Times article: Children get caught in the LGBT crossfire

[LangCleg]

Compulsory lessons about sex and relationships have sparked an ugly battle between schools and parents — while ministers duck responsibility

Generally about the clash between religion and LGBT but a very good quote from Nazir Afzal at the end:

“If parents are going to protest, it should be about the two [pupils] in every classroom who, on average, have been or will be sexually assaulted; the eight in each classroom who will witness domestic abuse at some time each year. These are the real issues that threaten our children’s futures, not whether gay people exist.”

I take huge exception to this being presented without critique: the Tory MP Maria Miller, who chairs the women and equalities select committee, which backed compulsory RSE lessons after investigating sexual harassment in schools - well, there's not much point in compulsory RSE lessons to lower sexual assault and harassment in schools via curricula like No Outsiders because they actually diminish the ability of girls to assert boundaries and boys to accept them by ignoring the protected characteristic of sex and teaching them that a boy is a girl if he says he is. FFS.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/children-get-caught-in-the-lgbt-crossfire-3fvvrlw8s?shareToken=9e171d9f45c394fb5cd9eba86b9d44ba

I said this on other threads.

You cant teach about sexuality and transgenderism.

If stonewall have re defined homosexual to mean same gender attracted then same sex attraction no longer exists.

Who is the "education" benefiting here.

And why isnt bullying being dealt with.

Who is the "education" benefiting here.

That's the question nobody seems to be asking.

You cant teach about sexuality and transgenderism.

Obviously I read The Times article from a particular perspective but all the way through I found myself marvelling at what a master-stroke it was to embed the gender identity ideology into LGB. In so many contexts any attempt to ask questions triggers a knee-jerk "that's the same as homophobia". It is an extraordinarily effective shield.

How can they teach about sexuality and transgenderism when they contradict each other?

Exactly naut

You cant object to any of it without appearing like a massive homophobia

Yet it's not us throwing lesbians out of marches and meetings because they wont accept women who have penises.

In the midst of this battle of adults' rights & ideologies, children's needs are being missed.

As Nazir Afzal identifies prioritising the needs of vulnerable children, particularly girls, should always be the primary concern.

Those adults preoccupied with asserting their 'trans rights', 'gay rights', 'religious rights', 'national identity' rights etc risk missing the potential impacts on children.

It is an extraordinarily effective shield.

It is.

And you also have the No Outsiders programme, which purports to teach EqA to primary school children but, in effect, only teaches part of it. And not only does it ignore the protected characteristics of sex and religion, it actively undermines them.

I don't think EqA should be taught at all at primary level. Any proper teaching would involve the conflict and balancing of rights, which is way above the heads of KS1 and KS2.

Lots of us here want to see the protected characteristic of sex given its rightful prominence. Lots of us here at the same time disapprove of some of the patriarchal attitudes (to women and LGB) in many religions. But the fact remains that both are protected characteristics.

What's actually needed is an anti-bullying curriculum strongly founded in safeguarding principles, that teaches children not to treat others badly based on difference and to be able to assert their own boundaries and respect those of others.

As ever, Nazir Afzal hits the nail on the head with his quote in the article.

Sorry, R0 - cross posted!

Those adults preoccupied with asserting their 'trans rights', 'gay rights', 'religious rights', 'national identity' rights etc risk missing the potential impacts on children.

A thousand times this.

Excellent post LangCleg.

It is so hard to see good people earnestly supporting all this when they have no idea that there is a targeted campaign to influence children into aspects of sexuality that are completely unsuitable for young children.

It is so hard to see good people earnestly supporting all this when they have no idea that there is a targeted campaign to influence children into aspects of sexuality that are completely unsuitable for young children.

Correct.

Obviously I read The Times article from a particular perspective but all the way through I found myself marvelling at what a master-stroke it was to embed the gender identity ideology into LGB. In so many contexts any attempt to ask questions triggers a knee-jerk "that's the same as homophobia". It is an extraordinarily effective shield.

Especially since the transgender movement is a movement run by, and for the benefit of, straight men.

Great posts on this thread.

The Government call it Relationships and Health Education.

I don't see where transgenderism fits into that.

In fact, if we are talking about unwanted pregancies in a relationship, it is vital that we speak about the sex of the individuals concerned. Transmen are teenage girls who can get pregnant. Transwomen are teenage boys who can father children.

Great post Lang

What's actually needed is an anti-bullying curriculum strongly founded in safeguarding principles, that teaches children not to treat others badly based on difference and to be able to assert their own boundaries and respect those of others.

YY I agree. Safeguarding first and always.