Guest post: Inclusive sex education - 'we must fight the assumption that every child will turn out straight'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

"When did you become a lesbian?" We've all been asked it. When my family asks me, I know what they really mean is: 'please explain the terrible boyfriends you made us put up with'.

The traditional answer (shared through the LGBT hive mind, of course) is "when did you become straight?" It's a good answer, because it insists on equality and makes the point that sexuality is not necessarily a choice - but the reality is more problematic. The world is heterosexist; pretty much everything is based around the assumption that every child will turn out to be straight. Most children share this assumption, too.

The self-aware LGBT teen of Glee and other youth dramas is an absolutely true representation, in that there is only one per high school (two, if the producer is feeling brave and goes for a love interest). The rest of the LGBT kids are off-camera, floundering around, assuming that everyone is having the same intense same-sex friendships, or happily promising their parents that they won't have sex before they are 18/married/really ready (because at least that will postpone having to think about it).

Recognising that 'basically everyone is straight' is a myth - perpetuated in schools and in society at large - is a process every LGBT person must go through before they can even think about coming out or declaring their sexuality. This process can take years, as in my case.

The Conservatives dedicated £2 million to anti-homophobia work in October. While some excellent stuff is being done with the cash, one of the proposals for the fund was the suggestion of a 'specialist' LGBT school in Manchester. Essentially, this was an admission that Manchester schools had no interest in making themselves safe for their LGBT students. Beyond that, it assumed that all LGBT students are aware of their sexuality and are just keeping really quiet about it for fear of bullying. This may be true for some, but many more just aren't at that point.

This is why Labour's announcement of mandatory inclusive education in primary school and LGBT-friendly SRE (sex and relationships education) in secondary school is an important step in the right direction. Contrary to what UKIP's deputy leader Paul Nuttall seems to think, this does not mean teaching the practicalities of anal sex to primary school children. It does mean embedding inclusive examples and language in our classrooms and teaching teachers how to avoid being heterosexist. It moves us away from the idea that everyone is straight. This, in turn, will make it easier for young people to go through the process of recognising their sexual orientation.

At the root of opposition to these plans is good, old-fashioned prejudice. It's a fear that teaching children about LGBT issues will turn them all gay – that sexuality is determined by environmental factors, that, if only we can shelter our kids from the details, separate them, even, from those who are already ‘out’, we can protect them from this particular break from the norm. What people need to realise is that coming out will happen whether it is fast or slow, easy or incredibly painful.

Actively fighting the assumption that being gay is somehow out of the ordinary will simply make the process of coming out easier, and maybe a little faster. The choice is whether you end up with a happy or an unhappy LGBT person; they will be LGBT either way.

If I had had a more inclusive education, I might not have brought home those terrible boyfriends - and it probably wouldn't have taken me until I was thirty to be happy and comfortable.

[SoonToBeSix]

Fish that's a great example of playing with statistics , have you thought if becoming a politician?

[portico]

Annielobeseder. You are right about consent, to a point. It should be something all youngsters are taught about, buy into and adopt. That being said, it should be set by the parents and not schools. Schools and the liberal agenda have no right to usurp parental boundaries.

[AnnieLobeseder]

No, not to a point, portico. Absolutely. Children need to be taught consent. Why on earth would any parent object to children being taught to only have sex with someone who clearly wants it? Or to children being taught that they are fully entitled to say no? Any parent not teaching those things is teaching rape culture and is wrong.

So no, the parents of other children do NOT get to set what consent is and then have their child rape my child. Teaching about consent is not just about your child, it's about the other children they will go on to have sex with when they're adults. And so, they should all be taught absolutely that consent needs to be actively sought and given. There is no room for parental leeway or blurred boundaries on this.

There is also the very real problem of parents who don't bother to teach their children anything about sex at all. If schools just teach the basic biology of it without covering the social interaction and emotional side of it, the child can only learn from peers and practical experience, which is a very dangerous way to get an eduction about sex.

In the same way I would vehemently disagree with any parent complaining about "liberal agendas" and objecting to their child being taught that homosexuality is natural and fine. Because a parents religious beliefs and/or homophobia do not trump a gay child's right to know that there is no shame in who they are. In fact, the children of those parents are likely to be the ones who need to hear it most. At home, they'll be hearing that homosexuality is wrong/unnatural/evil/a choice from parents who would never imagine or accept that their own child is gay, and the child will be suffering terrible mental damage over it.

Chances are high that many parents are teaching bigoted, rapey and unhealthy sexual education at home, so schools need to counteract that.

