Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
OldCrone · 24/04/2019 00:49

By allowing the gender identity element of the programme to overshadow everything else

But the gender identity element, with its lies that it's possible to be 'born in the wrong body' and that people can change sex, leads to puberty blockers and a life of medication and no sexual or reproductive function as adults.

It overshadows everything because of its potential to have horrifying and irreversible effects on some of those who believe in the ideology.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 24/04/2019 00:53

But I can continue to challenge the gender identity element whilst supporting the vast majority of the rest of the messaging. It's not all or nothing.

If anyone is sceptical of my gc views then do DM me and I'll send my twitter handle. To me this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

OldCrone · 24/04/2019 00:54

she came home asking me if it’s ok to be a boy instead of a girl,

What do you think this means, Ihaventgottimeforthis?

What do you think i'm reading into this that isn't there? All I can see is that the child thought she could be a boy instead of a girl. But if it means something else, maybe you'd be kind enough to explain it.

Datun · 24/04/2019 01:49

Blatantly renaming the protected characteristics and then making a song and dance about the fake ones, amid hinted dire warnings of non compliance.

A woman who was involved from the beginning then denying all knowledge in order to fake being finally 'won over' about its merits.

Not having any books about disability, religion or sex, despite billing itself as an equalities issue.

Confusing the fuck out of little kids to the point they think they can change sex.

But what the fuck is this???

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."

Apparently ^^ those questions were answered during a seminar.

What were the answers? Because those questions sure as shit need a bloody explanation.

vicviking · 24/04/2019 06:43

I haven't

The transgender trend article is quite clear what the esrc grant was given for - not just for LGBT teaching but specifically exploring how you 'queer' the primary school and destabilize notions of heteronormality for 4-11 year olds. Moffat was one of the early teacher researchers and has been quite dogged in his testing and spreading of this in school.
This isn't a programme teaching all the protected characteristics to the same depth. They have just been sprinkled in to give the programme some cover and to pretend it is not just a way of putting queer theory in action.
I am no fan of queer theory but would have no problem with it being taught to young people old enough to properly debate and question it - say uni students. But in the no outsiders program untruths are presented as fact to children too young to question.

I love that you think this is okay because you have the time, energy and wherewithal to march in and discuss this with the teacher at the first sign of a reading list.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 24/04/2019 08:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BettyDuMonde · 24/04/2019 08:50

It’s bonkers that a bit of legislation designed to ensure adult employees are treated fairly by their corporate overlords is being used to (disingenuously) justify introducing postmodernism to kids small enough to still believe in Santa/the tooth fairy/the Easter bunny.

Unless our current 5-11 year olds are running HR departments instead of doing paper rounds, the EA2010 is no more relevant to them than RIDDOR or COSH.

HandsOffMyRights · 24/04/2019 08:58

*What the TGT article makes clear is that programmes like this are propaganda, pure and simple.

We have to keep asking who benefits.*

This ^ every time.

LangCleg · 24/04/2019 08:59

We have to keep asking who benefits.

Indeed. Let's boil it down...

... what is the consequence of teaching young girls of primary age that stranger penis in their private spaces is nothing to be afraid of?

... what is the consequence of teaching children that their aesthetic tastes make their bodies wrong?

Datun · 24/04/2019 09:02

What does queer theory hope to achieve? I still have trouble grasping it. It appears that it only works if it's allowed to tell lies.

OrchidInTheSun · 24/04/2019 09:03

I don't know Datun. And why do they want to teach it to children? I honestly don't understand

LangCleg · 24/04/2019 09:11

What does queer theory hope to achieve?

I just think it's onanism for posh people, frankly.

Whatisthisfuckery · 24/04/2019 09:15

I don’t think pleasure and desire have any place in a classroom, especially one full of primary school children. That’s one short step away from paedophilia. I have an 11 yo DS. At the moment he thinks the idea of sex is gross, in fact only the other day he told me he was going to stay a virgin. Not quite sure where he got that word from. He certainly doesn’t want to hear about sex at school. And what of the kids who are already curious? When they get home they’ll be straight on their phones or tablets or whatever looking up porn. It’s stupid, irresponsible and dangerous.

I know quite a few lesbian teachers. Acceptance for them is being able to say ‘I’m going to France with my wife over the holidays’ and not be ostracised by the management, other staff, pupils, or their families, or have whispers going around the school and constantly having to rebuff intrusive personal questions. I remember a woman telling me a story about how in her primary school all the teachers had to make a little display about them and their lives. The head told her that she wasn’t allowed to include her wife, while all the heterosexual teachers had pictures of their wives, husbands and partners. What any teacher, gay straight or bi gets up to in bed with their wives husbands or whatever doesn’t belong anywhere near the staff room, let alone a class full of pupils.

