School newsletter tells girls how to bind

[ErrolTheDragon]

There's a piece in the Times today ... parents not happy at the content of a newsletter produced by the 6th formers

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nonsuch-high-school-sixth-formers-told-girls-11-how-to-bind-breasts-k7slvrbkr?shareToken=a84af706d3b638e2ea3d2d53ea04e29d

@AliMonkey

As a parent of a student there, I didn’t even know of its existence until reading this thread, so thank you. DD has a copy but hadn’t read it so we’ve now discussed it. 95% of the newsletter is fine in my opinion (and I am a pretty conservative Christian who isn’t entirely comfortable with much that goes on around LGBTQ rights etc). The issues are entirely with the links. If the breast binding question “how do I bind safely?” had had a brief answer along the lines of “breast binding can be dangerous so please discuss with your doctor before considering it; here’s some links that discuss it” then I would be ok with it. And I’m ok with links to basic safe sex advice but not those ones! I am planning to complain to the school.

Absolutely the same its the links that is the issue. And I suspect the problem is that when it was checked over by the teacher (who sent it) and to a PP who questioned whether it did indeed go through to 11 years it certainly did. I suspect that they did not click on the links to check where they went.

The page that is inappropriate is clearly written by the sixth formers and I would inagine the problem is that when it was checked the links were not

The problem of course now is that the majority of the year 7s as far as I can tell didnt really read it and certainly didnt click on the links. They are now very aware of the Times article and are expecting it to be raised tomorrow.

All this has done has brought it to the attention of the very age range those who complained were appalled who received it because I think it was completely ignored in the beginning

@spoonrider

Oh my god listen to you all. You were all prefects, weren’t you?

No where is there proof that this was sent to 11 year olds, beyond a random quote in that Times article. Even if it was, so what? You’re trying to NOT inform your kids about sex? Are you really all that conservative? Or is this a case of a school newsletter merely mentioning trans issues and you’re all angry as a result?

So spoonrider, do you understand anything about safeguarding children? At all?

It is a good thing that readers of this thread can see the difference between a poster going for the false extreme position of You’re trying to NOT inform your kids about sex? (which not one poster has stated) versus the considered positions discussing the actual issues as hand in conjunction with both safeguarding and UK government guidance.

Thank you for providing the counterpoint. I am not sure your posts are conveying the message you believe they are. But you are certainly providing some excellent talking points that bring out some well reasoned posts.

If I am trying to be generous, some posters may so focused on trying to help the child they believe they themselves were that any other children fall by the wayside, especially young girls.

I remember once conversation here with one poster who was still upset by the way they themselves had perceived their lack of sex education and how others perceived them at them time.

That poster insisted that teaching girls about the dangers of anal sex would “other” gay boys. The fact that girls generally take zero pleasure from anal sex (no prostate) so that there only are downsides and risk for girls was ignored as not important. The same poster wanted a comprehensive education in the use of sex toys in primary school. As that poster had used them (?) as a child, the poster felt that the safe use of sex toys was important to teach young girls.

This poster was incredibly intent on helping the probably sexualised trans child they themselves had been and others like that. The fact that most primary school aged girls for safe guarding purposes not should be encouraged to use sex toys or engage in anal sex was completely lost. Women here argued in vain that safe guarding, consent and boundaries was the most essential education for the cast majority of very young girls.

All this has done has brought it to the attention of the very age range those who complained were appalled who received it because I think it was completely ignored in the beginning

Well it's brought the school's safeguarding failure to public attention too so hopefully they can do something about it. That's a good thing isn't it?

@HecatesCatsInFancyHats

All this has done has brought it to the attention of the very age range those who complained were appalled who received it because I think it was completely ignored in the beginning

Well it's brought the school's safeguarding failure to public attention too so hopefully they can do something about it. That's a good thing isn't it?

But that should have been as a PP said by raising it with the school and potentially Ofsted - not publicising it all over twitter and then into the newspapers.

Because the safeguarding failure should be brought to attention but trust me all the publicity has done is meant that the 11/12 years old are now very much aware of the thing they were appalled by in the first place.

