So this came to the school I work in....

[ooherrmissus14]

I was expecting it to be promoting the transgender movement but was quite surprised it wasn't!! Interesting to see this perspective being shared with schools x

Sometimes these issues throw up strange bedfellows. Sometimes organisations say the right things for the wrong reasons. Now might be a good time to order your school the Transgendertrend toolkit as they're coming from a less biased position.

@CrazyPigeonLadyMarried2Trans

Why creationists think they have any ground for sending a DVD to schools about transgender is beyond me.

Because God created man and he created woman? Or because they can simply see how harmful this ideology is? Why shouldn’t they respond to that concern?

The shoehorning of God into all sorts of stuff is hardly new.

That some theories cannot be proved (in the scientific meaning of proof) does not mean all bets are off and any and all possible alternative explanations are just as valid.

It bothers me that creationists are trying to get into schools in the UK. There is zero evidence for a God, multiple god's, anything. Just an awfully lot of people having belief.

Out of interest do creationists think it has to be the Christian God. Would they be aok if it turned out to be Zeus, for example. Or that Satan had done it and the humans who wrote the Bible had got it mixed up?

It bothers me that creationists are trying to get into schools in the UK. There is zero evidence for a God, multiple god's, anything. Just an awfully lot of people having belief.

Equally there is no evidence there is not a God. But as far as ‘trying to get into schools in the uk’: schools in the uk are nearly all Christian. Those not specifically attached to a denomination (CofE, Catholic) are non-denominational. Of course there are also some private Muslim, Jewish schools etc. Most education in the UK was initially provided by Christian churches; CofE, Catholic, Methodist, Quaker... You are hundreds of years too late to worry about faith ‘getting into’ schools.

Out of interest do creationists think it has to be the Christian God. Would they be aok if it turned out to be Zeus, for example. Or that Satan had done it and the humans who wrote the Bible had got it mixed up?

That would be a matter of faith. Muslims would not think it was a Christian God, nor would ancient Greeks, or Mayans.

'Equally there is no evidence there is not a God.'

There is no evidence it's not a giant lobster or Klingons or anything.

To put the theory of evolution (plenty of evidence) in the same pot as any idea that anyone has is a deliberate attempt to undermine science and the scientific process.

There's no proof there's not a good is a hopeless argument.

'But as far as ‘trying to get into schools in the uk’: schools in the uk are nearly all Christian. Those not specifically attached to a denomination (CofE, Catholic) are non-denominational. Of course there are also some private Muslim, Jewish schools etc'

Factually incorrect. There are plenty of Jewish state schools where I live.

I would also draw attention to the issues with private fundamental Christian and Jewish schools. Google if you wish. If that's your idea of a good education then that's a big concern.

On the last point. The people we are talking about on this thread are Christian.

Something tells me they would not say oh ok if tomorrow the giant lobster or a bunch of Klingons rocked up and said hello! Yep here we are and we created the universe.

The scientific community would say WOW and get really excited.
Christian creationists, I'm guessing, would not say oh look turns out God doesn't exist. Fair enough we'll just forget about that stuff then.

If we agree that men cannot become women, and vice versa, why does it matter if, for example, I ultimately base that belief on 'male & female He created them'? Why does the origin of the belief matter so much, in this particular context of safeguarding children, if the content of our belief is the same?

This is an interesting point and one I've been wondering over the years (e.g. if you believe "abortion is wrong because I feel it is wrong" and someone else believes "abortion is wrong because God says so" are they essentially the same belief? What distinguishes a religious belief from other beliefs?)

There was a bit of discussion here, see Caro's post
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3944700-Squeamish-about-far-right-hangers-on

I think it does matter, because it's already hard enough to disentangle oneself from beliefs falsely assigned to you (because you believe X, and others who believe X also believe Y, you must also believe Y). In this case the beliefs extrapolate in different directions.

Sorry bit tired and can't seem to articulate properly.

Jews are creationists too. Genesis is not just a book of the bible

About 0.4% of schools in the UK are Jewish: 139 vs over 30,000 Christian schools - so ‘nearly all’ is factually correct.

Most Christians (and Jews) accept evolution - it does not contradict the belief that God created everything. Most also accept the scientific process (many are scientists) and that does not contradict that God made everything either.

Erm that wasn't my point.

My point was that you made a factual error.