Now we’ve dealt with the obvious, consider this: I was never a girly girl, not in the slightest. I always wanted short hair, would kick up a fuss at the hairdressers etc. I had a football stuck to the end of my foot up until the age of about 14. I hated dolls, hated dresses and skirts, hated any makeup, nail varnish and generally all that preening stuff. I wasn’t interested in boys, unlike my sister and all the other girls, instead I wanted to be one of the boys. All my crushes from a young age were on girls and women, although I never admitted it for nearly 20 years. My parents are uneducated, so what the teachers and the school said was gospel. If I’d come home, as I might well have done, telling them I wanted to be a boy, and that I could be a boy, my parents would’ve called the school. The school would’ve then told them wrong body boy brain etc and they might well have swallowed it. Also, despite being aspirational working-class, and keen to get with the times, they were pretty homophobic themselves, hence my internalising my same-sex attraction, so it probably would’ve offered a comfortable, convenient, progressive way out of accepting a lesbian daughter.

So to see PPs accusing other PPs of homophobia, when actually what they’re doing is objecting to potentially lesbian and gay kids, like I was, being tricked into thinking that their thoughts and feelings are because their body is wrong is disingenuous in the extreme. A lot of posters on this board are lesbians ffs, many who were like me as a child and teen, so I bloody well think we know what we’re on about. I get incredibly angry when people go waving homophobia around as a stick to beat others with when they clearly have no idea how much homophobia we still face, or that for ever people have been accusing us of trying to indoctrinate their kids when all we want to do is get on with our lives and have our relationships recognised in an appropriate way, just like everybody else. Talking about pleasure and desire in the classroom, the fucking classroom ffs, is precisely the indoctrination we’ve been accused of, only it’s not the gays doing it, it’s the trans lobby using homosexuality as a shield. It’s fucking shameful, and they know it is, otherwise they would be open about their own agenda, rather than wrapping it up in a cloak of gay rights and using us as human shields.

Oh, and as a final point, sorry for long post, some of these homophobic parents will come from and still have strong ties with countries that would rather trans their gays than allow them to live as themselves, so think on.

Bowlofbabelfish · 24/04/2019 09:15

it’s fine to tell children that some families have two mums/dads etc

Yes it is. And that should be where it ends at three. Sally has two mummies and they’re a normal family who go to the supermarket at the weekend and do normal stuff.

sexuality, as opposed to sex as a biological ‘you’re a boy and have these bits, girls have these bits’ is not an appropriate subject for a three year old. Gay, straight, anything. They need to know age appropriate names for body parts and how they work, that families look lots of different ways and the basics of ‘these bits are private and no one should touch me here.’

The idea of sexual desire and pleasure being appropriate for small kids in the classroom is very worrying. It’s grooming. The psychological aspects of relationships are for older kids. It is NOT age appropriate at primary.

This whole queering agenda is designed to destabilise reality, remove privacy and bring up a generation of kids who have no expectation of privacy, biological reality or bodily autonomy. Add that to lack of privacy culture online and a state cheering on medical intervention for children and telling them they can change sex and it’s a deeply worrying agenda.

Same sex relationships should be taught in an age appropriate way that makes them just as normal (and indeed dull) as straight ones. Sexuality, of any type, is not appropriate for the primary classroom. Not gay, not straight, not anything.

ImGenderfree · 24/04/2019 09:19

Very interesting thank you. I have raised the Equality Policy already at DCs primary school. It does not have sex as one of the protected characteristics but has gender. I think it’s an old policy where the words were used interchangeably. In a brief discussion the HT explained that they will be working with Barnardos to look at their policies and provide training for staff and reviewing how they teach sex education and personal relationships in school. Her take was that the school should be inclusive from a non stereotypical point of view. I agree with this approach just not sure how it will work out in practice when put with the T. They hold termly meetings with parents on what the school is doing so I will raise it there also. Does anyone have any experience about the Barnardos programme in schools?

The education secretary (whose name escapes me) has also dropped the schools in it in saying that each school must determine how they will interpret and introduce the new curriculum and they must consult with parents. This allows parents the opportunity to question what will be taught.

Re the article on Moffat, if true, I would be very concerned about a teacher who would introduce a teaching programme against the Governors and HT wishes, this is bypassing Governance in a school. There should be an agreed policy on Sex Education that should be adhered to.

ImGenderfree · 24/04/2019 09:22

Whatisthisfuckery - fantastic post

LangCleg · 24/04/2019 09:28

Talking about pleasure and desire in the classroom, the fucking classroom ffs, is precisely the indoctrination we’ve been accused of, only it’s not the gays doing it, it’s the trans lobby using homosexuality as a shield.

Well said and great post, darling.

