Caitlin Moran in yesterday's Times magazine

[WhenIsTheEasyBit]

Sorry, can't link, but she addressed the Parkfields School row and in her usual, brilliant way dismantled any arguments against teaching children about same sex relationships or bisexuality.

I completely agreed with every word. Except, that throughout she referred to LGBT. Her argument and all her examples demonstrated that children aren't taught to be L, G or B. But there in the abbreviation about education was that T again, which a poster on these boards recently described as parasitically attached to LGB. I am not for one moment wanting to describe people who are T as parasites, but the activism movement has attached itself to a wholly different cause and Moran's article really brought this home to me, because it does seem, from the massive rise in cases, the clustering of spikes, that identifying as T can be taught or at least significantly externally influenced.

Just when I think that sense is prevailing and we're hitting peak-trans, something like Parkfields comes along and is labelled as being about LGBT: bingo, people like the deputy head of Ofsted and multiple slebs speak in support of teaching about "LGBT relationships" and it feels like a massive step back and more potential allies lost.

I am not impressed that children aged 4 are being taught that they can change sex, these children believe in Father Christmas and could be removed from their parents care as a result.

I am not going to be popular posting this next opinion.

As a child I was intrigued as to what was so difficult about homosexuality, why were people making such a big deal out of it? I find oral and anal sexual activity unpleasant to this day and I would rather have waited until 14 to have had such notions brought to my attention, after all the age of sexual consent is 16 in this country.

The T part was thankfully picked up in the many comments.

I haven't read it online, but good to know it's being commented on.

Adult I guess there is a separate discussion to be had about the age appropriateness of different sexual practices- oral and anal are not exclusive to any one sexuality. But relationships I think can and should be discussed from very early - children don't really wonder about details until they're ready to IME.

Adult, as I understand it the LGB part of it in primary is simply about saying "sometimes couples are both male, or both female, and love each other very much, and sometimes they have children, or adopt children, so some children end up in families with two daddies or two mummies, and that's all fine". Which I think is a very good thing (I have lesbian friends with children, and I'd like to think their children are supported in school and not made to feel odd for having two mummies).

The precise details of the physical expression of that love is obviously inappropriate with 4 year olds. Just as it would be re. heterosexual relationships.

(As for anal sex, my understanding is some gay men like it, some don't and don't do it. Bit like my attitude to anal sex in heterosexual relationships - I know some women do, I know some women say they like it, I have no desire to try it so I don't.)

I agree - I'm more than queasy about impressionable small children (who continue to believe for some years a man can fly round the world in one night distributing gifts to every single child in the world, for example) being told you can 'change sex'.

Graduated teaching about relationships, not thinking any type of family is 'wrong', etc is a good thing. But as we know, hard-pressed schools (especially primary) will grab at any teaching pack offered and use that, often without interrogating its actual content.

I am a single parent, I found children had no interest in who I did or didn't share a bed with, they simply wanted to play with my children, be fed and watered.

Some narcissistic adults seem to me, to be pushing their issues onto children, instead of leaving children enjoy child innocence.

I guess there is a separate discussion to be had about the age appropriateness of different sexual practices- oral and anal are not exclusive to any one sexuality.

If two consenting adults in the privacy of their home want to partake in any sexual fetish that's their business, why on earth any adult wants to promote and teach such activity to children under the age of consent is beyond me.

It must be difficult for schools to teach that same sex attraction is normal and nothing to be ashamed of, and it's wrong to assume everyone wants heterosexual relationships. Meanwhile, also teach that sex isn't about bodies, but about feelings. That it's wrong to see someone's physical sex and not acknowledge someone's mind sex, including in relationships.

I couldn't care less about who loves who as long as they haven't made a commitment to me.

The only people who made a big deal about sexuality to me as a child were same sex attracted people, who I view as having stolen some of my childhood innocence.

'The only people who made a big deal about sexuality to me as a child were same sex attracted people, who I view as having stolen some of my childhood innocence'

???

Het sex is everywhere!

I am probably someone people would consider a prude I don't want to watch anyone engaging in sexual activity, I would put my hands in front of my eyes as a child when actors in Dallas were up to no good, especially JR.

I guess my point is we all have different boundaries and sexuality as adults and children, it's a minefield.

Us prudes are entitled to our boundaries and requests of trying to retain innocence and that should be balanced with the requirements of those engaging in S&M.

Your views are coming across to me as very homophobic @AdultHuman. As a PP said there are depictions of heterosexual relationships everywhere. Nobody is suggesting young children be taught in explicit detail about any particular sex acts, as far as I'm aware? So is it just knowing about the existence of same sex attraction that you feel stole your innocence in some way?

I don't have an irrational fear, I would appreciate my boundaries respected.

It's interesting how this thread has developed, because here I am now, having meant to add to the many discussions we have in feminist chat about the impact of the TRA agenda, feeling guilty about having opened up something where views are being expressed that could be seen as homophobic.

And so it goes on... don't question the T because it's embedded with the LGB and you end up seeming on the same side as views you really don't support!

Your views are coming across to me as very homophobic @AdultHuman

To me too. And it demonstrates perfectly that so many people seem only capable of thinking about same sex couples in purely sexual terms. Their minds go immediately to who does what to whose genitals rather than 'Jenny and Sarah are married and they are mummies to three children'. But of course these people never think the same about heterosexual couples. They read a story about Mummy and Daddy going to the shops and think, 'that's nice'. Not 'I wonder if daddy likes mummy to anally penetrate him with a dildo'

People have their boundaries and opinions have been kept to themselves and then along came people pushing the boundaries of society. As i say it's a minefield, to service the needs of different people in this push for change.

I think the point is that L, G, and B are about sexuality, but that T is a different kettle of fish altogether. It does seem an odd grouping.

I actually don't really think kids need to be taught about this. Same sex couples are legally allowed to marry and they are becoming more the norm. I don't see why they even need lgbt classes at 4, hopefully they will just meet same sex couples as they go through life and it won't be a big deal. It is kind of about sex when you come down to it and imo 4 year olds are too young.

And I personally think the trans lessons are ridiculous. There's going to be some confused kids in biology lessons

It is kind of about sex when you come down to it and imo 4 year olds are too young.

No one is suggesting getting into the mechanics of couples' sex lives with 4 year olds. But if you're happy for kids to learn about mummies and daddies then only reason you would be opposed to them learning about same sex couples in the same age appropriate terms is because you're a homophobe.

No, I don't think they need to learn about any of it!

They don't need to learn that people exist?

Okay, homophobe.