Babdoc - you might be interested in this:
Queer Theory in Scottish Schools
The Highland Times, Feb 13 2020
By Doctor Bruce Scott.
They are coming for our kids, the Highland Times has warned, and so I thought it might be worth taking a closer look at Scotland's Queer theory inspired LGBT inclusive education.
This drive for “Queering the classroom” as it's called, has a big focus on trans - the idea that people can become the opposite sex, or identify with the opposite sex, or alternate a number of invented genders.
And, this philosophy spreads its tentacles across all aspects of the curriculum and specific sex education lessons.
The movers and shakers in this lobbying frenzy for children’s education come from people like the TIE campaign in Scotland (Time for Inclusive Education) as well as Stonewall, Mermaids Gender Transition Charity, and the plethora of LGBT/Sex education programs in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.
Queer theory/gender ideology and its application in schools can be summed up in an influential book published in 2009 called “INTERROGATING HETERONORMATIVITY IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS: THE WORK OF THE NO OUTSIDERS PROJECT”, edited by Renée DePalma and Elizabeth Atkinson.
Andrew Moffat contributed to this book.
For those who don’t know Moffat, he was the headmaster involved with introducing the No Outsiders LGBT educational curricula in Birmingham schools, which resulted in protests by mainly Muslim, but also Jewish and Christian parents; the protesters did not want this material being taught to their children.
Now, one many wonder, why are parents protesting this educational curriculum when the stated motive (told from the likes of Andrew Moffat) is to let children know that different people with different sexualities or genders exist?
It sounds harmless enough.
However, on closer examination of the No Outsiders philosophy, I suggest people become very much more cautious and a lot more curious.
The first clue is in the title of the book: “Interrogating heteronormativity in primary schools”.
Yes, primary schools; schools with children in them, not adults.
Bear this in mind.
A quick look at the objectives of the project, which was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council grant, takes us down the rabbit hole of Queer theory.
Its stated objectives were to understand the operation of “heteronormativity (heterosexual behaviour, lifestyle), its normalisation, and to develop means to challenge its normativity, in primary schools.
It wanted to develop teaching practices within the classroom so it could carry these objectives out.
Another more sinister aim of the project was, as the authors lamented, to address the omission in primary schools of sexuality, pleasure, bodies and desire which ordinarily, within educational settings with children is omitted (quite rightly in my opinion) to protect children.
The reasoning given to “correct” this omission was that it denies children engagement with vital information about sexualities, silences the sexual voice of children and erases their sexual agency.
These aims and concerns of the No Outsiders project are reiterated and re-emphasised with the authors’ aims of exploring how to make “safe spaces” in primary schools in which children can talk about sexualities; their parents’ sexualities, their parents’ friends’ sexualities and indeed the sexualities of the children.
Indeed, it is argued that teachers also should discuss their own sexualities.
The authors argue that by denying children and the teachers discussions about queer sexualities, it omits the inclusion of queer bodies, pleasures and desires, which if these queer sexualities were discussed, it would confound or confuse heterosexuality or heteronormativity.
An even darker aspect of No Outsiders lurks hidden in their manifesto for queering the classroom.
The overt disdain for heteronormativity is revealed in discussions of a need for the rejection of heterosexuality and reproduction.
They argue that there is a need to challenge reproductive futurism (human reproduction of children and its heterosexual nature) and that queering the classroom and human reproduction are at odds with each other.
Indeed, the rational for teaching children at all is questioned, as queer existences or lifestyles are antagonistic to a reproductive future; i.e., as in heteronormativity, where the future, child and family are valued.
In other words, the notion of the family, a biological Mum and Dad, heterosexuality, commitment to heterosexual monogamy, for one’s children and the future all need to be sacrificed on the altar of queer theory; the present, alternative sexualities (LGBT/Queer sexualities), alternative lifestyles (e.g., open relationships/polyamory), sex as only for pleasure or immediate gratification is the ideal of a queer utopia.
These ideas are perhaps appropriate for the realms of adult behaviour and lifestyle, but they are certainly not appropriate in a child’s classroom.
The Scottish government has pushed this agenda.
And who has pushed this agenda with them?
A group called the TIE campaign (Time for inclusive education) who seem to have the ear of Scottish Government and an inordinate amount of influence on its policies, and who have untroubled access to tour Scottish schools disseminating their brand of queer theory and gender ideology.
In light of recent events in Scottish politics, specifically the resignation of finance minister Derek Mackay (42) for his indiscretions of communicating with a 16-year-old boy, it is pragmatic to look at the background of Mackay and TIE, and the ideology of Queer theory.
Of course, quite rightly Mackay resigned when his activities came to light.
In the age of #Me Too, he really did not have a choice.
However, the muted condemnation by many SNP members and deflection from the scandal is quite revealing.
Many within the SNP and wider Scottish government and cross-party parliamentary group have campaigned enthusiastically for the LGBT inclusive education program in Scotland.
So did Derek Mackay.
However subdued or reluctant people were in condemning Mackay’s behaviour, one thing was clear, they could in no way condone it.
If this is the case, why are there inconsistencies in this story?
The TIE campaign, were very muted regarding the resignation of their supporter Derek Mackay.
If Mackay and his actions are so condemnable as shown by his resignation and the subsequent reactions of some MSP’s (even if muted by some), why do the TIE campaign not see the double standards retweeting a tweet from Rosshall Academy the day after the Mackay resignation, showing “icons” of LGBT history month, materials provided by the TIE campaign, which has a portrait of Harvey Milk, an American politician who had a liking for 16-year old boys.
One 16-year-old boy in particular was in a relationship with Milk in California where the age of consent in that state was 18 at the time-Milk was in his mid-30’s.
The boy had mental health issues and later committed suicide.
I am not sure what kind of message this puts out, but in light of recent events, I do not think it is appropriate to celebrate Harvey Milk.
It remains to be seen if Harvey Milk will be removed from their gallery of “icons” and the materials TIE give to schools.
I also wonder if schools will show some common sense and stop celebrating Harvey Milk?
The driving force of queer theory in queering the primary school (including transgender ideology) is the pushing and transgressing of sexual boundaries.
This includes transgressing the boundaries of age and sexualities (i.e., LGBT) and the boundary of the natural human body (i.e., transgender/alternative gender).
Queer theory wants to target children to push and transgress ordinary boundaries of childhood and the child body, and to invite and stimulate children with sexual ideas (of themselves) and others (e.g., their teachers’ sexualities).
In the good old days this might be called grooming, or sexual abuse.
It seems the Scottish Government are dropping the ball all over the place with politicians’ sexual and financial indiscretions (e.g., Natalie McGarry, Derek Mackay), child welfare concerns in care homes, the pushing of sexual and age appropriate boundaries in children’s education, and an arrogance that they can override parental concerns or consent/consultation on these issues.
The failed Named Person Scheme was perhaps a warning alarm that all was not well.
Perhaps all these issues point to the glaring truth that the current administration is in its death throes.
People are waking up; but they need to wake up much more to the sinister nature and facts of Queer theory and gender ideology that the Scottish government want to teach children.
I urge all parents and people concerned with children’s education and welfare to read “Interrogating heteronormativity in primary schools.”
There is no time like the present.
www.thehighlandtimes.com/news/2020/02/13/queer-theory-in-scottish-schools/
Current Mumsnet thread (there are earlier ones about No Outsiders too):
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3858425-Andrew-Moffatt-No-Outsiders-online-lessons