Genderfreelass · 24/04/2019 10:07

Great post whatisthisfuckery

As far as I'm concerned primary kids need to know the difference between boys and girls bodies, names of body parts and which parts are private and should not be seen or touched by others. They should also know that some children have one parent, some 2 mums or 2 dads and most have one of each.

An individual teachers religion, political beliefs or sexuality should play no part in the classroom. If local then most will know whether they practice a particular faith or have a same sex partner but it is irrelevant in the classroom.

As for desire of teachers and children - NO WAY, what the actual fck has a teacher's desires got to do with a healthy primary education? Whoever raised those questions/comments should be no where near children IMHO.

drspouse · 24/04/2019 10:47

Should it not also be explained how "two dads" can have a child

The two dads I know of adopted their child.

And children need to have it explained, therefore, that the child in question has a mummy somewhere who couldn't look after the child.

My DCs know they have two mummies and that their birth mummy (who they know by name) couldn't look after them.

clitherow · 24/04/2019 11:24

I am very grateful to the OP for posting this because I realised that I don’t know anything at all about Queer theory. This makes me largely unqualified to comment, but I did find this article which has served as my introduction to the topic.

www.critical-theory.com/what-the-fuck-is-queer-theory/#disqus_thread

It appears that non-heterosexual sex is seen as a political means of smashing capitalism by destroying all notions of “normal”. One of the central thinkers is an academic called Lee Edelman who believes that sodomy is the key to capitalism’s destruction.

I was amazed to read that the child is the central figure for hatred at least in Edelman’s version of Queer Theory.

“Lee Edelman, in his canonical book No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive puts forth a simple premise. Children are awful. Well, the figure of the child. You know, the blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan on the Huggies commercial? Politics is mostly about that little asshole. Edelman opens “The Future is Kids Stuff” (a prelude to No Future) with President Clinton’s appeal to save the children. After all, if you’re not for the children then you’re clearly a rampaging monster intent on destroying the magic of Disney Land. And you hate America. To which Edelman replies, “yes, fuck those kids, and fuck their Disney Land.”

The central aim of the Queer movement as it is “developing” does not seem to be the promotion of homosexuality. In fact, it seems that Queer Theory has now “progressed” to wanting to destabilise homosexual sex by allowing and promoting all sexual practices including BDSM (and presumably paedophilia in some cases). Its aim is to destabilise sexuality and all forms of “normality” including grammatical norms which makes much of their writing incomprehensible to most.

So “queering” the classroom is not strictly about homosexuality but about destabilising the psyches of children in order to nurture all forms of behaviour.that may be born out of confusion and disorientation. In this way, a whole generation of people will be thrown into psychosexual disarray which will bring about the destruction of any sense of "normality" and so of the current social order.

This seems to be what it is all about. And these so-called academics got a grant from the government in order to find out the best way to do this in primary schools!

truthisarevolutionaryact · 24/04/2019 11:28

Some excellent posts. Damian Hinds is the Education Secretary who is funding and enabling all of this. Transgender Trend have written asking him why the DfE is enabling this? Why the DFE are promoting and funding groups undermining safeguarding in schools, not to mention undermining parental rights.

It's the lack of due diligence on the part of the government that is so frightening. The protection of children means so little compared to the risk to Hinds in standing up to adults who are, in plain sight, imposing their adult fetishes / sexual wishes on children.

nauticant · 24/04/2019 11:48

Blimey clitherow that's, well, it's the antimatter of safeguarding.

OldCrone · 24/04/2019 11:51

clitherow

I don't know anything about queer theory, either. I've been doing a bit of digging around the whole 'No Outsiders' project. This is from the report from the project Atkinson, Elizabeth et al (2009). No Outsiders: Researching approaches to sexualities equality in primary schools: Full Research Report

9. How might queer theory inform classroom practice?
This question strongly informed much of our discussion and analysis. Not all project members considered a non-normative, or queer, classroom, in which identity categories are blurred or erased, to be a possible or even a desirable end, preferring to deploy a rights-based equalities discourse for which concrete identity categories were essential. While this difference in perspectives sometimes led to tensions, these were generally productive in terms of keeping dialogue alive over the overarching philosophy of the project. Some team members explored the possibility of creating non-normative learning environments through a process of questioning or troubling established norms of sexuality and gender.

This project was never about acceptance of others who are different. It was always about creating confusion in children's minds about what is normal and acceptable and what isn't. I can only speculate as to why they might want to do this.

FloralBunting · 24/04/2019 11:57

I can only speculate as to why they might want to do this.

Sadly yes, because if we openly post suspicions that some people might see an opportunity to entirely obliterate the prohibitions that decent society puts on the sexualization of children, it's likely to get deleted...

Fazackerley · 24/04/2019 12:00

I agree with the pp. Please just invest time and effort into training and retaining really good maths and languages teachers. Good teaching of academic and practical subjects. No outsiders just seems like a massive waste of time and money.