LGBT+ Guide given to Scottish Primary Scools

[Igneococcus]

In the Times Scotland:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3ab701e8-1990-11ec-904c-3b07d8edb6cf?shareToken=ff88ef8c57a48eb4121d989f4a2e2e3a

The comments are heartening, being a parent of a primary school aged child in Scotland is more terrifying.

at the moment than I could have imagined.

The comment from the guide's author mentioning suicide again. Even if the stats weren't dubious this is really irresponsible.

The author of a guide promoted by the Scottish government as a key resource on sensitive matters of identity, biology and development is... a drama graduate.

Jolly good.

Yet again the Stergon squad is trying to slip more gender crap into schools under the radar. Full steam ahead with the indoctrination of the children and remember that under the hate crime bill you can now be reported for saying that TWAM in your own home.
Is anyone else getting the idea that the Stergon squad are using the Hitler youth/gestapo model of running Scotland

'the text, to be launched on Saturday and given privately to schools in Dumfries & Galloway initially'

D&G is traditionally skewed the most Tory of Scottish local authorities. Largely rural population. It's not Edinburgh. Will be interesting to see how this goes down.

Yea that is interesting. The SNP have nowt to lose in Dumfries and Galloway. Rather like the Tories trying out the Poll Tax in Scotland first. Hmm.

Parents have a right to see this guidance. Even if they're only trialling it in Dumfries and Galloway, where is the guide?

And I'm particularly interested in seeing a child friendly definition of gender identity. The Scottish Government does not have a definition of gender identity for adults (when asked you'll be told they use "the usual one" without telling you what that is). Does it now have one that three to 12-year-olds can understand?

I mean you cannot teach children - as this guide claims to do - about the difference between sex and gender (which would be a laudable effort) but then bring in pronouns, which suggests they don't mean gender but gender identity.

I have added to the critical comments.
I can’t say I’m at all surprised that the SNP, having overseen Scotland’s slide down the international education league tables, are now allowing a drama student, with no relevant professional qualifications, to indoctrinate a generation of children.
There is not a single area of government in which they excel. With the possible exception of propaganda/media manipulation.
The economy, health and education are going to hell in a handcart.

I mean you cannot teach children - as this guide claims to do - about the difference between sex and gender (which would be a laudable effort) but then bring in pronouns, which suggests they don't mean gender but gender identity.

Yes, quite. The two ideas - 'sex/gender' and 'gender identity' seem sort of immiscible. Maybe 'gender identity' only makes sense when you carefully avoid 'sex'?

I have explained to both of my children the difference between sex and gender. They effectively understand gender as stereotypes/expectations applied to people because of their sex. And biological sex as biological sex.

In very simple terms you can teach that just because lots of people think girls should wear pink and boys shouldn't wear pink doesn't mean anything.

But then I don't really know how you'd start with 'gender identity'. I find that because my children have always understood that they can play with whatever toys they please and their sex has no bearing on what clothes they choose to wear (although they also understand societal pressure does exist, hence different uniforms for boys/girls, etc) they don't really tie clothing/toys/appearance to sex so much - so what would you call 'gender identity'?

If you know that 'gender' is only artificially applied to sex, then what is 'gender identity'? Anyone of any sex can 'identify' with any toys/clothes/colours/behaviours - so 'gender identity' collapses and becomes not very meaningful. IME.

There is not a single area of government in which they excel. With the possible exception of propaganda/media manipulation

They definitely provide an exceptional example of this.

Ah, my mistake. It's not guidance for primary schools but simply a book written for nine to 11-year olds called

"What Does LGBT+ Mean? – A Guide for Young People (and Grown Ups)"

Olly livestreamed about the book today and went through the whole book (starts at 11 mins 30)

The first page is titled "Notes for Grownups & Teachers". Then the publisher page, a repeat of the title page, a page with LGBT+ flags stitched together (this is also on the inside of the title page and the back page), then the contents page.

First double page is is titled "Hello" (on the left) and "What to look out for" (on the right). Holly reads this introduction in full, then chats

The next double page is titled "Identity"

At 14:54
"I feel like what this book is really is the first chapter: identity. Like this is what it's about. It's ... about how our identity is made up of ... Like not just one thing, but lots of things and some of these things will not change but some of them will. For example you know our skin colour won't change or where we were born won't change but things that can change is things that we like So yeah that's kind of what the first chapter is about and then all the other chapters relate back to this chapter."

The double page spread is in the colours of the trans flag (main colour pink, blue sprinkled throughout) and I won't assume that this is accidental.

