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.

[hijk]

If that isn't what you meant Archeryannie, then please do clarify.

[hijk]

You sound like you think I have some sort of fantasy that LGBT discrimination is something "glamorous" I want to be counted as included in.

If that is not what you are accusing me of, then what exactly is it that you think I want to appropriate?

[nooka]

I have an adult relative who has never had a partner or as far as I am aware ever dated. I don't know if he is asexual, celibate or gay and unable to come out (he is in his late 70s). It's only the latter that might have led to him being beaten up, rejected by his family or church. The family just accept him as single (only my generation wonder if he might be gay), being a single bachelor isn't generally considered particularly extraordinary. I do recognise that the single women seem to have more stigma attached to that status.

[hijk]

It's only the latter that might have led to him being beaten up, rejected by his family or church

true to some extent - maybe true in your relatives life, but no, not completely true.

Depends on the individuals in the family, and the individuals in the church ( I am a Christian)

Archeryannie mentioned aromantic /romantics, although I am not completely sure she really understands what she is talking about, as she referred to such very fundamental aspects of who we all are as "naval gazing"!

( I do agree, however that primary school children probably wouldn't benefit from differentiating between the two!)

Not all asexuals are aromantic, and many have strong maternal instincts. I am aromantic, as it happens, but life would not have been worth living for me without being a mother.

The legal, social, financial and family implications of being asexual can be very profound.

As to being on the recieving end of physical and/ or emotional aggression, I agree that a gay man in a relationship might have a higher likelihood of receiving a beating, but that is not to say it doesn't happen if you are asexual too, for some thugs, all they need is a "difference"

And homosexuals have a legal protection against discrimination and bullying at work etc, that asexuals simply don't.

But thank you for your answer, which I partly agree with in some circumstances. I certainly agree this is the perception, if not really the whole truth.

Archeryannie, I suspect, was just being aggressive for the sake of it, not having any understanding of the issue, and giving responses with no real meaning.

[ArcheryAnnie]

Archeryannie, I suspect, was just being aggressive for the sake of it, not having any understanding of the issue, and giving responses with no real meaning.

I no longer believe you are discussing this in good faith, hijk - if you ever were - but now you are merely trolling.

[hijk]

That is just another aggressive and meaningless response archeryannie. I am trying to explain my experiences and position, in the face of some truly extraordinary ignorance, but the only responses I've had from you have been totally rude and dismissive. Nor are you able in any way to explain what your point of view is.

Your response to
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.

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

since when I have tried to explain more of my personal experiences, and asked you repeatedly to explain your post, but all you have done is be rude.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you really don't know anything about these issues, and you don't actually have a point of view you can explain, and your response to something you don't understand is to hurl insults around.

if I am wrong, do come back and expain yourself, I am listening. I would actually quite like to know what goes on in the minds of people like you!

But calling me a troll is just another way of attempting to totally dismiss all the issues I have raised, and pretend they don't exist, and justify your choice to continue in ignorance and intolerance.