of. Some of the new guidance is incredibly out of touch with reality.

The consultation really breaks down which topics are for which ages if anyone is unsure.

This is excellent news, but this line from the article really pissed me off:

"Teachers will also be banned from giving children lessons about gender identity — the idea that children can adopt different pronouns, names and uniforms of the opposite sex."

Biological sex should have nothing to do with what uniform a child wears! Girls wearing trousers and boys wearing skirts is freedom of expression, it is NOT gender ideology.

My 7 year old says she wants to be a boy because she doesn’t want people thinking she’s cute. She hates pink and loves sport, especially football. I tell her that boys and girls can like whatever they want. The only difference between being a boy or a girl is their “bits” - so unless she wants to use the stinky boys toilets, she could just be a girl that likes football.

other parents I know have said “oh you want to be a boy? Ok, we’ll tell the school you want to be called bob now”.

It scares me what well meaning, loving parents are doing to their children.

What do you mean exactly by social or political messages? The fact is, literary texts are informed by their context, contexts of sex, race, relationships etc included.

It’d be difficult to ignore William Blake’s views on religion and institutions; it’s impossible to discuss The Handmaid’s Tale without conversations around feminism and the rise of the new right in 1980s America. Even more ambiguously, plenty of Shakespeare’s female characters acted somewhat subversively – is discussing that pushing a political message?

How exactly do you propose teaching literary texts without an awareness of their political contexts?

Completely agree.

Thanks for this.
I'm having a sex ed/puberty chat with my eldest (11) at weekend and this is definitely something I want to bring up with her.

This is great news.

I've been following the content of PSHE lessons for a while and some of what has been shown to primary aged children is outright pornagraphic. Im talking drawing of adventurous sex positions talk of oral sex and promoting masturbation. (Nothing wrong with teaching masturbation is normal and fine in private etc but I've read things encouraging primary aged kids to try it)

The pants rule is taught from reception and I feel this covers what kids need to know at such young ages. The way to tackle the sexual abuse of young children is not to teach them explicit sexual details it's tackle social attitudes and put better safeguarding in place such as this guidance

I think it is good to put guidance in place about what is taught to children, without diluting any message about inclusion and acceptance.

But for young children, the message of "you get lots of different types of families" is as much as they need, IMO.

My 7yo actually came home from school last week with the brand new information - from his teacher, apparently - that "you get people with a woman's head and a man's body, who are called a he-she". God knows what the teacher actually said! But they are just too young to understand properly at that age.

Now let's put a stop to the money the Civil Service and other public bodies pay to outside organisations to hector staff with this unsubstantiated and highly contested idology.

@WickerMam I would actually go speak with the teacher and ask them exactly why they said to the class. Because this is concerning, and I'd be demanding to know what was said.

If you don't teach her sex Ed how does she know she's being sexually abused? How does she find the words to tell a trusted adult at school?

I would add adults need to stop doing this too - lead by example. The pathological treatment of menopause and pregnancy in our society has gone much too far and encourages this navel gazing for teens and puberty. Normal life events do not need to be treated like medical problems.

If you don't teach her sex Ed how does she know she's being sexually abused? How does she find the words to tell a trusted adult at school?

Abuse of a child is not sex that they need to be educated about. So many people get this wrong.

Sex education will cover relationships and reproduction between consenting adults and older teens.

It will be irrelevant to 7 year old experiencing sexual abuse.

This is why abuse is covered separately to sex education, in an age appropriate way, and always has been. No one has suggested that this will not be continued. Young children will still be taught the PANTS rule, who to tell and how to tell.