People are free to believe what they wish. However. The fact that there is no evidence that God or anyone else is at the root of (whatever) is not a reason to undermine the teaching of science in schools.

I note you have no comment on the issues with the teaching etc in more fundamentalist schools in England.

'Equally there is no evidence there is not a God. But as far as ‘trying to get into schools in the uk’: schools in the uk are nearly all Christian. Those not specifically attached to a denomination (CofE, Catholic) are non-denominational. Of course there are also some private Muslim, Jewish schools etc. '

You are misquoting yourself.

What you said was factually incorrect.

Not a surprise that you don't say oops I didn't realise.

Which bit is factually incorrect? Are you disputing that 99% of schools is ‘nearly all’?

Oh fgs

You said Christian, RC, non denominational.

Some private schools of other faiths.

No comment on the issues with the teaching in private fundamental schools of various faiths including Christianity then.

??

What are you one about?

Non-denominational, Church of England and Catholic are all Christian. Nearly all schools in the UK fall into one of these three categories. With a few exceptions as I pointed out.

Did you not realise non-denominational means Christian?

There are also some Methodist, Quaker, Church in Wales, Church of Scotland, and Free Church schools as well as a number of other denominations. These are all Christian too.

There are also some...Church of Scotland, and Free Church schools

There were schools in Scotland run by church parishes but they became state schools in 1872. Scotland has state schools which are Catholic and will promote Catholicism but the vast majority of state and private schools in Scotland are non- denominational. There are no Church of Scotland or Free Church schools.

@HBGKC

I absolutely agree that's it's complex.

I'm imagining a giant Venn diagram where people from all walks of life, or groups/organisations from all over the politico-social spectrum would overlap on some issues but not on others, and I'm wondering if, for the sake of a really important 'global' issue, it wouldn't be worth putting aside minor differences in order to achieve a greater, more important good. Two heads are better than one, two voices together are louder than just one alone, etc etc.

In a global society that is becoming more and more fragmented, splintered and atomised, my instinct is to seek out common ground and basic principles that most people can get behind, to build consensus where possible, even if it's a limited, flawed kind of one. Identity politics and other academic trends seem rather to highlight the differences and distance between people, and to polarise debates by rendering large swathes of 'normal people' persona non grata if they don't subscribe to the entire woke canon of belief.

An adjacent symptom of this is an illiberal instinct to ridicule, reject and denounce anyone with any kind of religious belief as anti-science, anti-woman, anti-equality, backwards, etc etc, even with zero knowledge of the content of their beliefs.
This happens A LOT on FWR boards.

I accept that many people may have had negative experiences of religion/people of faith in their lives, and that this shapes their reactions, but I wish for a bit more nuance, a bit more of an open mind that to the possibility that someone who believes in God could still be an ally against eg transing children.

(I have no direct experience of evangelical Christian sects, btw.)

Well said @HBGKC

I'm lefty who's firmly aligned with the tories on this. The left wing papers have been silent, hostile or complicit. The only reasons for discussion and resistance to legislative changes are the right wing papers publishing articles by Julie Bindel and other loony lefties who were being silenced and those building a coalition across the venn diagram.

Absolutism alienates those who are sympathy or concerned. Rubbishing their belief systems or a condescending approach is why the left isn't trying to understand why even with evidence of vileness Trump got 70 million votes and Bojo is still pm.

Many would think about voting for Trump (insert a domestic equivalent here) if a snot nosed TRA talked about belief in that disrespectful way.

@ DeaconBoo I said "If we agree that men cannot become women, and vice versa, why does it matter if, for example, I ultimately base that belief on 'male & female He created them'? Why does the origin of the belief matter so much, in this particular context of safeguarding children, if the content of our belief is the same?" - and I would add "and we have the same goals".

You said "I think it does matter, because it's already hard enough to disentangle oneself from beliefs falsely assigned to you (because you believe X, and others who believe X also believe Y, you must also believe Y). In this case the beliefs extrapolate in different directions."

I get this, but how would it actually work in practice?

Who claims which issues as 'theirs'? (Contrary to popular belief, it's not just FWR Mumsnetters who are concerned about trans-activism, for example.)

On what basis does who get to vet people on their suitability to campaign on a particular issue, and on what criteria of ideological purity?

