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

Gender identity is not a real thing at all. And I have no idea how you are dragging this political hobbyhorse in to your lessons on Shakespeare unless you are woefully misunderstanding his plays - but you def need to stop it.

I’m wondering too how this is happening

She is a strange one and keen on creating controversy imo.

Much as I am broadly in agreement over the gender issue, it does seem like the banning of sex or contraception education before Year 9 is throwing the baby out with the bathwater somewhat. I am reminded of the time when it was seriously being suggested that schools should consult Social Services if they heard anything that suggested that under 16s were sexually active. Thankfully all of the unions pointed out that all that this would mean is that teens would not ever speak to teachers about anything sex related, and teen pregnancies would skyrocket. Thankfully that idea was shelved, but the new guidelines will have a similar effect. Some girls get their periods at 7!

@BiologicsBeforeIdeology completely agree. Some of the books were explicit too, like our kids were being groomed to normalise sexual activity at a very young age.

500 votes, still 14% of people think it's ok to tell kids you can be born in the wrong body. Mind boggles.

It's grim.

Blokes?
Fetishists?
Women that have bought into the lies?
Miss Taps?

I could be anything.

Never forget there's people that believe the earth is flat and no matter how much evidence they're shown, they still believe it.

Yes, this. Allowing random outside organisations into school to promote 'sex positivity' to CHILDREN has only made them MORE likely to be abused. It's grooming.

Young children do not need to see or discuss explicit sex acts. The facts of biology are enough. They ARE taught consent from reception. Consent is about more than sex FFS. It's about how to tell someone you don't like them touching you, about how you don't actually want to hold their hand and you don't have to. About how you don't want them to brush your hair and they can't just go ahead and do so. I.e. appropriate boundaries. The ability to say 'no' (which incidentally gender ideology is the opposite of because no-one's been allowed to say 'no' to anyone who wants to go into opposite-sex changing rooms).

It's enough to tell children, in words, that if they see sexual images that make them feel uncomfortable to tell an adult. And that most things they will see in porn will be a)abusive if not outright sexual assault and b) not in any way related to the reality of healthy sexual relationships. You don't actually need to show them even approximations of those images - this is in fact child abuse.

Lots of confusion of sex education and safeguarding among those saying this guidance is wrong. Abuse needs to be dealt with via the safeguarding system, abusing all the other children in a class by exposing them to pornographic material in an attempt to potentially help a theoretical child who is abused is harmful and wrong and will not help abused children.

Safeguarding needs to be child specific. Instead of paying dodgy outside organisations to provide developmentally inappropriate sexualised content which grooms children to lower their boundaries, that money would be better put into adequate staffing (which is much more likely to result in teachers /TAs picking up safeguarding red flags) proper safeguarding and the social care system which is stretched thin.

I thought the gov rules said schools have to provide single sex toilers 🤔

It's actually really disturbing that so many people (Jess Taylor included), think that general sex education should be focused on sexual abuse of children (i.e. criminal acts), rather than what healthy relationships should look like. A negative focus for the minority not a positive one for the majority (and the minority probably also more than most need some information about what healthy relationships look like).

Sex education is separate from safeguarding. Abuse is a safeguarding concern and needs to be addressed through better safeguarding both in and outside of school (including in wider society and via contextual safeguarding).

I also don't believe 50% of 10 year olds 'regularly' watch porn. Most 10 year olds where I live do not have personal devices that access the internet. That is a statistic that also doesn't tally with other statistics I've seen in LA safeguarding training which suggest a much lower number of children have 'seen' porn by the age of 13 (NOT 'watch it regularly').

How does Pornhub know which users are children? And if they do have this knowledge why don't they block access? They can't have it both ways on this one, either they are committing criminal acts or they don't know - which is it?

I think these hyperbolic claims, often without receipts, are used to push an agenda. Parents do need to question, we are the ones with parental responsibility, we have primary responsibility for safeguarding our children.

I think talking about "sexually active" 11 and 12 year olds is adultification. They're vulnerable children, any sexual activity is a sign of things not being ok. Sexually abused (and abusive) children, not sexually active kid-ults.
I'm really glad it was a safeguarding team that was helping these kids out, and not an RSE teacher offering condoms and a list of STI symptoms.

@zaffa "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'm finding it hard to reply to this without saying things I'll probably regret putting on a public board.
I think @WallaceinAnderland put it very clearly, "Child sex abuse is not sex with a child, it's abuse of the child."