[ArcheryAnnie]

I talk to my DS about sex and consent, but I know a very great number of other young men whose parents will never ever talk to them about sex at all. They will learn all they think they need to know from porn and GTA. So I am entirely content for schools to teach as much as they need to, which is a lot.

[BeCool]

I also talk about partnership being possible with either sex with my young DD's - so it will hopefully feel very normal to them all their lives.

It is greatly aided by same sex marriages now being available and we talk about marrying someone you love (or not - I'm not married myself), rather than a relationship with a man being the norm.

[portico]

Annielobesder. Firstly, I say parents should teach their children about consent as they are the moral guardians. And this consent should be consistent with the right interpretation of consent. I do feel that it is the rights and responsibility of parents/carers only. No one else!

[portico]

And this right interpretation of consent, would be the same as your interpretation, Annie. I just believe that it should be undertaken by the parents and not the state.

[ArcheryAnnie]

But many parents don't, portico. What then?

[portico]

Anniearchery. I disagree. Biology and reproduction is fine. But why should I let someone from school, who I do not know, nor do I know about their values nd Moros, teach my children about wider points. What the hell is my role in this.

We have moved from religion, to secularism to humanism. Humanists set the agenda now.

[portico]

And morals

[portico]

I have asked for my post, at 13.17 on 13 February to be removed.

[ArcheryAnnie]

But portico, many parents tell their children nothing at all. The children then learn about consent from porn. Who would you rather teach these children about consent - porn barons or trained educators?

[fustybritches]

I sincerely hope we've moved on from religion setting the sex ed agenda portico

Agree with others about the T in LGBT, the politics of this area is quite troubling.

[TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy]

Surely the roles should be overlapping and re-enforcing, not separate categories not to be crossed? Even without this, wider points and morals would be taught in schools in the selection of literature and literature analysis, who is represented in history, in the social rules of schools, and so on.

As for the LGBT+ questions, the reason marginalized sexuality orientations and gender identities are intertwined is historically the movements have been intertwined. The Stonewall riots and the many other actions that brought us to where we are today, the leaders and main people who fought were bisexual transgender women and both of those identities are important and were being fought for. More people who actively work in discussing the language around this are more moving towards MOGII (Marginalized orientations, gender identities, and intersex) as an acronym to be more inclusive, especially as when adding other groups turned LGBT+ (asexuals, pansexuals, aromantic, demisexuals), some anti- groups turned it into a jokes. Also, as many activists groups in these areas work in solidarity with each other, it developed naturally in this way to include everyone while identifying both the differences and that people can be part of more than one area without saying that any individual was all.

While I agree that there needs to be inclusive SRE, I hope the final form includes more teacher and community involvement than what I've seen. For starters, as has been said, there is nothing in this about gender identities at all so including trans people in the label without actual representation is... off and wrong. The OP has identified we live in a heterosexist society, but has ignored the cissexist components (which leads to young trans people having sky high suicide and attempted suicide rates and far lower life expectancy overall). Including gender identities, gender as a social construct, the spectrum of genders, and that what one was assigned at birth because of the appearance of their genitals doesn't make them who they are and that those assigned as one can grow up to be men, women, or...would be big for all children, not just children who may be trans. It also says nothing about asexual people.

I also wonder how this will impact wider curriculum, as it discusses how teachers would help combat heternormative and heterosexist pushes in society. While it's great to be included in SRE, the inclusion of people and differing social beliefs in other historical societies in history and quality characters in literature, would be amazing I think (but I'm a big proponent of the consideration of mirror and window media as part of these types of actions).

[ArcheryAnnie]

TheSpork the "trans women were the main instigators of the Stonewall riots" is, at best, contested history, and fairly recently introduced into the narrative for political purposes. It's certainly not accepted fact.

And I'm certainly not moving towards MOGII. There's enough appropriation of LGB identity as it is.

[ArcheryAnnie]

Also, TheSpork, if you think either "aromantics" or "demisexuals" are discriminated against, and thus need including in any umbrella, then you have clearly led a very sheltered life and don't understand what discrimination is.

[MrsBartlet]

I have one ds and one dd (14 and 18). We never made the assumption that they would grow up to be straight and always said to both (from when they were tiny) "if you have a boyfriend or a girlfriend" when talking about relationships they may have when they were older. I never understand why people would just presume their child will be straight.

[TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy]

ArcheryAnnie I'm not sure how Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P. Johnson, or many others' parts in the Stonewall riots is either recently introduced or political -- it was well known and discussed at the time. But anything can be political, and LGBT+ as a term is buried in that history, I meant to be answering the multiple posts that asked why T is so often included with LGB, and the reason is that the activism groups are historically and currently intertwined so marginalized sexualities and gender identities were often fought for and discussed together - and that people can be part of both . As I meant, it is not appropriate in this post when the OP obviously only means MO as many other people have picked up on.

MOGII is being moved towards by those as a replacement for LGBT+ when discussing overall issues and activism that include both sexuality and gender issues, particularly in activism, academia, history and health where the needs and often discrimination against people have significant overlap.

For LGB, marginalized orientations/MO would be used on its own by many people (and includes pansexuals, asexuals, and so on which are left out by LGB and their inclusion at the end of the acronym became the butt of jokes and many many ally groups made the A in LGBTPAI+ as allies which was quite appropriation and offensive to many which was part of the spark for the creation and rise in popularity of MO/MOGII. Demisexuals would typically be included under the asexual umbrella, and many have had the feeling broken, the 'everyone is demi' crap and lack of representation end (as many aromantics have spoken of as well) as well as the corrective rapes end which I would include as 'discrimination'/violence. I actually only included them as other people have included them in the LGB acronym previously which caused it anti- groups to make them into a joke as I've said.

If you want to think I've had a sheltered life, you're free to do so, though I've spoken on these forums often about my experiences being pansexual, being genderfluid, as a disabled person who didn't think I would see adulthood because I thought my parents or medical professionals would kill me, the medical violence I've experienced, the childhood violence I've experiences, the violence I've experiences as a Metis person and an immigrant to the UK, being autistic, and so on. I work with academic and activist groups, many who have MOGII identities among others, who work to talk to other members of marginalized communities to get a wider, fuller picture of the realities at various intersections of a kyriarchy societies that are built on and maintained to oppress through erasure and division (among other things).

Actually, I'm currently working with said groups in research and creating curriculum and written materials for schools, young people, and parents that would include inclusive SRE materials so it's quite a close spot for me at the moment -- and I certainly think demisexuals and aromantics deserve to be represented in such materials even if it makes me sheltered - no one should be erased or made to feel broken and in a society obsessed with romantic love as a solution to all and sex as the ultimate sign of that many people do even if that isn't discrimination enough for some, people should still be represented because seeing ourselves in society is part of how people as a social species determine their value which is why erasure is so harmful (which leads back to my focus on mirror and window media as important part of dealing with identity and social concepts and I've been a true academic in rambling on for so long in something not of interest to most because it's my topic).

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

Spork, what are the limitations of MOGII? I've heard BDSMers saying they fit under the queer umbrella, which I find problematic - would that count as MOGII too?

I see the attraction of using the 'marginalised identities' descriptor but doesn't it run up against the problem that we will never be able to agree on what is and isn't marginalised?

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

Actually I don't mean 'limitations', I mean 'limits' or 'boundaries'. Sorry.

[Notrevealingmyidentity]

I know that LGBT stuff is important and I agree so much with your post.

But I would also like to see more acceptance in general - someone mentioned people who don't have children. Or people that choose not to have relationships or that are asexual.

I don't know about teaching so much but just the acknowledgement that there are many ways of livings so to speak.

[Notrevealingmyidentity]

I see Today Killasandra has beaten me to that statement.

[Notrevealingmyidentity]

*that

[TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy]

Countess - I've seen those as well and yes its very much appropriation and wrong when people put BDSM or 'kinky' in the same concept as MOGII or LGBPA+.

People have discussed and debated on the term and a lot of discussion on how to properly show marginalized vs just being a minority which would need to be ongoing because people will disagree especially as there isn't a clear picture agreed upon by those in control of the representation and discussion in wider society.

To use the BDSMers as an example on who isn't, BDSMers do not have an entire society built and maintained to keep them on the outside, no violations against them supported by the systems of society for being BDSMers, society does not give validation (or is anyone really) trying to violently correct who they are or erase their existence in society or a societal effort to make them feel broken nor are the stories our society is based on nor common popular media built to dehumanize them. They have individual people who don't get it or squicked out by it, but there is no power relationship in society that is built on their exclusion, society does not give an automatic, unearned privilege to those who are not BDSMers, other practices are not shown as the ultimate/only way to get love/sexual satisfaction/and so on. They are nor marginalized by society, they are a minority some individuals dislike but have no social or cultural power or backing to really do anything to as a whole to dehumanize them for being BDSMers.