Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

I thought I couldn't be shocked anymore (No Outsiders programme)

240 replies

LesbianMeansSomething · 23/04/2019 19:11

You know the No Outsiders programme which that gay teacher came up with all by himself to challenge homophobia in primary schools (and which just happens to promote a lot of the current transactivist ideology)?

Well, guess what? No Outsiders was a £575,435.85-funded project dating back to 2006, which this teacher and other individuals and groups such as Gendered Intelligence were involved in developing from the start.

What they were discussing is worth looking at for yourself: www.transgendertrend.com/no-outsiders-queering-primary-classroom/ but, to quote the article:

"There is an air of unreality about all this. ‘At what cost do we deny children’s and teacher’s sexuality? What do we lose if desire and pleasure are banned from the classroom? What is the place of the research team members’ own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research?’ Reading these questions, you have to keep reminding yourself that the bodies in question are those of adults and the children aged 5 to 11 who are in their care to learn."

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
NeurotrashWarrior · 25/04/2019 10:30

10,000 dresses.

The first paragraph of the 'main' lesson is worthy of some praise in that it queries "what makes you a girl?" - presumably not the dress and sexist gender stereotypes.

However, the lesson continues to teach children that they're "assigned" a gender. And they can 'choose their gender'.

No, they have a sex and the sex is observed at birth. A small percentage of the population have intersex conditions, but in those cases it is possibly to determine their sex from chromosomes or if they have the SRY gene which blocks the hormones that develops their primary sexual characteristics.

Children can break stereotypes and be gender non conforming. This is what the lesson should be about.

Only adults can make the permanent decision to alter their body and legally change their sex. This may include permanent damage to the ability to have children and experience sexual pleasure. This is not included in the lesson. This is the remit of expert drs and psychologists. Not primary teachers. Leo may change their mind as 80% of "trans questioning" children when they're older.

There are sex based rights for girls' sex / biology. Boys cannot use girls toilets because they 'feel' like a girl. A girl who 'feels' like a boy has a female body and will menstruate and require specific facilities at school to accommodate this.

Scratch below the surface of this sugar coated lesson and the safeguarding issues are enormous.

I thought I couldn't be shocked anymore (No Outsiders programme)
I thought I couldn't be shocked anymore (No Outsiders programme)
I thought I couldn't be shocked anymore (No Outsiders programme)
HandsOffMyRights · 25/04/2019 10:41

'Accepting children without judgement.' Unless you are a girl who doesn't want to change in front of a boy who thinks he's a girl. If you object, you will have to be the one to move. You will be judged and possibly 50 per cent of the class, females, branded as bigots because of one boy.

As repeated by Jan the Mermaids trainer, recorded at her session in Birmingham I believe. Jan, who also misquotes the EA.

R0wantrees · 25/04/2019 10:49

As repeated by Jan the Mermaids trainer, recorded at her session in Birmingham I believe. Jan, who also misquotes the EA.

Mermaids training for teaching staff was recorded & transcribed in December 2018:

Imherefornow Sat 22-Dec-18 wrote:
"Here are the links to the transcripts thanks to a wonderful mumsnet collaboration. Share as you will"

docs.google.com/document/d/1NDOMlo2aEpBl2ySfKdEWCb1H94tZciKiqUffjH1ku0Y/edit?usp=sharing

docs.google.com/document/d/1aeFV0T6j4PXvm1xZBS_50oSJYV-_gO8YMoFjKjNA_9Y/edit?usp=sharing
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3454658-recording-of-mermaids-training

Janice Turner Times article:
december 22 2018
'Trans ideologists are spreading cod science:
Those who defend controversial charity’s right to a £500,000 lottery grant should really listen to what it is preaching'
(extract)
"Are you a Princess Barbie jelly-baby who likes frilly dresses, high heels and takes ages to get ready? Or a GI Joe jelly-baby who wears boots and functional clothing? Did you know that your preference for pink sparkles or muddy sports isn’t down to societal expectations of boys and girls. No, it’s written in your chromosomes. And that’s science.

Well, science according to Mermaids, the charity for trans children, in a presentation understood to be given to thousands of teachers, health workers, police and politicians, and part-funded by the Department for Education.

