Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

More school suspensions after "homophobic" students speak out

51 replies

Lamaha · 04/07/2019 06:20

Unfortunately, these suspensions seem to be only reported on far-right or Christian sites. I couldn't find any report on a regular site.

Breitbart: www.breitbart.com/education/2019/07/02/uk-headmistress-suspends-two-10-year-olds-for-homophobia/

Lifesitenews: www.lifesitenews.com/news/10-year-old-girl-suspended-for-asking-to-be-exempted-from-lgbt-school-lesson?fbclid=IwAR3ZqYPaLWtZG-mt6UTYwGeTQ_YJjuucbWAfrRFwyQ-3pV1JPUdrE4nVLcQ

A 10-year-old who was suspended from school for a week after asking her teacher permission to be excused from participating in a “Pride Month” LGBT lesson has gone on the record to explain the real dangers of the invasion of LGBT ideology in her school.

“Before anybody knew what LGBT meant, everybody knew what gender they were,” explained Kaysey, who, along with her classmate, Farrell, was suspended from the Heavers Farmer Primary School, located in Croydon, South London.

“But now people are confused,” continued the precocious 10-year-old, “and they’re saying that they’re bisexual and trans because they’re confused.”

“Before this happened, they were completely confident of who they were but now they’re not,” she added.

“It’s really affecting other kids,” explained Kaysey, “because now they’re losing confidence in [them]selves and looking at [them]selves and asking, ‘Why am I this person? Why can’t I be someone else?’”

“Before all this happened, people knew who they were,” said Kaysey. “School children are now facing the choice of what gender they are by the age of four.”

This needs to go into the mainstream press. Come on, Times, Spectator. It's serious.

OP posts:
FriarTuck · 04/07/2019 08:52

This reply has been deleted

Post references deleted post Talk Guidelines.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 04/07/2019 08:56

If these parents had been solely protesting about the teaching of gender identity, they would be considered heroes here. Their wishes are dismissed because they also have issues with the teaching about homosexual relationships. If they had only been protesting about the latter, the consensus among some here would probably be that the school should completely ignore the parents, and proceed with the teaching, even if a large majority of the parents disagreed. Let me dissect that!

Including T with LGB really muddies the waters. Personally I don't understand why any of this needs to be taught to kids at that age but, if it has to be, then 2 mummies/daddies is as far as it needs to go. If parents of any / no religion don't like that they should remove their kids from the sessions with no demur from the school or government.

Including the T makes it an absolute minefield and I object most strongly as, having seen ALL of the packs available, discussed it with DSis who is refusing to teach any of it to her classes (EYFS) at risk of suspension, it is all fucking ridiculous and incomprehensible to such young children.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 04/07/2019 08:57

This reply has been deleted

Post references deleted post Talk Guidelines.

charlestonchaplin · 04/07/2019 09:05

AlwaysComingHome
I can’t work out if you are a TRA who doesn’t understand why the medicalisation of children is an issue to us, or a homophobe who doesn’t understand why we don’t object equally strongly to the message that same-sex relationships are totally okay.

I’m not asking you to ‘object equally strongly to the message that same-sex relationships are totally okay’, I’m not asking you to object to same-sex relationships at all. I’m asking you to accept that some people may object to what they see as the promotion of same-sex relationships, and they should be free to express this view and argue against the policy. I’m basically asking whether freedom of expression and freedom of belief only really exist (in the UK, on Mumsnet) when the content of that expression or belief is palatable to us.

charlestonchaplin · 04/07/2019 09:06

Which is pretty much the TRA view.

Lamaha · 04/07/2019 09:07

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SarahTancredi · 04/07/2019 09:08

I do know I trust right wing reporting as far as I could spit a rat. It is a curious story OP though, thanks for sharing

It's such a shame that until recently it was just right wing press reporting all this stuff. In some ways as disgusting some of the views are at least they are honest. I dont know what I object to more on the.left wing attempts to cover things. The fact that often ( the times having recently started to dare report on this stuff) they brand anyone who speaks up bigots or the fact that they are so liberal they refuse to hold anyone in sacred communities to even the lowest standards if behaviour which is homophobic and racist or whatever in itself because it implies they actually cant be expected to behave in appropriate ways. Something that many people have fought against their whole lives and is being undone on a daily basis.

I think religion is so complex that there is no way to really introduce it to children where the sides they may questions being more negative, can be disclosed and discussed.

Ultimately I think the best bet is to focus on bullying and behaviour . Enforce that they have their rights to believe and that others have rights to disagree but that they still have a personal responsibility to uphold the school ethics of being kind and respectful and well behaved etc.

