"Gender" teaching in primary schools in Scotland next year

[ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving]

scottish-women.com/2018/08/27/guidelines-for-schools-to-be-rolled-out-next-year/

If possible this looks worse than "No Outsiders". Plans include telling 5 year olds that they can choose if they're a boy or a girl, and teaching 8 year olds that you can change your sex by changing your body, clothes, or name. Oh, and that if you're a girl with short hair that means you're non binary (obvs).

If you're in Scotland I think a mass protest might be needed.

And in England/ Wales we need to keep a close fucking eye open for something similar when the new RSE curriculum starts.

As a reminder, children of this age are developmentally incapable of realising this stuff is nonsense. They will literally believe it.

medium.com/@katieja/young-children-reality-sex-and-gender-3421f4f165f1?fbclid=IwAR0XkcDMS1uW9PIByAS3PRTREX1P-Cak_tM98QYe32ygeNGHKjBeC5JzBAA

This shit needs to fuck off right now.

If there’s a protest count me in.

As a reminder, children of this age are developmentally incapable of realising this stuff is nonsense. They will literally believe it.

I had a conversation a while ago with someone which made me think, this way children believe things is part of the difficulty. By which I mean, for the parents.

I can't quite remember, but I think I was describing, in hindsight, some confusion I'd had as a child around this kind of question and that certain ideas were confusing to children, and the response was, well, my kid understands just fine that girls can have penises and boys vaginas.
It struck me that this person had no real insight into the way children think about concrete things, and since then I've noticed it in a lot of people, not always about this issue but in general.

I’ve read the articles linked to but still unclear as to who is producing this and where it is going - a time least there is no national curriculum in Scotland so not a guarantee that all schools would use this. My 7 year old is very aware that boys have willies and that you can’t change from one to the other - he would be very confused by this. Couldn’t it focus instead on everyone being able to be themselves and that no one should be unkind to them, etc?

I don’t like the sound of that at all - is there anything we can do about it? I have a child in a Scottish primary school. I can imagine every single child at that age becoming confused. I’ve always taught mine he can like things stereotypically aimed at girls and still be a boy.

I don't know who produced these guidelines, might be worth contacting the author of the blog for more info:

mobile.twitter.com/scottish_women?lang=en

Information on who is producing these guidelines can be found on this page

They actively invite all interested people over 18 to provide feedback. Which many have done which is why the guidelines have already improved on a lot of the issues we are concerned with (porn, trans, homosexuality etc).

But they still have a ways to go, sp if you are concerned, please read through the material and then suggest ways to improve them (or even just tell them what you object to/what is missing).

I have just had a quick look at the resources CharlieParley links to. A lot of good stuff in there about bodily autonomy and privacy. Don’t necessarily agree that early years need to be taught where babies come from, but I absolutely endorse the material on personal space, bodily autonomy and privacy (which is the basis of consent). This is massively important.

I do not see any resources where non-binary etc is mentioned. In fact the one on ‘Boys and Girls’ clearly uses the word sex and discusses stereotypes. That is P2 -5.
rshp.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/1.4.3-Boys-and-Girls-Activity-plan-V4.pdf

So far as I have seen, it looks eminently sensible. So either it has been changed since the blog in the OP or I am looking in the wrong place.

Parents are going to need to pull their children out of school if necessary. I'm perfectly happy to remove mine from those lessons if trans ideology is involved, and if fines get involved for unauthorised absence bring it on, I'll bring a copy of the convention on the Rights of the Child and the Equality Act and the Human Rights act to court.

This is an extremist quasi religious attempt at forced conversion.

As it goes, DS is at a Scottish primary and just recently there was a lesson about gender stereotyping. Apparently (and for reasons that will become clear the teacher rang me to tell me what happened so I have it from her as well) children were suggesting what jobs were for men and what jobs were for women.

I'm proud of DS for having absolutely none of it for one minute, less proud that he lost his temper and had to be asked to leave the room, so he missed the bit where the teacher summed up that these are old fashioned beliefs and stereo types and their generation don't have to comfort (hence she called me about him losing his cool).

I find it really hard to imagine teachers doing a volte-face on gender stereotypes between one year and the next.

So either it has been changed since the blog in the OP or I am looking in the wrong place.

In the link you posted (for ages 5-8) they teach children :

We have learned that your sex is what your parents are told you are when you are born – girl or boy.
• People might think they know your sex because of clues like the clothes you wear, or how you behave, or the things you like to do. But they can’t really know you from such things.
• In Scotland, we say that your sex should not matter when it comes to things like clothes, how we feel, the jobs we do, and the activities we like: as girls and boys, as women and men, we are equal. But still, sometimes people will tell you “Oh a boy shouldn’t do that” or “Oh a girl can’t do that!”. But you can.

