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.

[ArcheryAnnie]

Nope, still don't see how demisexuals or aromantics are in any way discriminated against.

[ocelot41]

Hurrah! Great post. About time too. We can now marry who we love regardless of gender so why shouldnt sex end at school reflect that?

Currently by DS (4) is keen to marry either his best male friend S or his best female friend A. It was a joy to say that of course whichever way he makes up his mind (y'know when he's a bit older),is totally fine.

Let's not beat that openness out of them - let's keep saying what is important is that you choose the person you love and who is good to you. Nothing else matters.

[ArcheryAnnie]

And you present the move towards MOGII as something of a done deal. It isn't, and there are very many people who work on this issue who would not welcome it.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Why shouldn't children be taught about transgender?

[ArcheryAnnie]

Who has said they shouldn't be taught about it?

What I said was that they shouldn't be over-diagnosed with it. What's wrong with that?

[DioneTheDiabolist]

The OP is not suggesting that schools diagnose Transgender or that anyone should over diagnose transgender issues. Yet there are posts on this thread asking why the T should be included at all in the LGBT classifications that the OP talks about.

[FarelyKnuts]

AnnieLoebester if I could like your post of 12.20 1000x I would

[ArcheryAnnie]

Because there are issues where some prominent T activists are pushing things that run contrary to the interests of LGB people. (Not all T activists, just some, but they have traction, and T activists who oppose this reactionary strand of thinking and instead stand with LGB people get a lot of shit for it.)

It isn't currently one big happy fluffy community where everyone's interests lie in the same direction.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

But this is not a thread about T Activists or any Activists. This is a thread about challenging how schools and teachers teach about sex in a heteronormative way.

[ArcheryAnnie]

I was answering your questions. The T did come up right at the beginning because "LGBT" was used as if it's one thing, when it isn't.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Neither L,G,B or T are the same thing. The OP's point is that our heteronormative education system is letting down any child who falls within any of these groups. And that is wrong.

[ArcheryAnnie]

Yes, I know, which is why I posted very early in support of the OPs post. What I then did is carry on the discussion. I don't know why you have such a problem with this.

[fustybritches]

I think inclusive SRE is a positive and long overdue thing. There is no reason to promote heterosexual relationships as the norm.

[houghtonk76]

Totally agree! Not only would this approach have helped in my all-girls school when I was young (I am 38, bisexual & monogonomous, having been married to my husband for nearly 10 years, but my family, colleagues & many close friends are unaware of my sexuality as I still find myself worried about the opinion of others due to society's impression of "normal"), but I am also keen for my son (due 1st April) to grow up in a more tolerant and accepting world. If people were all the same, life would be very boring.

[dangerrabbit]

This is encouraging. As a same-sex parent of a 3 year old who is starting school in September and an unborn child, I would like LGBT to be included in PSHE from an early age so that my daughters would feel less marginalised when families are discussed. It would be nice if there were a couple of of books which featured families with two mums or two dads as DD1 is starting to realise this is unusual, although currently the other children in her nursery find it interesting that she has 2 mums and are jealous (it probably helps that we live in East london). I do worry about her starting school in September and potentially getting bullied, if LGBT relationships were represented within the curriculum it would also support kids with LGBT parents (who may or may not be LGBT themselves).

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I don't have a problem with it Annie, I think it's a wonderful idea to include LGBT in sex Ed and PHSE classes.

[hijk]

archeryannie, asexuals, demisexuals and aromantics are discriminated against by being effectively told they don't exist, that they have made a mistake, that they obviously are gay, straight or bi, and need some help working out which.

[ArcheryAnnie]

Nope, sorry hijk, that's appropriative pomo bullshit.

[hijk]

I have no idea what "appropriative" is supposed to mean, but I can assure you it isn't bullshit.

[FloraFox]

I agree with ArcheryAnnie. I'm completely in support of the OP as it relates to LGB. I'd also like not having a partner to be included as a viable option for children to consider. I don't want schools to deal with transgender issues at all nor to encourage the demi / pan / aromantic navel gazing.

[hijk]

Florafox, what are you talking about? Some people are born asexual. Why would you want the education system to deny that, which is effectively what it is doing.

Where does that leave you, exactly, if you are taught the sexuality that you are doesn't exist?

[hijk]

and I still have no idea what "appropriative pomo" is supposed to mean, or what is bullshit about wanting the existence of asexuals to be acknowledged.

[FloraFox]

I don't know whether people are born asexual or not. It doesn't really matter though because I think not having a partner should be supported as a viable option, including not having sexual feelings. I don't know where you get from my post that I want the education system to deny that people might not have sexual feelings, I don't.

I think you mean the "existence of asexuality". Do you know what the words "appropriative" and "pomo" (post modern) mean on their own? It's not clear whether you are genuinely asking or asking to reject the idea of something being appropriative pomo bullshit.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Why should schools not mention transgender issues Flora?

[hijk]

I am genuinely asking.

I was born asexual.

I spent most of my life thinking I was the only one in the world, and trying very hard to be gay or straight.

I messed up a lot of other peoples feelings, and I made myself thoroughly miserable for years.

As soon as I heard what asexuality was on a bbc report I recognised myself., at last I know what I am, and that this is what I was born, and I am very happy with this.

However, many other people still don't know asexuality exists. They confuse it with people who choose to be celibate, for a start. I did not CHOOSE to be asexual, (although I wouldn't change it) I was born this way. I have not always been celibate either. I did try to have "normal" relationships when I was younger, but it was a waste of time.

I still however get friends and relatives attempting to match me up with people, and no matter how many times I explain, they just don't get it. I also have men coming on to me, and looking very sceptical when I say I am asexual. I even wear an asexual ring, but people don't recognise it!

And the endless equal opportunity forms! Where you have to state if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual or prefer not to say. I am none of those, but these forms again, tell people repeatedly that asexuality doesn't exist.

We are 1% of the population, and it is about time that school sex ed mentions this!