What a child needs if she's being abused is not education. She needs a relationship with a trustworthy adult who cares for her, attends to her, listens carefully and believes what she tells them. Maybe the difficult thing is that you can't get that from a lesson plan - as much as we'd like a guaranteed way to stop the abuse it's a lot harder than "more sex ed."

I've voted YABU as it just feels like Section 28 all over again - it was illegal to teach anything LGBT when I was at school, we couldn't grow up knowing about gay people in case we turned out gay ourselves or something 🙄 Got bandied as a "social contagion" which is the exact terminology lots on here use about trans.
It feels we're going backwards and becoming more and more intolerant as a society.

We landed on the moon ? So they got to you too!

Ordering more tinfoil here....

If you look at the consultation, it suggests that children are taught about periods at the year 5/6 mark (when they are 9-10 years old).

Girls who are start their periods before this (8 or younger), are far better supported individually, rather than as a whole class.

Currently, most English schools do not teach about contraception until year 9 (in PHSE) or year 10 (in Science)

In terms of the ages, there really isn't any change from when things are usually taught. But it does formalise what is expected.

@LilyBartsHatShop "adultification" or not, by your logic, if you don't educate them about STIs and contraception until years after they might have decided to participate in sexual acts with their peers, significant damage could have already been done. The idea of earlier sex education might make you feel uncomfortable but this is happening in real life.

Now, I'm not suggesting a full on condom demonstration to year 7s. But there are age appropriate ways of explaining the risks of unprotected sex. It also provides opportunities to discuss respect, consent, boundaries and positive relationships. It doesn't have to be warts and all (pardon the pun)

This guidance is an absolute scandal and anyone thinking otherwise knows absolutely nothing about how schools work.

Let's look at one particular example, FGM. New guidance says not to teach this until year 9. Most children who suffer this are in primary school or KS3. It's so wrong.

@Madeyemoodysswiveleyedrant I'm sorry but your claims simply don't tally with what the evidence tells us (and no, the stats don't come from porn sites). RSE is safeguarding.

Totally agree.

@Tosstyhat your reply is really making me angry.
Twelve year olds don't "decide to participate in sexual acts with their peers." They are legally considered unable to consent to sex. That means the word for what is happening to them is rape. And, yes, sometimes it is 12 year old children who are raping or abusing their peers, but that is not a sign of maturity, it is a sign that the abusing child has been exposed to sexual activity themselves, i.e. is also a victim of abuse. We even have the suggestion on this thread that a nine year old commencing periods is a sign that she needs sex ed. This is revolting. These are little kids, yes they're hitting puberty earlier but that doesn't make them old enough for sex.

"Now, I'm not suggesting a full on condom demonstration to year 7s. But there are age appropriate ways of explaining the risks of unprotected sex. It also provides opportunities to discuss respect, consent, boundaries and positive relationships. It doesn't have to be warts and all (pardon the pun)"
But why not give the 11 year olds a clear demonstration of putting on a condom if they're already having sex? And you're ok with that? Why so coy all of a sudden? If these 11 and 12 year old children are having sex and that's nothing to worry about why can't we have a warts and all discussion with them about it?
You're squeamish about demonstrating putting a condom on a banana infront of an eleven year old because you know they're too young for it.

Respect? Involves not sexualising children.
Consent? It's not possible for a child under the age of 13 to consent to sexual activity. Sexual activity involving a child under the age of 13 should always result in a child protection referral.
Boundaries and positive relationships? That's a great thing to talk about with primary school kids. Positive relationships never involve the sexualisation of children.

Lots of people are saying these are typical ages to teach these concepts anyway.

How about you list the ages where you think the topics mentioned in the guidance should be covered?

I'm not wedded to any particular age for any particular subject, but I do want experts to have input into getting it right. (And I don't want currently popular ideas about gender identity to be taught as fact).

Arguing about specific ages is pedantic. Even the guidance says if there is a good reason you can break the age rules. For example, we know lots of year 7s are engaging in sexual activity so alongside safeguarding this when we know about it we should and do talk about condoms.

The fact is the government should not be dictating this.

As to the 9yos having periods. Well perhaps a tiny number are. OK. But a lot of children this age still believe in Father Christmas. Those children aren't really likely to cope with some of the suggestions on here, which have to be being made by people who don't understand safeguarding or child development.