Then at the next level (ages 8-11), they are taught this

If a person describes themselves as transgender (sometimes people just say trans) they feel that the sex that they were given at birth doesn't match how they feel inside or how they want to express themselves to others.
So, a transgender woman lives as a woman today, but she was thought to be a boy when she was born. A transgender man lives as a man today, but was he was thought to be girl when he was born.

rshp.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2.5.3-Being-transgender-Activity-plan-V5.pdf

How do you teach a child how someone 'lives as a man/woman' without using all the stereotypes the children have been told to ignore?

Surely this fucking with children's understanding of reality is going to lead to a huge backlash and lawsuits as the impact on those children's fertility and ability to have enjoyable sex becomes clear, as they get older?

It's like one of those mob hysteria events like end-of-the-world predictions or the Hale-Bopp comet, that everyone laughs at later and wonders how so many people could have been sucked in to a mass delusion.

The bit on stereotypes does look good from that link you posted KTara but this bit seems to be implying that because stereotypes don't reflect reality, there is in fact no underlying reality:

We have learned that your sex is what your parents are told you are when you are born – girl or boy.

Your sex isn't what your parents are told you are, your sex is what you actually are. Sometimes with intersex people the midwife records the sex incorrectly, but that doesn't mean they literally are that sex. There is an underlying reality. We record sex based on genitals because 99% of the time we record it correctly because genitals usually correspond to gamete production. If an intersex person is recorded as being female but later on they discover they have a male DSD then their sex isn't what their parent were told. It makes it sound like there's no objective reality underpinning the opinion of the doctors/ midwives.

• People might think they know your sex because of clues like the clothes you wear, or how you behave, or the things you like to do. But they can’t really know you from such things.

This is a mess as well. Firstly it's only true for prepubescent children. Yes, a boy with long hair in a dress who plays with dolls will probably be mistaken for a girl by most people, but to say that there is no correlation between appearance and sex is flat out wrong. Once puberty hits no one is going to mistake a girl for a boy based on the things they like doing. Certainly not into adulthood. Without surgical/ medical intervention men and women are very very easily distinguished without any need to guess based on their clothing. It's just setting up the idea that we can't (normally) tell men and women apart just by looking. And then it moves on to talking about knowing "the real you". It's getting the stereotypes problem backwards - people don't make assumptions about our sex based on our personalities, they make assumptions about our personalities based on our sex. It's saying "boys and girls can both like the same stuff, therefore it's impossible to determine someones sex based on visual clues. Don't try and guess someone's sex based on their personality". But that exactly what transgenderism encourages (i.e. Mermaids "watch out for little boys in tutus" because that might mean they're really girls). We need to be saying "boys and girls can both like the same stuff, therefore it's impossible to determine someones personality based on their sex (which can be reliably identified by most people beyond childhood). Don't try and guess someone's personality based on their sex." It's totally backwards.

With reference to the barbie/ ken experiment where they switch clothes and children think they've switched sex, the message that sex isn't determined by clothes is a good one, but only if they then go on to teach that sex is determined by (in it's purest sense) gamete production and (in it's broader "cluster concept" sense) the 99% accurate correlation between gamete production and chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitals, and sex characteristics. But it's obviously nonsense to try and teach this level of biology to primary kids so they should just drop all the "sex assigned at birth" stuff and stick to "girls can be mechanics, boys can be nurses"

I also have massive problems with the suggested books:

Are you a boy or are you a girl? By Sarah Savage

Features a gender fluid child who's sex is unknown because they present androgynously and like a range of toys. The message is that they are sometimes a boy and sometimes a girl based on what they like. The sister in the story is constantly a girl though because she has long blond hair and like princess stuff.

Red, a Crayon’s Story by Michael Hall

A blue crayon is mislabelled by being put in a red cover. Everyone keeps asking it to draw red stuff but it can only draw blue stuff because it's really blue. Eventually it realises it's actually a blue crayon and changes it's cover. The message is very clearly that there is a certain way boys and girls think/ act. Red crayons colour in red just like boys think boys thoughts. The blue crayon colours blue despite looking red just like some boys think girls thoughts despite looking like boys. The crayons true colour is what's under it's cover just like our "true gender" is somehow dualistically separate from (and more meaningful than) our bodies. And of course changing your outside to match what you feel inside is the only logical solution. It sounds like an age appropriate story but when you actually work through the metaphor and apply it to what it's trying to describe, it's a very harmful message.

This is just so sexist. Why not teach kids that they can wear what they want and have their hair how they like - but to be kind to each other and show respect?

All this changing gender/sex is pure shite.

It says it is "an independent agency" that has produced the guidelines. That leaves me none the wiser about who they are or the backgrounds they are from.

I also have massive problems with the suggested books:

Are you a boy or are you a girl? By Sarah Savage

Co-authored by Fox Fisher, and recommends GIRES and Mermaids as sources for information.

Okay, I have been looking again at this and up the levels as well. I think this is a case of going by the law and ignoring the inconsistencies, and the problems are within the law. I think the vast majority of material is good, even though I think some of it is being taught too young by 2-3 years (but that is my view).

