'Inclusive education is non-negotiable'

[Gone2far]

A tweet from Jess Phillips (retweeted by my mp)
As soon as Westminster resumes I'll be calling on Department for Education to make clear to parents and to change their guidance that inclusive education is non negotiable. The fudge has allowed this crisis and without firm action it will spread. This must end next week.
I assume this is a reaction to what's happening to schools in her area, where parents are objecting to LGBT 'education'.
While I believe it's wrong that the government have made this the responsibility of individual schools, I strongly dislike her attitude of 'we know better than parents' in this and I'd be interested to hear what others think.

Except there are people who claim to be transage, transabled, transracial and transpecies.

Try again.

This must end next week
I get a bad feeling about this. I have seen on other threads that pps suspect that Andrew Moffat (et al) have deliberately chosen to bring this issue to a head in a Muslim area.

I have also seen (I can't remember where) that Moffat claimed that his inclusivity material would be part of the move towards Islamic de-radicalisation.

If the protestors put their case before a judge and the judge decides to uphold the injunction then this could be seen as indirect establishment endorsement of the No Outsiders programme.

It depends if the judge decides that the injunction be upheld and the school should not re-instate No Outsiders, in which case we may have the continuation of an uneasy truce for a while.

If the injunction is upheld indefinitely and the school re-instates No Outsiders, then we have all of these parents and their supporters in the position where they feel that the state is forcing them to hand over their children to be indoctrinated with an ideology with shich they do not agree. This will naturally foster a deep sense of injustice (and rage in some) which is anything but deradicalising.

If people break the injunction, the police will be called and we will have a direct stand off between Muslims and police in the street. Jess Philips has framed this in extremely combative terms and it is quite possible that she will get the combat that she seems to be calling for. This may not happen but this is the risk.

If the protestors are forced to back down and the school continue with No Outsiders then it will be seen to be a state-approved programme and very few people will dare to oppose it. This is the best way to develop a siege mentality and sense of isolation in the Muslim community especially as they have been very noticeably been left unsupported by the lily-livered and complicit mainstream Christian churches.

It is absolutely the best way to cause a siege mentality, a sense of isolation, a sense of grievance and resentment, to restore segregation in communities by ensuring that women can't access public spaces because they're all now mixed sex and enabling of male sexual acting out, to push parents to remove children from the public school system -

In fact it pretty much stands 30 years of government work on its head, and sets up all the right ingredients for major crisis.

I don't honestly credit any government individual or body with sufficient intelligence and foresight at this point to think this is Machiavellian dark arts as opposed to basic blind stupidity and self interest. I do think they've been played like a fiddle by individuals with major personality disorders and failures of social function, who call themselves 'anarchists' and wish to trash society. Rather like a toddler throwing toys around.

I get a bad feeling about this. I have seen on other threads that pps suspect that Andrew Moffat (et al) have deliberately chosen to bring this issue to a head in a Muslim area.

I'm pretty sure he's admitted this not in so many words. He said something like it wouldn't be a "challenge" doing it somewhere else.

Anarchists dont have any standing with the Govt, this is Thatcherism.
Thatcher said;

''And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no governments can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.''

I actually think it's not Thatcherism at all. Thatcherism stands for individual autonomy - as expressed in that quote. It's the Left that believe that individuals should be controlled by the State - exemplified by Jess steamroller Phillips.

"It's the Left that believe that individuals should be controlled by the State - exemplified by Jess steamroller Phillips".

And yet they have fully embraced identity politics which is all about individualism, and goes against all material reality and class analysis.

We have powerful white men claiming to be the most oppressed, and therefore deserving of the most resources at the expense of the working classes.

And Labour cheerleading this on.

I get a bad feeling about this. I have seen on other threads that pps suspect that Andrew Moffat (et al) have deliberately chosen to bring this issue to a head in a Muslim area.

I'm pretty sure he's admitted this not in so many words. He said something like it wouldn't be a "challenge" doing it somewhere else.