We can have some version of the above (no thanks); we can simply protest as individuals (ineffective veering on useless); or we can set apart our - considerable - differences to campaign on some basic, mutually-agreed principles that most 'normal' people can get behind.

"I'm lefty who's firmly aligned with the tories on this. The left wing papers have been silent, hostile or complicit. The only reasons for discussion and resistance to legislative changes are the right wing papers publishing articles by Julie Bindel and other loony lefties who were being silenced and those building a coalition across the venn diagram."

Thank you, @Becles. I would just add that the right wing papers also have their own journalists who have done excellent work on this issue (eg Douglas Murray at the Spectator and Telegraph), as well as also publishing voices from 'across the aisle' (which I think is also the name of some kind of cross-party coalition of some kind..?)

There are no Church of Scotland or Free Church schools.

Fair enough. But they are non-denominational (Christian). In England and Wales the “School Standards and Framework Act 1998” requires schools to provide daily worship and ”the required collective worship shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.“. (There are some exemptions that can be applied for)

The entire education system as we know it, including universities, wouldn't even exist without the work and funding of the church over many centuries - but that's by the by.

It's true that there are a small number of hidden Islamic schools teaching Sharia law and covertly radicalising their students. Much of their teaching is against the law of this country. But we're not talking about that in this thread. (BTW, there are plenty of moderate Muslims who would also be against the transing of children. But I assume they would also be 'problematic allies'.)

We're talking here about an organisation that has spent its own time, money and effort to produce some resources that seem, on the face of it, to be purely concerned with arguing against the pro-trans trend sweeping unexamined through our schools via such entities as Mermaids.

They are not 'creationists trying to get into achools' with some malevolent, illegal agenda. They're not offering to come in and run subversive, secretly creationist workshops. They've donated a resource which schools can choose to use, or not. They are perfectly open on their website about their views; no-one obliged them to state, on the opening page, 'we are Biblical Christians'. They really don't seem to be trying to hide where they're coming from. Schools can make an informed choice about using it or not.

Anyway, not to worry. Going by this thread, their perfectly unobjectionable letter and dvd will go straight into the bin in every school it arrives at. Not at all a prejudiced, knee-jerk reaction to the horrific spectre of religion.

It's a bit insulting to call people's reaction to an issue they have spent a lot of their lives analysing "knee-jerk'.
It's the specific issue of "intelligent design" that I find problematic here, not the work of Christians in Britain in general.

we can set apart our - considerable - differences to campaign on some basic, mutually-agreed principles that most 'normal' people can get behind.

You mean campaign together though - which would mean some agreement would need to be reached about the specific scope of the campaign, the goals, the strategies etc. I have no idea if this is happening or not between specific orgs (if you listen to TRAs all MNers have been given checks by right-wing US Christian groups....) but I've not seen any official discussion. Having watched Mrs America not long ago I expect this would be difficult and, as i said, divergence on views would be reached quite quickly.

As it is, both "groups" are campaigning in their own way. Just using separate letters and resources.

I, personally, don't need to join Truth In Science to discuss my views.

If someone has 'spent a lot of their life analysing an issue' then of course their reaction isn't 'knee-jerk', and I'd be very interested in their views. I was referring to the other 95%.

I suppose I see trans-activism in schools as a child protection issue rather than a feminist issue (though of course there's massive overlap further down the line). And I do think that by framing the whole TWAW debate as a feminist issue rather than a human issue, you're in danger of a) alienating large swathes of the global population who are uninterested/put off by the idea of "feminism", and b) losing huge numbers of potential allies because you might disagree with some other views that they might hold.

Because I find this issue so important, I find that frustrating.

The link between Christianity and the political right is also false. The UK is not white bible belt america. If anything most Christian teaching is left wing as are many church denominations. I don't think anyone could accuse the Salvation Army of being right wing! The early Christian churches shared all their resources.

Absolutely aesop, it puzzled me for a long time when I was younger. The RW US types are a world away from the quiche-eating sort of hippy types I was involved with growing up. Lots of Christian groups do excellent work.

.. I don't think anyone could accuse the Salvation Army of being right wing!..

In the past haven't they said some questionable things about the LGB community?

Does anyone know if they have said anything about T?

Oh look, someone else has a picture of the same letter the OP (who hasn't returned 🤔) posted a picture of.

Mimmymum tweet