Mermoose · 04/07/2019 09:09

it is very unreasonable for a school which is in a position of power and authority over children to try to force them to show support for a particular view point This.
School time shouldn't be used to push religion or politics. As for teaching kids acceptance, like someone else said - teach them it's wrong to bully anyone, full stop.
As for specific stuff about people being gay, I actually do think it's in kids' best interests to know that it's ok to be gay. Gay friends have said that it was a horrible worry to them growing up, that they were somehow sinful. People talk about protecting kids from adult issues, but we don't feel the need to protect kids from stories of princes and princesses. Young kids don't automatically link romantic relationships with sexual intercourse; it's fine to talk to kids about relationships and can be done in an appropriate way.
As for freedom of speech for people who, for religious reasons, think their kid should be told that homosexuality is wrong - there are two rights there: the right of the parent to express their religious beliefs, and the right of children not to be potentially damaged by those beliefs (for example, if the kid happens to be gay themselves). People should be allowed make arguments and I think it's best when those arguments are calmly answered, without anyone attacking anyone. I'm not a fan of protests unless they're absolutely necessary because nobody's giving you a fair hearing. And I don't think it's ever ok to protest near a children's school in a way that's likely to upset kids.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 04/07/2019 09:10

I’m basically asking whether freedom of expression and freedom of belief only really exist (in the UK, on Mumsnet)

What with Mumsnet being a single woman with a single view point

Ok, you’re onto me

Typing every post on the site for all these years has been exhausting. I actually quite pleased that the house of cards has come tumbling down

Needmoresleep · 04/07/2019 09:10

South London is home to some very evangelical Christians. None of the views expressed surprise me. I suspect many will also favour creationism over evolution. We also know there is concern about British girls who face FGM or arranged marriages

Stonewall should be working for the acceptance of same sex attraction. There is a lot still to be done.

Shifting focus to gender (and kink and cross dressing etc) has lost them support of many of the population. Which means they are less able to fight on issues that do carry wider societal support.

I can agree with the parents that gender is a difficult and confusing topic for primary aged children. I suspect I will not agree with them on acceptance of same sex attraction.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 04/07/2019 09:12

I’m basically asking whether freedom of expression and freedom of belief only really exist (in the UK, on Mumsnet) when the content of that expression or belief is palatable to us. And the answer is no, but TRAs are pushing so hard the push back is becoming more and more intransigent too!

TRA actions are dangerous, causes real harm and is a very real threat to very real women and children. GC push back does not, it asks, and now demands that Self Id, Trans teaching etc is questioned, looked at in detail and that discussions are had, openly, and that common sense prevails.

If you haven't gleaned that from the many FWR threads can I suggest you have a look at some of the 'lay it all out for me' type threads? They try to explain why women are stepping outside their socialisation and are no longer being 'nice' on this issue

Mermoose · 04/07/2019 09:12

@Lamaha 'homo' is a derogatory term for a gay man. Similar to 'paki'. It comes across as very insulting.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 04/07/2019 09:14

Did I break some terminology rule I didn't know about??? No, you just lept back in time to the 70s and used some very Bernard Manning terminology.

Homos and queers...Nancy boys and puffs. Not really acceptable terminology these days.

Tanith · 04/07/2019 09:20

I have an almost 10 year old DD and that language does sound very precocious.

However, my 10 year old niece, who lives in another town, came home and announced she was bisexual. She'd got confused because she has friends who are boys and friends who are girls.
My sister is very placid, told DN she loves her whatever she is, but she's too young to be defining herself just yet. I can imagine a more uptight parent storming into the school, though!

And that's the problem with teaching children these things too young. The outrage that many parents will display about this teaching of primary children could easily be interpreted by the child as disapproval of LGBT people.

SpitefulBreasts · 04/07/2019 10:09

@BernardBlacksWineIcelolly
You've been rumbled now Grin

WhatTheWatersShowedMe · 04/07/2019 10:15

I think it's fine for primary school age children to be taught how there are lots of different types of family, and it's okay for girls to marry girls and boys to marry boys if they want when they're older, and it is not okay to pick on other people for these differences. I think that should be the extent of any discussion in school at primary.

SomeDyke · 04/07/2019 13:08

"Homos and queers...Nancy boys and puffs. Not really acceptable terminology these days."

Well, 'queer' has now been appropriated by woke straight folk with blue hair. Used to be totally okay when used by gay people who wanted to refer to themselves as queers. Homos, never really anything other than an insult.

Puffs? Apart from cream puffs, was always poofs as in '4 poofs and a piano' (band). Although always room for merriment when it came to upholstered living room foot-rest furniture, and a granny who insisted on referring to a pouffe as a poof..........

Dyke is one I prefer myself, and when we go for a diesel weekend at a heritage railway, I take great delight in referring to myself and the missus as diesel dykes...................

Dionn · 04/07/2019 13:29

Agreed

CuriousaboutSamphire · 04/07/2019 15:42

You are wuite right SomeDYke spellcheck made me come over all polite and Granny's tea party Grin

And I had not really taken much notice of those of the blue haired persuasion, so had missed that!

