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

As to the periods thing, periods are not sexual or shameful. Yes, they relate to reproduction (a fact of life) but no- there absolutely should not be an age limit on talking about them. I genuinely feel like I've woken up in the middle ages.

No one is saying periods are shameful. The government seems to have rediscovered its own safeguarding responsibilities, as well as speaking to child development experts on what is age appropriate.

I know right? What are these people thinking? How is this an appropriate thing to teach a child?

This is the bit that concerns me, but I really hope will be clear in the guidance (though I suspect it won’t be!) In my case, the issue is no teaching about contraception, etc. until Year 9 - we talk about birth rates in different countries in Year 7 and 8 and it includes the fact that access to and knowledge about contraception is a fundamental factor for reducing birth rates in less economically developed countries. Obviously, no details about how a condom works or anything like that - but is even mentioning contraception going to potentially put me on the wrong side of these rules…?

Young children DO need to be taught the proper terms for their genitalia though, which is part of RSE- this is crucial for being able to articulate abuse. I assumed this is what @zaffa meant.

My understanding was that schools are allowed to discuss gender identity as a theory that some people believe in, but that they're not allowed to present it as fact? This sounds very reasonable to me.

It shouldn't mean saying to an individual student, "you're being ridiculous, there's no such thing as trans! A real boy/girl should do x, y, z" (these are in fact the toxic stereotypes on which the whole trans ideology rests, and which are roundly rejected by feminism). It should just mean celebrating individual personalities, without even necessarily mentioning sex/gender at all.

It should also definitely mean not paying huge sums of money to outside companies to come in and teach 11yos that it's scientific fact that someone can be born in the wrong body.

As a teacher, I definitely agree and would add that it is inappropriate and unfair that we get given zero training on how to deliver PSHE or personal development, sex education etc lessons but still have to deliver them. Sometimes these even have to be created and co planned by teaching staff.

I welcome this guidance and will also need more because even teaching in a single sex school there are children there identifying as the opposite gender already. It is an absolute minefield.

It does say this. It also says that where there's a safeguarding concern like porn circulating on social media, topics can be brought forward without lots of detail - and that if they're doing that in a school, they tell the parents first.

Do you know what gender identity ideology has in common with Section 28? The children most likely to be harmed by it are LGB children. There is a huge, HUGE difference between the LGB and the T, and they should never have been joined together.

Being gay has never been a social contagion, and even if it was, there are no long-term repercussions to stating you're gay as a teenager. Being 'trans' has been shown to be a social contagion in a similar way to anorexia and self-harm, and the long-term repercussions to those children who follow a medical pathway are life-limiting.

I would really urge you to do some research into how damaging gender identity ideology has been to LGB children (and adults). The Cass report would be a good place to start, but Trans by Helen Joyce, Gay Shame by Gareth Roberts and Time to Think by Hannah Barnes go into an excellent level of detail.

@ResisterRex please, point me in the direction of these so called experts?

No, they are not, but the guidance says they should be taught about in Year 4, when children turn 9. It is exceptionally rare for girls to start their periods before the age of 9.

No one is banning parents from taking the responsibility to teach their own children about periods at whatever age they see fit.

I think this would be like saying, we need to teach all primary aged children about childhood cancers because this will help them identify symptoms and contact their healthcare providers for investiagtion.
Children can no more be held responsible for identifying abuse and seeking interventions from professionals than they can be for identifying serious pathology and seeking healthcare interventions.

I think there's an emotional comfort in clinging to the the idea that "education" has the magical power to stop abuses. They're children, they're vulnerable, if adults can't look after them things are going to go badly for them.

I said "seems to" in my post. A position I have come to, based on reading the guidance put out and on my own experience in safeguarding.

To save you time, I've added the pages here so you can see them yourself:

Main page
consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/

Draft guidance
consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/supporting_documents/Draft%20RSE%20and%20Health%20Education%20statutory%20guidance.pdf

Pages 15-16 say this on age limits:

"The age limits in this guidance seek to ensure that, as content is introduced that is designed to prepare young people to stay safe and keep others safe, children are not introduced too early to concepts that they may not have the maturity to grasp, or which may be distressing. Age limits are focused on topics which, even when presented in a careful and well-intentioned way, may inadvertently give the message to young people that they could or should be engaging in or exploring adult activities rather than enjoying childhood.