I listened to a recording of this bizarre 90-minute training lecture and wish others could too. Particularly those who pride themselves on rationality and evidence-based thinking: atheists, fans of Richard Dawkins and Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science; those incensed by climate change deniers on TV or creationists in schools; the same people who are tweeting #istandwithmermaids because the Big Lottery Fund is reviewing, in the light of an outcry, its decision to award them a £500,000 grant.

On tape the Mermaids trainer tells us that humans don’t come in two sexes, male and female, sperm and ovum: “Most people still think that way,” she says airily. “But what we know now, thanks to advances in science, is that the human race has up to 42 different sets of chromosomes.”

Biological sex is on a spectrum, she says, like skin tone and (seriously) bra size. A person’s “gender identity jelly baby” has nothing to do with how we are raised: it is inside you at birth. You know you are a man because you walk like a man and like “manly” things. A listener questions why this lecture is based upon stereotypes and is told “you’re going too clever”. (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-ideologists-are-spreading-cod-science-m8n0pdbq3?shareToken=eb2c06153578d29f71c393769844ab17&wgu=270525_54264_15561853817279_892dc5a91d&wgexpiry=1563961381&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=22278

HandsOffMyRights · 25/04/2019 11:07

In relation to the EA, Jan spoke of a boy using a girls' toilet in school.

*"You can’t prevent anyone from using the facilities of the gender with which they identify and are living as. If someone complains, you provide an alternative to the person complaining. THAT IS THE LAW.

"If you get a what if? which you will, just replace one protected characteristic with another and ask yourself the question again. So what would happen if you said ‘you can’t use those toilets because you’re Jewish?

"Usually if you’ve got a ‘what if?’ just do that and it will quite often just give you the answer and then you can go ‘OK, I can deal with this. It’ll be fine. So that’s for primary schools..."*

If Andrew Moffatt can't/won't cite the EA correctly either, then you can see the danger this places girls in. This is not just being blatantly ignored in some schools: the dismantling of girls' boundaries is being encouraged.

Why?

NeurotrashWarrior · 25/04/2019 11:51

'Jan' blithely sidestepping the law and basic safeguarding for primary aged children there.

Because the law doesn't say that at all.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 25/04/2019 12:00

Also it’s not ‘what would happen if you said ‘you can’t use the girls toilets because you’re Jewish?‘. FFS

It’s

what would happen if you said ‘you can’t use the girls toilets because you’re male

Jeez louise

drspouse · 25/04/2019 12:44

Nobody is allowed to make one set of toilets for black and one for white children.
You could have a prayer ablution room for Muslim children but the only allowable changing or toilet distinction is by sex.

terryleather · 25/04/2019 12:57

"If you get a what if? which you will, just replace one protected characteristic with another and ask yourself the question again. So what would happen if you said ‘you can’t use those toilets because you’re Jewish?

Toilets are segregated by sex, not by faith or belief (as much as TRAs/AWAs might want them to be), and it's perfectly reasonable and legal to segregate by sex in this instance.

FFS Jan your analogy here is a pile of arse.

littlbrowndog · 25/04/2019 13:08

I feel terry that you might being a bit clever here

Ffs jan.

I heard that talk and it was pure bollocks

Pure bollocks and the guy was told off for being a bit clever

terryleather · 25/04/2019 13:54

Tbh littlebrown I get the feeling that most people are a bit clever in comparison to FFS Jan if that's anything to go by...

StrangeLookingParasite · 26/04/2019 14:12

Or a GI Joe jelly-baby who wears boots and functional clothing?

Shit, I'm GI Joe. How did I have that baby?

ChickenonaMug · 27/04/2019 11:38

This is a Facebook post, that I have just seen, from a teacher from Australia who took a closer look at the 'Safe Schools' programme in her country. She wrote this last year.

Her thoughts on the programme seem similar to some of the concerns raised here about the wider context in which sex and relationship education is being considered and possibly delivered in the UK.

This first part of her post particularly stood out for me are:

"I’ll be honest. I was busy teaching when I first heard about the SS program, and like most of my colleagues, I didn’t bother to read it. I already didn’t allow bullying of any kind in my classrooms, not of gay kids, not of any kids. But mostly, it was because I assumed the rumours of inappropriate content in Safe Schools were probably exaggerations by hysterical, ultra-conservatives.