I agree with you regarding the books - are there alternatives which could be suggested?

But in relation to the thread here, I think the activity plans are holding two things in tension. The first is that boys and girls/young men and young women should not be bound by gender stereotypes. I do think the material makes a clear distinction between gender and sex. I take your point parents are not told a sex, in the vast majority of cases, sex is observed but the point in the material that sex is based on presence of penis or vulva is there (and greater technicality is not needed at primary age). So that is the first thing, that there is a clear difference made between sex and gender and that gender stereotypes should not define boys or girls. As it stands, my DC did body parts in p3 not early years and I think it is unnecessary in early years to be honest. But anyway.

The second is the transgender material - this is rightly placed alongside the material on male/female, stereotypes and gender and not LGB which is a separate section. Transgender is explained as a trans woman, for example, living as a woman having been born a boy or vice versa. Again, the born as a boy is correct. But it falls down on ‘living as a woman’ because what is living as a woman, unless you revert to the stereotypes the previous activities have been dispelling. Your critically aware teenager will get that... But the material is basically correct in terms of the law - that a trans woman is legally female if they spend two years living as a woman (I think) regardless of being born a boy.

So the material reflects the legal position. I need to read more closely but I am not sure how the material could have been designed otherwise within the current law. It keeps LGB and trans separate. It encourages young people to think about gender stereotypes. It recognises that trans people have the legal right to be recognised as the other sex, albeit through employing the very gendered means the material also questions.

I don’t know how much of a grant the Sandyford gets but they do a huge amount of excellent work on sexual health and contraception etc, and given the current climate and funding landscape, I would see this as an attempt to hold competing things in tension than necessarily to indoctrinate children.

My preference would be for elements of this whole package not to be in schools at all, but the upshot of that is that young men learn about sex and relationships from pornography and don’t know that sex with someone asleep or too drunk to consent is rape. So there needs to be something and as I said upthread, the material on bodily autonomy and consent is excellent in my opinion.

Frusty - it is the Sandyford which has produced this, I think - their name is somewhere on the material. It is based on evaluations and consultations with young people in a number of regions (and obviously their own experience). I may be wrong, but that is the impression I got.

These resources have been designed by a partnership of NHS Boards, Local Authorities, Education Scotland, Scottish Government and Third Sector agencies. They will be used as part of the Curriculum for Excellence and have been piloted in a number of schools across Glasgow. Its plan was to go live in the Summer, however the Education Scotland website has had a live link to it for some time.

Also I typed this blog last year so some of the material has since been removed or amended.

I agree with you regarding the books - are there alternatives which could be suggested?

None that I've seen related to gender. Without exception all the gender ID books are utter shite. Reductive offensive propoganda anti science shite. As you'd expect.

the material is basically correct in terms of the law - that a trans woman is legally female if they spend two years living as a woman (I think) regardless of being born a boy.

Yes I suppose you're right. I really just wish this wasn't being introduced at primary level at all tbh. I know people who identify as the opposite sex exist and aren't going anywhere and that kids are going to meet them and need to understand what's going on, but I don't like these kind of seeds being planted in young brains. No mention of the meaningless words "gender identity" so that's a good thing. I don't know about the Sandyford but as long as they aren't a lobby group that's a good start.

I do not see any resources where non-binary etc is mentioned

Me neither, not sure where the blog author got those screenshots from. Maybe they've ditched that section since then

the material on bodily autonomy and consent is excellent in my opinion.

I haven't looked at that bit yet, will check it out later.

My preference would be for elements of this whole package not to be in schools at all, but the upshot of that is that young men learn about sex and relationships from pornography and don’t know that sex with someone asleep or too drunk to consent is rape.

Pretty sad state of affairs, isn't it.

Hopefully changed for the better ScottishWomen so thank you

I entirely agree with you that elements of this material do not belong in primary schools, and I question why it has to be ByGrab and I do not consider myself conservative by any means.

the material is basically correct in terms of the law - that a trans woman is legally female if they spend two years living as a woman (I think) regardless of being born a boy.

This is not correct. A male who identifies as trans can apply to legally change his sex if he has

• a diagnosis of gender dysphoria
• which is confirmed by a second health care professional, usually but not always via an assessment provided by a psychologist/psychiatrist

-has changed his name in all aspects of his life -externalises female sex stereotypes aka has adopted a feminine appearance (this obviously isn't an actual requirement but this is what "living as a woman" seems to boil down to)

• has presented himself in this way in all spheres of his life, ie public, professional and private for two years

Once the tribunal has met and discussed his case and decided to grant him a Gender Recognition Certificate, only then does he become legally female. There is currently no other way to legally change your sex than by going through this process.

And this is a legal fiction. You do not actually change sex and you can still be excluded from all single-sex set asides for the opposite sex. So the material does not represent the law, but is spreading transgender ideology instead with that "living as a woman" nonsense.