Schools should seek to follow these age limits at all times. However, flexibility may be necessary in order to respond promptly to issues which pose an imminent safeguarding risk to their pupils. In certain circumstances, schools may decide to teach age-limited topics earlier, provided it is necessary do so in order to safeguard pupils and provided that teaching is limited to the essential facts, without going into unnecessary detail. Parents must be informed in these cases and appropriate safeguarding measures put in place. For example, if a primary school becomes aware that pupils are circulating pornographic material on social media, or if a secondary school becomes aware of a problem with sexual abuse in Key Stage 3, it would be appropriate for the school to address this with pupils in order to tackle the behaviour promptly, make them aware of the risks and consequences and prevent it from happening in future. However, this does not mean schools should go into the details of the sexual acts in question.

It is essential that schools inform parents in advance where they plan to teach a topic earlier than set out in this guidance."

Consultation document
consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/supporting_documents/Review%20of%20the%20Relationships%20Education%20Relationships%20and%20Sex%20Education%20RSE%20and%20Health%20Education.pdf

I've read the guidance. I've also read the responses from most people, charities and organizations working in this field .. this is not evidence based.

Please point me in the direction of these responses

Excellent post. I am in child safeguarding and agree with every word you posted.

@ResisterRex try brook, the sex ed forum or the pshe association.

Sorry but I'm not doing this work for you. If you want to bring quotes and show how these demonstrate that the draft guidance breaches safeguarding or that it's not age appropriate, or wrong, then do that and the discussion can be had. I'm not here to do others' research and work for them

Did gay rights involve cutting off body parts and sterilising children? How can you not see the homophobia in gender ideology?

Gender ideology is WORSE than section 28. It's literally telling lesbians they need to 'get over' their same sex attraction and have sex with men who feel like women.

And it' not stopping the teaching of gender ideology it's just making it clear that presenting it to developing children as fact (which doesn't have any internal consistency or evidence base) is wrong. You can teach it as a contested belief, which it is. So nothing like section 28 at all. The ones wanting to shut down debate are the genderists, not the realists.

I've known children of about this age who got their periods, it was bad enough for them without having to sit through a lesson on it with all their peers wondering if they 'knew'. In my experience, teachers do a good job of helping the girls who get their periods early in a 1 on 1, sensitive way which takes into account that particular child's needs.

I agree for the girls who get their periods early. I think we mean the same thing here!

Yes, I was agreeing with you! Sorry if that wasn't clear.

For those girls who got periods early, a lesson with clueless peers, none of whom were going through puberty and see it as a far off thing so might feel free to 'have a laugh' about it would be torment. If it was me I think I'd spend the entire lesson thinking it was ABOUT me and that EVERYONE knew. Torture - not kind to that child.

Once there's enough of them starting the first signs of puberty, lessons about it in a group become an entirely different thing.

And honestly, most children will have an idea from their parents. This idea that there are parents who won't tell their daughter about periods when she's actually bleeding is insane. It's not the Victorian era.

My 7 year old sees my pads, tampons and period pants (hanging up around the house to dry) she knows what it's all about. She actually thinks it's a bit funny at this age, because she thinks it's far off and will never happen to her. Because she's 7.

This sneering at parents as if we're all dimwits and don't have the best interests of our children at heart needs to stop.

If there are neglectful parents, the school / teachers will know about it far before year 5/6 and will have strategies in place to support that child.

And it definitely doesn't help girls going through the start of their periods, which can be a distressing time, to be told they can just identify out of womanhood, and their dislike of having to cope with periods means they're born in the wrong body and are really a boy. As if this is a fact, and not a completely insane idea not at all rooted in reality.

And presumably puberty blockers do stop periods. So to a CHILD this might seem like a great idea - because they won't understand the long term consequences because they're a CHILD and their brain hasn't yet matured.

I actually think this is emotionally abusive, and it has been happening.

I actually had a long discussion about puberty blockers for precocious puberty with my GP once and he said he knew doctors were reluctant to prescribe them unless it was very precocious puberty because of the side effects.

@LilyBartsHatShop anger is an extreme reaction and it strikes me as odd that you can't have a discussion about this without letting your emotions get the better of you.

I've made a few points that you don't agree with and that's fine.

You clearly have more time and energy to invest in writing about this than I do and we're not going to see eye to eye so I will say no more.

I had a post deleted yesterday for asking a genuine question so I’m asking it again. What will/should be taught in schools about people who have transitioned and living as the opposite sex?