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

[LesbianMeansSomething]

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."

What is a fact is that people have different sexualities and ways of expressing themselves, and that we should be empathetic and understanding of that.
The message that non-conformity to societal stereotypes is absolutely fine and should be accepted could equally be interpreted to address stereotypical assumptions that non-conformity means children were 'born in the wrong body'.

Orchid I haven't seen any evidence that No Outsiders is telling children they can change sex. That seems to me like complete exaggeration.

To use the opposition's favourite phrase: educate yourself.

There have been at least a dozen threads about it on here with huge numbers of examples. The article this thread is about analyses several items in the programme that do just that.

The one that really gets to me is its recommendation of Pop'n'Olly material, that will make parents believe the YouTube channel is safe for their children to browse. The channel contains a video encouraging young children to fill out the recent government GRA consultation using pre-supplied answers from Stonewall.

But I'm reluctant to bunny-hop from the basic message of 'inclusivity and acceptance' - which is necessary and good - to the chain of guilt-by-association, queering primary 11-year-old seminar.
If we view any sort of message for children about relationships & sexuality to be the thin end of the wedge leading to PIE, how on earth DO we go about discussing social issues in school?

Did you actually read the article ihaventgottime?

"we were all assigned a gender at birth and sometimes when we get a bit older we may feel differently about that ... Some of us will live as a different gender from the one other people chose for us;

This is what Moffat well funded programme is teaching children.

No one assigns a gender at birth - sex is noted. If you are telling children they can choose to identify out of that, you are telling them they can change sex

I haven't seen any evidence that No Outsiders is telling children they can change sex. That seems to me like complete exaggeration.

In the second post in this thread I quoted a bit from the Transgender Trend article which quoted two mothers, whose daughters had come home from school asking if they could be boys. Do you think it was a coincidence that they had just had these lessons, and they had independently had the idea that they could change sex? Or do you think it was because the lessons were telling them things like:

“Transgender” is when a person feels different from the body they were born into; we were all assigned a gender at birth and sometimes when we get a bit older we may feel differently about that. Some of us will live as a different gender from the one other people chose for us.”

and

The class then watches the CBBC documentary programme ‘I am Leo’ which is described as ‘very positive and perfect for understanding about life as a transgender child’. Leo tells viewers that he is an average 13-year-old boy apart from the fact he was born in a girl’s body.

Yes I did read the article, and I've looked around at other school websites to see how they're 'teaching' it.
I agree that the limited amount of actual info in that article indicates they're not separating sex from gender. But gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic, and people do live with a gender identity that doesn't match their birth sex. I don't agree that the way the message is being given is always correct, but I also noted the quotes from the parents saying their children were coming home asking questions. Which is a great opportunity for parents to carry on the discussion and present the facts as they want to see them.

For example if I see Princess Boy on my DD's reading list next year, I'll be in touch with the school to see what the actual content of the book is, and what messages they're putting out.
Overall, I feel the aim of No Outsiders, and the way it will hopefully be being delivered in many schools, is positive.

Ihaventgottimeforthis

Have a look at this site and the way they advise teaching this stuff
equalitiesplans.blogspot.com/2016/10/transgender-awareness-ks2-3-10000.html

Does Bailey feel like a boy? Does Bailey feel like a girl? At no point in the story does Bailey identify as a boy or a girl; does wearing a dress make a child a girl?

How do you ''feel like a girl' if you're a boy?

How does Leo describe what transgender means/ How did Mum feel at first when Lily became Leo?

Lily became Leo. What happened? Did Lily change sex?

Following the source for one of those quotes, the parents also object to the fact that their child is hearing the message that 'it's ok to be gay'.
Take that as you will. I have no problems with children in primary school understanding that it is OK to be gay.

Also, the CBBC documentary - I watched some of that too. A great opportunity to have the discussion with our children and help them understand the facts around sex, identity, gender stereotypes and why people might choose to describe themselves in different ways.

I am gender critical, just check my post history here (if you can, I've never figured out how to do that) but honestly, I think overall I'd be happy for No Outsiders to be part of my school's content. I'm going to have to have the tough discussions with my kids sooner or later, I'm happy overall for these broad issues to be discussed out in the open.

Re 10,000 Dresses and the learning points suggested with it, I'm sure the vast majority of children will understand that no, wearing a dress does not make Bailey a girl.
To be fair, all of those discussion points in there can have a consistently gender critical response.
I wouldn't make Bailey stop wearing a dress.
I wouldn't make Bailey stop calling himself a girl.
I would encourage my Dcs to treat Bailey with respect and kindness.
I would however make sure that my DCs understand people cannot change sex, it's just that sometimes people feel happier expressing themselves in certain ways. I give my DCs enough credit to understand the complex messages and that I and school don't always agree, and that they can make their own minds up, just like I have.

For example that load of bollocks which was the cinderella story a while back ('Jack' or something, was it called?)
The vast majority of children will hopefully see straight through that, if their parents have given them a well-rounded and factual upbringing.

Ihaventgottime I have struggled with this whole story. It's the wrapping of the T within the perfectly appropriate and valuable messages about LGB relationships that has bothered me. And while it absolutely might spark some interesting conversations in some homes, for many children, if it comes from a teacher it's gospel. And parents too - some are massively deferential to teachers, and to head teachers in particular.

And teachers are actually a very compliant bunch. (I was a late career changer and was really shocked by the lack of questioning of utterly pointless methods or gimmicks brought in purely because other schools were doing it and there was professional FOMO.)

This investigative piece has added to my discomfort - that is big money to have thrown at developing a scheme of work.