There is a right way and a wrong way and this was the wrong way

I knew about breast binding many years ago, because I was taught by nuns and it was known that nuns practised it as a form of self-chastisement and out of horror at their own sexed body. Other forms of self chastisement they used were hair shirts and cilices (chains they tightened around their upper arms). Then there was the fasting, constant prayer (I remember one nun telling me how hard that was on the knees), sleep deprivation (goes with the prayer cycle) and so on. I realised many years later that the place was infused with a fanatically suppressed sexuality (I won’t even start on the behaviour of some of the priests).

It amazes me that it’s in any way seen as acceptable for developing children to bind their breasts.

Absolutely the same its the links that is the issue. And I suspect the problem is that when it was checked over by the teacher (who sent it) and to a PP who questioned whether it did indeed go through to 11 years it certainly did.

There are more issues with it than just the links.

so you don’t like trans men because they’re gender non conforming? This is very confusing. You want them to be adhering go sex stereotypes?

What do you mean by gender nonconforming here? What do you think sex stereotypes are?

There is a right way and a wrong way and this was the wrong way

I'm afraid I don't agree. As PP's have pointed out this "queering" of young people's education is happening throughout the country. It needs sunlight.

[quote spoonrider]@Helleofabore “
Thank you for providing the counterpoint. I am not sure your posts are conveying the message you believe they are. But you are certainly providing some excellent talking points that bring out some well reasoned posts.”

Christ no I’m drunk. You’re looking a t me to defend trans people? How about you try meeting up and talking with trans folk? Good it’s like being in a church here.[/quote]
I don't think anyone's looking at you to defend trans people. I wouldn't wish that piss poor level of advocacy on anyone.

We're looking at you to explain why you think that sending instructions on breast binding, complete with highly inappropriate links, to children as young as 11 is in anyway okay.

Please tell me.

I'm supposed to tell you what you mean? Perhaps you could read what you've written when you've sobered up and explain what you mean.

^
No where is there proof that this was sent to 11 year olds, beyond a random quote in that Times article. Even if it was, so what?

Your response to developmentally inappropriate materials being sent to 11 year old children in their first year of secondary school is "so what"?

You’re trying to NOT inform your kids about sex? Are you really all that conservative? Or is this a case of a school newsletter merely mentioning trans issues and you’re all angry as a result?

This is a peculiar point. Do you really think raising concerns about a selection of links (whose content was not written with 11 year olds in mind) is the same thing as being opposed to developmentally appropriate relationships and sex education?

Quartz, I see your point but personally I think the benefits may outweigh the negatives. If parents are aware they are now able to have discussions with their children and make sure that these discussions are balanced.

I am happy to discuss these issues and the risks with my children. The would not (I cannot believe I have to write this) have initiated a discussion about the dangers and risk associated with fisting and “chem sex” (?), the latter term I learned today and appears to be about the combination of illegal drugs and sex. I would also not have started any conversation about the damage of breast tissue from binding or how this may make exercise harder.

However, If I knew that my child was exposed to these discussions in school I would be quite happy to discuss at home. I also would write to the governors and get other parents together to try to improve safe guarding in the school as it appears to be failing.

This The problem of course now is that the majority of the year 7s as far as I can tell didnt really read it and certainly didnt click on the links. They are now very aware of the Times article and are expecting it to be raised tomorrow.

And this There is a right way and a wrong way and this was the wrong way

Ouch. Section 28 anyone?

Do you have any knowledge of queer theory? This isn't about homosexuality it's about queering language and meaning. It's about erasing boundaries and established norms. Go away and do a bit of reading before you hurl yourself drunk onto an FWR thread.

Ouch. Section 28 anyone?

As a lesbian, I'd ask (on behalf of myself and the overwhelming majority of lesbians and gay men that I know) that you stop comparing a law that prohibited any mention of homosexuality in schools to people's objection to the inclusion of instructions on how to permanently mutilate your breasts in a school newsletter.

@Quartz2208 what this has done is shed light on their piss poor safeguarding. I can bet this isn't the first issue the school has had to deal with on this.

Some people really thing that this is a representation of the Section 28 demos...

Sorry kiddos - it was nothing to do with gender...