Can you please help me articulate the issues with this? Jigsaw

[LimeLemonBergamot]

Have NC for this.

This is an excerpt of a lesson aimed at 6-7 year olds under the 'Celebrating Difference' topic. It's a lesson on gender diversity.

There is a character, 'B'- where it is unclear if they are male or female. Jigsaw states that 'the lesson looks at whether being a boy or girl makes a difference when choosing friends and toys'. I'm not seeing this- surely a lesson that wanted to show this would explicitly show Billy playing with toys that are stereotypically girls toys and vice versa with Bella- and make the point that this is absolutely fine and normal because toys are toys for anyone. Why is it necessary to have a character whose sex is unclear, to stimulate a discussion on 'whether being a boy or girl makes a difference when choosing friends and toys?'

I think this is reinforcing gender stereotypes- Billy and Bella throughout this conform to stereotypes based on toys, who they think boys and girls should be playing with, and at the end we are told that they are happy being a boy or girl, and B is happy being B. Why are boys and girls shown to be so rigidly conforming- that children must have to be B to not conform to stereotypes- and what is a 6 or 7 yr old supposed to think about who B is?

Please help me articulate this a bit better. I need to go back to my children's school and wonder if I've explained the issues properly.

For me boxes are fine, but they need to be penis box and vagina box. Not fucking footballs and fluffy unicorns.

Exactly Grellbunt. Biological reality rather than stupid stereotypes.

Why is Bella the one with .long hair and Billy the one with short hair? Is hair length how we know who's a boy and who's a girl now?

It's just so ... obvious?

But I am starting to realise that I really really am the exception in terms of not caring about stereotypes. I wasn't brought up with them and I worked in a pretty unusual job where your qualifications were really the only thing people cared about. But now living in a small rural town and looking at the media I can see that most people have pretty rigid views.

The pictures themselves are a problem.

Long hair = girl
Short hair = boy
Medium hair = trans (non binary?)

Whole thing is a shitshow of pushing stereotypes while claiming to do the opposite.

The stereotypes! How utterly ridiculous. All children should be encouraged to just be themselves AND to be happy being the sex they are.

They seem to be deliberately suggesting that "being a boy" is an activity involving a particular set of toys and hair length.
This is really offensive and against govt guidelines to boot.

" You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear."

www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-your-relationships-sex-and-health-curriculum#ensuring-content-is-appropriate

Wanted to update.

Had a not particularly satisfactory reply from the school. Jigsaw are (as predicted) not really engaging with the points I raised (with all of your help- thankyou)!

This is from the reply I received:

*From Jigsaw's perspective, they say it is tricky to not talk about sexual stereotypes without exposing them and that these should promote reflective discussions where stereotypes are explored. They also state:

'We cannot just pretend that they don’t exist if we want children to grow up as reflective questioning individuals. It is the discussion and reflection that comes out of these lessons that is important in the context of the whole wider programme'.*

I've replied to say I still believe the lesson goes against DfE guidelines and that I'm going to get in touch with Safe Schools Alliance, as well as my MP, who I've discussed these issues with before and was aware I was speaking to the school about their PSHE curriculum. So I'm guessing I should contact DfE/Ofsted as well?

@grey12

The mere fact that it keeps emphasising "girl's toys" and "boy's toys" is upsetting.....

This. Surely all young children will play with any toys that take their fancy.

I raised three daughters (no sons) and they were offered 'girls' AND 'boys' toys. Some they liked, some they didn't. My Little Pony was a great hit, so was Lego, so were video games like Minecraft.

Restricting toy choices for any child is a shame. Gender does not need to come into it at all, why does anyone need to call things 'toys for girls' etc.

'Bella' and 'Billy' sound like they have already had their horizons limited by stereotyping, what a shame.

I'm sure I'm going to be labelled as one of 'those' parents but I'm just so sick of this nonsense now.

It's sexist stereotype bollocks and so regressive. This would have been called out as sexist in the 80s, how have we regressed so far. Makes my blood boil, even without the heatwave.

We cannot just pretend that they [sexual stereotypes] don’t exist if we want children to grow up as reflective questioning individuals. It is the discussion and reflection that comes out of these lessons that is important in the context of the whole wider programme

Which sounds very laudable but doesn’t explain why they are teaching children that a child who doesn’t fit those stereotypes is neither boy nor girl, rather than that the existence of that child proves the stereotypes are wrong. So what they are teaching is the opposite of questioning stereotypes (unless their only concern is the specific “stereotype” (or in this case fact) that girls are female and boys are male.)

Even in the 1950s stereotypes weren’t taught and enforced like this. The stereotypes may have been widely accepted, and homosexuality was illegal, but nobody told kids they were somehow in the wrong body if they didn’t conform.

When I see school materials like this I always think of The Apprentice where they have put the wrong person to the task and only have 40 minutes left to get it all together!