I just had a look for evidence of this, and found this article:

schoolsweek.co.uk/andrew-moffat-assistant-head-parkfield-community-school/

He developed a resource called Challenging Homophobia in Schools, full of lesson plans and story books, such as two male penguins who are in love and adopt a chick. When teachers told him it was easy to preach from a predominantly white area – he should try doing it in a multi-cultural area – Moffat promptly got a job in Birmingham with majority Muslim and Afro-Carribean Christian parents. But not long after arriving, the governors said they did not want any of the materials in their school.

He was forced to leave that school after using his materials without consulting the parents, and moved to the 99% Muslim Parkfield school.

His first resources went into the bin, along with its focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, and he produced new resources based around both the Equality Act 2010, and the government’s emphasis on “British values” such as democracy and respect for others who are different, which he called ‘No Outsiders’.

The choice of name for this programme is interesting, because 'No Outsiders' was the name of a project that Moffat had been involved in, which was concerned with 'Interrogating Heteronormativity in Primary Schools', or 'Queering the Classroom'.

Also this from the article:

Moffat has been an outsider. At the age of six, he felt different to most boys. He didn’t like football, his friends were girls.

Why is he so in favour of the trans movement? Doesn't he realise that if he was a child today, his parents would be talking to Mermaids and taking him to the Tavistock, and he would now be a 'transwoman' reliant on lifelong medication, instead of a healthy gay man?

@OldCrone

He really wouldn’t, my son likes dolls, dancing and playing hairdresser (he has lovely long hair), despite doing rugby tots for a while and being quite good he disliked it, which is annoying as I obviously can’t get a refund on his other sessions.

Not all people subscribe to toxic masculinity, and no one is making anyone else trans, just like no one is trying to make anyone else gay.

I'll just edit my post above for clarity.

Doesn't he realise that if he was a child today, if his parents were at all homophobic, or woke, or were attention-seeking narcissists, they would be talking to Mermaids and taking him to the Tavistock, and he would now be a 'transwoman' reliant on lifelong medication, instead of a healthy gay man?

Obviously, most of the parents posting on this board wouldn't be talking to Mermaids or the Tavistock either.

Jess Phillips? Really? I thought she was far more aware than that?

@SimonJT
no one is making anyone else trans

If you really believe that parents have no effect on their children in this respect, you haven't been paying attention.

We will sadly never know how many children who had their puberty blocked, and then went on to cross sex hormones without going through puberty, would have grown up to be happy and healthy lesbians and gay men without this intervention.

A few gay men have written about this:

If someone had told me as a child that I could actually be a little girl, I would have jumped at the chance. Anything to escape the pressure cooker of an active boyhood crammed full of sports and rough play.

quillette.com/2019/01/31/homophobia-and-the-modern-trans-movement/

“I really wanted to be a girl. Thank God the world of now wasn’t then, because I’d be on hormones and I’d be a woman. After I was 15 I never wanted to be a woman again.”

www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/19/rupert-everett-dangers-of-child-sex-change-operations-gender

Also this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3556795-Are-there-identifiable-causes-for-being-trans

The OP starts:
"Fionne is sharing some heartbreaking testimonies on Twitter from transwomen who were manipulated by their mothers - I do wonder if sometimes women project 'I wish you had been a girl' so strongly that the impressionable child starts to try to please?"

OldCrone this jumped out at me

When teachers told him it was easy to preach from a predominantly white area – he should try doing it in a multi-cultural area – Moffat promptly got a job in Birmingham with majority Muslim and Afro-Carribean Christian parents. But not long after arriving, the governors said they did not want any of the materials in their school.

He's not supposed to be preaching, he's supposed to be providing an education. His whole purpose-driven approach smacks of a strategy to me. Perhaps he is one zealous individual acting alone, but we were told that this package was his brainchild and it turned out to be the product of a concerted academic effort by a number of individuals orchestrated from Sunderland University. Everything about Mr Andrew Moffat smacks of a carefully constructed narrative.

t's the Left that believe that individuals should be controlled by the State

They believe - as does the TRA lobby - that some individuals should be controlled by the state. In order to serve and provide for the other individuals who are exempt from laws, boundaries, social norms and equality of expectation.