But I think we've missed the boat in trying to separate gender related issues from sexuality (and sexism, and racism and all the other things that No Outsiders purports to address).
So as parents, we can and must add our input to whatever messaging the school gives across, whilst supporting the overall message of equality.
Like an example above of the mother who was bothered by her young DD wanting to wear her brother's clothes - isn't that gender stereotyping? Is she worried her DD wants to be a boy, just because she tries on some different clothes? There does seem to be homophobic aspects to this too.

Following the source for one of those quotes, the parents also object to the fact that their child is hearing the message that 'it's ok to be gay'.

And why is that relevant? Is it OK for non-homophobic parents to object to their children being taught that they can change sex? But the homophobic ones deserve to be punished by having their children taught nonsense? I'm struggling to follow your argument.

I know people may think me naive, and I know many parents & children wouldn't think to challenge schools & teachers, but t the risk of being glib I think to object to No Outsiders is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That is a sizeable grant yes, but for a two year research project employing a lot of people. I'd like to see how the money was spent, and how the links have been drawn over the intervening 13 years, whether that dodgy seminar was simply a one -off 12 years ago, and whether Andrew Moffat just liked the catchy name and used it for his inclusivity programme.
I stand by it - from what I've seen, I like the aim of No Outsiders and the transgender identity stuff is the same old same old we see from anywhere from CBBC to the Guardian, so we should address it with the same tactics - making sure we still have a voice, not being reactionary and giving our children the information we think they need to make an informed choice.

Like an example above of the mother who was bothered by her young DD wanting to wear her brother's clothes - isn't that gender stereotyping? Is she worried her DD wants to be a boy, just because she tries on some different clothes?

Did you read what she said? Her daughter thought she could change into a boy. So yes, she was worried that the school had taught her daughter that she could change sex. Do you really not see a problem with this?

Sorry OldCrone my point was that one of the parents quoted (out of context) from a newspaper article in the link in the top is not happy for her children to hear that homosexuality is OK, so for me that indicates she's probably homophobic and that's her problem with the programme, rather than being gender critical and wanting sex and gender to be distinguished as protected characteristics.
In a nutshell, a homophobic viewpoint is largely irrelevant to me. I'm more interested in factual concerns.

Is she worried her DD wants to be a boy, just because she tries on some different clothes? There does seem to be homophobic aspects to this too.

Yes, in case you missed it, it's the DNA of the trans movement to entertain the notion that if a male wears clothes coded female, or vice versa, it's an indication that they may well be in the wrong sex body. If a young person does a lot of things which may eventually have been pointers to them not being heterosexual, it's an indication they might be in the wrong sex body.

Damn right there are homophobic aspects to this - they are being merrily reinforced by a trans movement that misleads parents who might be unhappy with having gay children anyway into thinking that total nonsense like being born the wrong sex is somehow connected to being oriented towards the same sex.

Your optimism about being able to assert the truth when schools are teaching lies with authority is charming for your own children - but you are ignoring the many children for whom this kind of rubbish is profoundly damaging.

A friend of mine used to explain the effect of integral lies by offering people a nice piece of cake and explaining that she had only used a couple of teaspoons of arsenic in the recipe. The vast majority of the cake was good, wholesome stuff. It was just a little bit of poison.

Well no, I'm sorry, all the rainbow sparkly loveliness will not make up for telling kids pernicious lies about being able to change sex at an impressionable age, and it certainly won't cover over those disturbing sexualizing elements already quoted.

This is not sixth form 'let's read Mein Kampf so we can have a springboard to discuss why something as awful as Facism was so successful' thought experiments. This is primary 'learn how reality works at a basic level, so that we have the tools to be rational people'.

In summary, as I have to sleep, I don't interpret the No Outsiders programme as 'teaching children they can change sex'.
I know many of you do, I see what the programme does as conflating sex and gender and going down the familiar identity politics route, albeit in many of the examples with space for the children to interpret the answers. Which I don't like. So I would counter that with the school, and directly with my children.
But I still support the overall aims of the programme - similar to the rest of the curriculum really, my children are taught about modal verbs and dominating clauses and stuff, when they come home I tell them it's mostly rubbish. But I still agree with the overall aims.

she's probably homophobic and that's her problem with the programme, rather than being gender critical and wanting sex and gender to be distinguished as protected characteristics.

In the quote, her problem was clearly that her child had been taught that she could choose to be a boy if she wanted to - in other words that she could change sex.

I don't think the fact that she is probably homophobic should mean that her concerns that her children are being taught woke fact-free nonsense have to be ignored.

Do you think children take away from the teaching that they can change sex though Ihavent?

I guess what it is Floral is that I don't interpret the messages of this particular programme as strongly as others do.
It may well be a Mermaids-lite, but my reading of it is that the gender identity crap is a small part of the whole.
By allowing the gender identity element of the programme to overshadow everything else, we do end up on the same side as homophobes and the ultra conservatives who want women to know their place.
Am I saying that we need to pick our battles carefully? Perhaps.

OldCrone that's not what the quote said, that's just what you're reading into it.
From the Birmingham Mail - 'My child came home and told me am I OK to be a boy? It's confusing children about sexuality.'

For me to be sure that the school was teaching that child they could change sex, I'd want to see those teaching resources, not an out-of-context quote in a local paper.

In fact that whole Birmingham Mail article is worth sharing, to show how No Outsiders was presented to parents.
Ample opportunity one would think for people like us to challenge and question and ensure fact-based perspectives are also included.

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/muslim-mums-protest-outside-school-15729135

Erythronium I haven't seen any evidence of actual teaching apart from the reading resources, so it would really depend on the messaging from the individual teacher.
I'm encouraged by the fact that the children felt this was something they wanted to discuss with their parents though, but I wonder what the parents responses were.

Aagh I must go to sleep.