Consider me vaguely updated Smile

Diesel Dykes.... we may have met, if you have ever wandered onto the racecourse end of the GWSR

MockerstheFeManist · 04/07/2019 16:39

Our soon to be next prime ministers thinks there's nothing wrong with "Bum-Boys."

Juells · 04/07/2019 16:46

Tanith
I have an almost 10 year old DD and that language does sound very precocious.

Didn't get past the first post because that's what struck me as well. Coached. I don't approve of the messages that are being given to children about gender, and I'd get stuck in myself if my children were still in school, but I wouldn't want to argue the ins and outs of it with a 10-year-old to such an extent that they could articulate all that.

Maybe I just had very dumb children though, that's possible Grin

Smellbowpenisbeaker · 04/07/2019 16:55

It strikes me that, aside from violent hate crime (which all feature an out and out disregard for the individual) homophobia and transphobia are so different.

Most GC people don’t actually see that transgenderism can exist. To be transgender assumes that we are born with an innate set of behavioural characteristics associated with our biological sex. Now I think most of us know that’s crap - most of us are living examples that that is crap. Consequently, we can’t believe in, far less support, something that’s impossible. And for that we’re transphobic. Hardly the same as homophobia.

AlwaysComingHome · 04/07/2019 17:12

I do t trust right wing reporting but the left isn’t reporting much of this at all, and what they do report is often false.

Nappyvalley15 · 05/07/2019 06:38

Unfortunately some left wing sources are downright lying to us on this issue so it is very difficult to know who to trust.

I just wanted to say I agree with a previous poster who said that at primary age the focus should be on behaviour - not bullying anyone, being inclusive, etc rather than trying to explain these issues. Children of this age are concrete thinkers and so are always going to apply messages around LGBT (esp T) to themselves and some will get confused and start to think of it as something they need to worry about now rather than it possibly being an issue for them in the distant future. Beyond some people have 2 mummies and some people have 2 daddies I don't think there is much more a primary school aged child needs to be taught by the school.

Lamahaha · 21/07/2019 11:13

Sorry to resurrect this thread. I didn't want to start a new one yet I did have a need to tie up a loose end. As you can see I changed my user name; I couldn't sign in with my old email address as it kept asking me create a new password, and when I did, it told me I already had a profile; round and round, and life's too short to ask for sign in help. Or perhaps it's a permanent suspension now.

Anyway:

A few weeks ago I used a banned word on this thread, not knowing it was banned, and a couple of people objected angrily with expletives . I then inquired as to what was wrong with the word, after which I received a week’s suspension and both those posts were deleted. The post had been obviously been reported.

I’m wondering if reporting something like this is the best way to deal with it; it was surely clear from my second post that I had had no idea that the word would cause offense. I think it would have sufficed to explain to me in a PM that the word was not OK, after which I would have asked for the post to be deleted myself.

I do have a valid excuse, I think, apart from my age. I'm an old-fashionedly polite person and would never knowingly use a word inappropriately

The truth is, I spent the past 45 years in a non-English-speaking European country, spoke practically ONLY that language, and have not kept up to date on the mores in contemporary English language (history is more my thing). Only at the end of last year I even began following the GC discussion. A year ago I moved to a rural area of Ireland and so again, was not up to date in changing language.

Rereading the thread, I see that it WAS explained but after being suspended I did not return to MN until today. I have to say it was very weird for me to be suspended for causing offense -- never happened before! I do apologise.

Anyway, a few off-topic musings on words and their offensiveness and their power and the trends:

When I was in my teens and 20s, (60s and 70s) the terrible forbidden word was queer, and I still cannot use it without a shudder and never have, except in a discussion of words and meanings. And now queer is so very woke!

Gay, back then, meant something totally different to what it does today, and it is so ingrained in me that the old meaning still holds true, and I've never used it in today's sense. The awful N-word has been rehabilitated by some black people, but only they can use it.

On the other hand, I still love the word coloured for black and brown or generally non-white people. It was, in my home country, a positive word, though for the wrong reasons: coloured meant mixed race, with a good few shots of white, and coloured people were middle class and white-collar, and so directly beneath whites in the racial hierarchy, higher even than Portuguese, Chinese and Indians, who were regarded as the labouring class.

I truly detest “People of Colour” and don’t use it, but it’s what Americans say you have to use and coloured is taboo. Remember that song by Boney-M, Brown Girl in the Ring? It’s originally There’s a Coloured Girl in the Ring, tra la la la la, and we sang and danced it at very single children’s party, and nobody was upset. It's a good memory, makes me feel quite nostalgic for simpler, more innocent times! But since Americans have historical objections to it, I would not use it where there are Americans around, and British too, I believe. But I can use it in my home country with ease.

So that's it. Perhaps words themselves are not as important as the way they are used, and by whom?

(C*s of course is very different. It is a highly charged political word intended to change the very definition of females. I will never accept it.)

Swipe left for the next trending thread