The TRA lobby seeks to turn society into the providers and the provided for. And the providers had better know their place and can forget about inclusion, equality, civil rights and even basic compassion and access to law. And somehow they paint this as ethical and right.

Defeats me. It really does. I can read Marx and about people like Stalin and Goebbels and think - I don't agree with a word you say, but I can see the logic of how you order the world in your head. The TRA political lobby? There's no coherent narrative. At all. It's like trying to deal with your severely narcissistic and heavily medicated relative who is constantly ringing the police about you and camping out on your doorstep screaming that if you don't have a relationship with them they'll burn your house down.

I often read the relationships board and think what women and society really need at this point is the Freedom Programme, a restraining order and a resounding LTB.

I often read the relationships board and think what women and society really need at this point is the Freedom Programme, a restraining order and a resounding LTB.

My thoughts precisely.

As to the muddled ideology: yes. The ideology itself is hyper-individualist, ultra-capitalist and elite-favouring. But the methods of enforcement are straight out of the authoritarian/totalitarian leftist handbook.

It's like Ayn Rand being protected by Mao's Red Guard. Weird.

I am totally in agreement with the injunction. Primary schools are not places for adults to protest outside - no matter what the issues are.

Re Moffatt. It is common knowledge that he chose to move to this predominantly Muslim school having left his previous school after parental complaints about materials he wrote. Moffatt has written these materials stating that they are about the Equality Act. Yet he changes two protected characteristics - Sex becomes gender and gender reassignment becomes 'transgender identity'. That in itself suggests that he is not writing in good faith. Misrepresenting protected characteristics when you are allegedly teaching children about the Equality Act is like teaching the alphabet but ignoring some of the letters as you don't like them!

See the TT detailed analysis of No Outsiders below - it makes very interesting reading - this is a man with an adult agenda that he is determined to impose on children come what may.

www.transgendertrend.com/no-outsiders-queering-primary-classroom/

I often read the relationships board and think what women and society really need at this point is the Freedom Programme, a restraining order and a resounding LTB.

THIS!

I am totally in agreement with the injunction. Primary schools are not places for adults to protest outside - no matter what the issues are.

But that is the whole point - choose to do this somewhere where you can provoke people to come out onto the streets - the more sensitive the location the better - so that it can be brought before a judge who will seem justified in upholding the injunction and in punishing the wrongdoers. Thereby we can all feel good about upholding "British values" against those who would destroy them. In this way No Outsiders becomes the cuckoo in the nest - part of British values in the same way as transgender women become just another subset of the category "woman".

teaching the alphabet

Ha! They taught me ita at school (I can't easily make links, just google) it was a now discredited 'reading' scheme. It didn't ignore letters - it invented some extra ones(!) and was very phonetic. ita - it didn't use capital letters - stands for Initial Teaching Alphabet - if you translated this into ita, it'd be something like 'inishul teeching alfabet'. I kid you not.

Sorry - bit of a tangent. Let's just hope jelly-baby teaching is discredited ASAP...

The ideology itself is hyper-individualist, ultra-capitalist and elite-favouring. But the methods of enforcement are straight out of the authoritarian/totalitarian leftist handbook.

Authoritarian/totalitarian can be right wing as well as left. Just as libertarianism can be left wing as well as right.

Jess Phillips? Really? I thought she was far more aware than that?
you have read her tweets on this then, samphire, about enforcement being 'non-negotiable?

I don't do twitter Gone2far I rely on MNers to tell me about that.

But she has, on other media outlets, seemed more sensible. Which is why I was surprised.

you're very wise to not twitter - I wish I could stop.
The tweet is in my original post

Oh! I didn't disbelieve what you had said. I was just a bit !!!! that JP had tweeted ot.