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.

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

so no, I have no idea what you are on about. Why do i mean the existence of asexuality rather than the existence of asexuals? I have no idea what appropriative or pomo means, or why it is bullshit to ask t=for the existence of asexuals to be acknowledged.

Dione because I don't believe the schools will necessarily approach it the right way. Just because schools should discuss homosexuality and asexuality, that shouldn't mean they also have to address trans issues or any of the aromantic / demi / pan etc etc etc etc bullshit.

hijk you're arguing on something I'm not saying. I've already said I think asexuality should be included in the messaging. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

There are other options to "born that way" and choosing something. There are lots of opinions on the extent to which sexuality is affected by socialisation. I think "born that way" is useful in conservative communities if that helps people to accept homosexuality or asexuality but I don't necessarily believe it is true. It doesn't really matter though because homosexuality and asexuality should be presented as equally valid although clearly they're not the same.

I say the existence of asexuality rather than asexuals because there seems to be a trend of people who say if you don't validate the absolute truth of how I describe myself, you are literally denying my existence. Which is obviously bullshit.

I don't want to talk for ArcheryAnnie but my view is that lesbians and gay men have a long history of discrimination which continues to this day. It's specific to their sexuality and particularly their expression of sexuality. The extent to which anyone is discriminated against for being bi (or whatever else they want to call that) is related to the homosexual part of the sexuality. Aromantic / demisexual and all that other guff is post modern navel gazing and lumping it together with L&G appropriates the struggle and experience L&G people have had with their discrimination.

My children had some really good sex ed at primary as they brought in a specialist to do three sessions, focused not just on sex but also on broader issues, relationships, consent, sexual bullying and homophobia. They led to some great conversations both at school and at home. As parents we've always been pretty open, talked abut all sorts of things and encouraged our children to have respect for others and think for themselves, so I am fairly confident that they are OK (lucky really as dd is bi and ds hasn't totally decided yet). However I think that even setting aside the issue of parents who don't talk to their children, or who have crooked values that they impart, there is also a lot of value in encouraging children to have these conversations with their peers, facilitated by someone trained to get positive outcomes. Talking about consent together and what enthusiastic consent vs coercion really means is particularly valuable, as is thinking about what constitutes homophobia or sexual bullying. It's not just relevant to potential victims/perpetrators, but also for bystanders.

Flora, just because you deem something "bullshit", doesn't make it so. The OP is making the case for inclusive sex education and I agree with her. Do you?

Inclusive as to sexualities, yes. As to pomo bullshit, no.

still no idea what appropriative pomo is supposed to mean.

Brilliant post. SexEducation that deal exclusively with pregnancy and its related issues has little to offer the gay teenager and simply end up alienating them.

Sorry. error filled post due to late hour and wine.

FloraFox you said it very well.

hijk by "appropriative pomo bullshit" I was expressing my dissatisfaction at the idea that there is any such thing as "discrimination against demisexuals and aromantics" or that it could be compared to discrimination against gays and lesbians. There isn't and it can't.

In my early posts I had already said that sex ed shouldn't assume that everyone will have or want a partner, but again, you cannot claim that asexuality is in any way comparable to being gay or lesbian in terms of discrimination.

I think the point of inclusive sex Ed is that no child should have to deal with discrimination.

Archeryannie, lives are ruined by ignorance of asexuality. It isn't a competition, or an exercise in semantics. Asexuality needs to be recognised and treated fairly too.

As a Primary School teacher who teaches sex education every year I know that, personally, I always make sure that the existence of gay relationships comes up in our class discussions. I am also aware that a number of parents do not think that this should be mentioned to children. Frequently it's not the schools that are at fault, but they are under pressure from parents in this regard.

daddydaydream, do you also mention that there are some people who are born to never want any relationships at all?

Schools assume that every child will also meet certain ideals eg have two parents, not live in poverty. These are important issues which schools, parents and wider society must take responsible for in order to prevent prejudice and bullying of children who do not fit the 'norm' by teachers and children.

PSHE studies are extremely important in helping children understand themselves and others. Sadly, this government passed over the opportunity for relationship studies to be strengthened and watered down existing content.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/simon-blake/pshe-education-review-response_b_2997838.html

hijk pomo = post-modern

Thank you notdavid, but I don't know what that means either, with or without being appropriative! I'm beginning to think it just doesn't have a meaning.

hijk you are on the internet. Google is your friend.

That is a silly thing to say, archery anne, I looked it up, it doesn't in any way clarify or explain what YOU are talking about. I have asked repeatedly what it means, but haven't had any answer. Your post makes no sense to me at all, and as I said, I have come to the conclusion that your statement doesn't actually have a meaning.

^^ irony

Check out the Urban Dictionary definition hijk.

hijk
The post-modern view is that there are no natural categories of sex, gender or sexuality, and that these are all socially constructed concepts. This philosophical view is arguably one of the driving forces behind the move by some to expand/redefine LGBT to include other groups who have sex/gender/sexual identities outside the mainstream 'norm' (hence the attempt to relabel to MOGII).

People who oppose this approach might interpret this as being an attempt by people from outside the traditional definition of LGBT (or even just LGB) to appropriate the LGBT identity for themselves, despite not facing the same struggles against discrimination that LGBT people face. They might object to this as being 'appropriative'.

I don't know if that clarifies anything for you.

Thank you NotDavid, yes it does clarify. I think she is saying that I am trying to muscle in on the "glamour" of being discriminated against for being LGBT and get a slice the sympathy that comes with that, by claiming to be a sexuality which she doesn't accept? Or by describing discrimination which she doesn't accept happens, or doesn't think matters? and she is saying this is bullshit.

My response to that ArcheryAnnie,I don't think you know anything about it. I have tried to explain the problems that asexuals come up against in their lives. As I said, ignorance, bigotry and narrow mindedness ruins lives. It isn't a competition about what sort of life gets ruined most, and in any case, it would be impossible to compare, or judge.

I agree that the boundaries between different sexualities may blur, but not for me, I am asexual plain and simple, I am not "appropriating" anything, that is what I was born. Also I don't care what you consider to be postmodern, it makes no difference to me and my life.

Some asexuals consider themselves to be "covered" by the LGBT political umbrella, some don't. No one would consider it clear cut, and most would consider there are similarities. The two communities do act together occasionally.

Personally, I would never accept the term MOGII, which, as I understand it, was coined to include paedophiles and rapists

worriedabouta teen, yes, asexuals are discriminated against, if they "comeout", and no, I am not desperate for a label, before I new the label existed, I just said exactly the same thing, by describing being asexual, without using the term. The good thing about having an actual term "asexual" is that it is shorter to say ( although I may well end up having to explain what I mean anyway), and i now belong to an official category, and no longer have to feel, or be told, that I am the only one in the world.

"Glamour"? A "slice of the sympathy"? Seriously? If there was ever any doubt that you had no fucking idea what discrimination on the grounds of sexuality was, hijk, then this settles it.