It wasn’t until I was home on maternity leave that I had the time, energy and humility to check for myself. As a parent, I was horrified. But on a professional level, as a teacher- I was especially shocked and devastated to discover that in all likelihood, if this program went State-wide`, my career was probably over. There was no way that I could sign a contract to teach these topics using curriculums like ‘Safe Schools’. This program is not about breaking down gender stereotypes like ‘women belong in the home’ or ‘real men don’t cry’- as we have all been told. This program is not about fostering compassion for gay, intersex or ‘gender dysphoric’ students- as we have all been told. It is almost entirely consumed with graphic, erotic sex-ed and gender fluidity theory. Why do I protest? Firstly, I believe the scope for abuse of power and sexual harassment of students is just simply unacceptable, secondly it makes all students less safe and thirdly it usurps parental rights.

The first reason I won’t teach these programs, is that they erode the good and wise professional boundaries between students and teachers. These lesson plans don’t simply define a few different types of sexuality and encourage tolerance over moral disagreements. They literally require teachers to run whole class discussions about erotic sexuality, they provide resources to use which teach about specific sexual practices such anal sex, analingus, threesomes, cunnilingus, masturbation techniques and dildos. And gone are the severe warnings against STIs- replaced instead, with encouragement to “just get regular testing”. We are required to run role plays where children imagine themselves as sexually active, sexually promiscuous, sexually attracted to the same or both genders and talk about how it made them feel. We have never before gone into that much detail about heterosexual sex- only what was required to understand conception, and how to prevent conception and STIs. In the past, if a teacher overstepped a boundary in this area, they would be rightly reprimanded for abusing their position of authority. Actually giving legitimacy to this type of discussion between teachers and students gives legal cover to those few teachers with ill intent toward the children in their care. Furthermore, it will confuse children into to thinking that it is a perfectly normal thing for adults to want to know all about and graphically discuss their private, intimate sexual development. Now, when a student is made to feels uncomfortable, what right do they have to say it was sexual harassment? They won’t have that right and they will be left even more vulnerable to actual predators, inside and outside of school."

Also this bit stood out, which was towards the end.

"I also don’t believe that it is right, nor the best we can do to allow anyone to use the bathroom of their self-identified gender. And hiding this new policy, which is already in place in schools- from parents- is just a terrible precedent. Again, without a medical diagnosis, or full physical transition, or change of clothes, name or mannerisms- a male student or teacher has the right to enter female bathrooms and change rooms at will, simply by declaring themselves female. Need I say it again, the scope for abuse is enormous. It might be theoretical to you if you have no children and are not a teacher. But for me it’s a genuine dilemma, because in the worst case possibility, I will be the one, during the swimming carnival, who will be faced with 22 sets of imploring, teary eyes as my female students, beg me not to let someone whom they genuinely believe to be a ‘man’- possibly a disingenuous man using this loophole, to come into their change-room- what would you do?"

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156772299343488&set=a.10150353529713488&type=3

clitherow · 27/04/2019 16:23

I read the whole facebook post Chicken which is incredibly disturbing and then I followed this link in the comments which highlights some of the background to the Safer Schools programme.

It just does not seem credible that such a blatant attempt to sexualise children, could have been rolled out by any government. That this programme was also gestated in a university department run by an advocate of paedophilia is beyond my comprehension.

Imnobody4 · 27/04/2019 18:21

I feel like I've been asleep for the last 30 years. There seems to have been a complete take over in universities. The concept of children's rights have been distorted by terms like agency and embodiment etc. This is what happened to the victims of grooming gangs. They were presumed to be making a free choice which should be respected.
I see the words intergenerational relationships occurring, previously I assumed that was like older people and children discussing life in the war, or kids teaching IT to older people, now when I hear it I'm suspicious.
This kind of obsession with sexual practices has nothing to do with former healthy relationships.

Doctorwhoforever · 28/04/2019 15:34

@Breeze44 you think that women shouldn't have the same rights as men so kindly fuck off.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page