Next double page is titled "Assigned sex"(on left) and "Gender as a spectrum" (on right)

With "Gender" and "Pronouns" as headings on the bottom half of each page.

Olly says: "And all of this is really like an introductory guide as well, so this book isn't meant to be ... so this is exactly what it is ... it's kind of like the first stepping stone ... it's aimed at like nine to eleven year-olds ... so it needs to be kind of like very very basic because gender ... umm ... You know there's so many ideas about gender as well ... which is amazing ... Because you know we should be allowed to have different ideas about it but what we're trying to do is ... yeah ... just kind of ... put across this in the most basic way that kind of builds the foundation for what LGBT+ education is. Yeah, we talk about assigned sex, gender, gender as a spectrum and pronouns."

Next double page: headings
"Transgender" (on left) "Non-binary" (on right)

Continues: "We then talk about what transgender means and I think the best thing about this book is that we've had so much help writing it [explains it was co-authored with a former primary school teacher and her PhD-student son, that Mermaids looked over this section]

Next page
"Intersex" (on left) "Gender as stereotypes"(on right)

Olly gets excited here "Ooh, intersex!" And goes on to explain that they paid an intersex activist called Anick Soni for help with this page. (Anick has a DSD that meant he was born with ambiguous genitalia and is very much processing what happened to him throughout his childhood in India - stigma and lots of surgeries - by focusing on "sex as a spectrum". His website contains things like "1.7% of people are born intersex" and articles like
"What is a woman", placing Anick firmly on one side of this debate, even though he is at pains to stress that intersex does not equal transgender. He clearly hopes that including the "I" in LGBT will improve the lives of children like him.)

Back to the book and I would just like to point out that we are about half into the content of a book about LGBT and there has been no sign of LGB yet.

Next double page heading is "Romantic Love" which includes an info box on "Aromantic" (including this in a book aimed at children who developmentally speaking are unlikely to have felt romantic attraction is at the very least questionable, if not irresponsible). Even though this page includes drawings of gay and lesbian couples, Olly wastes no time talking about that. The only thing he seeks to emphasise is aromantics.

Next double page is headed "Sexual orientation" which includes heterosexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual and asexual (again including this for children at an age before most are experiencing sexual feelings is questionable in my view).

Olly says "And then this chapter on sexual orientation which we wrote and rewrote and rewrote and rewrote and had conversations about and super-happy where it is now. Just kind of listing you know all ... you know ... not all of them but like just a few of like the sexual orientations which will kind of build the foundation for kids to help them understand what sexual orientation is"

The accompanying animated video, which Olly refers to, makes clear that sexual orientation is not based on sex in his view but on sex or gender or sex and gender.

The next double page is headed "Privilege"
which contains a simplified explanation and a list of privileges. While race or religion or disability or gender are included here, sex is not. Neither is poverty or class.

This is followed by a double page on "Discrimination" where Olly explains that after long deliberation they decided to include information about the law as it is (the Equality Act, giving all 9 protected characteristics as written in the Act), but then introduce the idea that the law isn't inclusive enough.

(This may be confusing for the children, because the privilege and discrimination pages now contradict each other by one excluding sex while the other includes it.)

The next double page is about "The First Pride" which starts off with the Stonewall riots and then talks about "queer LGBT liberation" and pride celebrations around the world.

The next double page is headed "How can I help" (on the left) which talks about allies, and "What does LGBT mean" (on the right) which explains the acronym and immediately adds a few more letters to throw into the mix, but Olly only mentions Queer.

The next double page is headed "LGBT+ people" and is full of drawings of the same.

The last page is headed "LGBT flags" (on the left) and "Need to talk" (on the right) giving phone numbers for children to call either Childline or Mermaids.

This is followed by six pages of self promotion and one page of thanks.

So to recap, including the introduction, this is 27 pages of actual content out of a 40-page book. Now that proportion doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that this is promoted as LGBT education and that there is so little about LGB in it.

So there you have it. A book about LGBT that doesn't explain LGB is about sexual attraction on the basis of sex and introduces the idea of privilege to primary school children, but omits sex even after explaining that sex and gender are not the same.

Tl;dr: this book indoctrinates children on Olly's preferred interpretation of sex, gender and sexual orientation. In my view it is unscientific, contradictory, confusing and misleading.

From the article: "“It’s vital we teach about LGBT+ identities in school because we know LGBT+-related bullying is the most common form of bullying in UK schools and that young LGBT+ people are far more likely to self-harm and attempt to take their own life.”"

How do they "know" this? Really? In primary schools? Is gender identity really what 7 year olds tease each other about? I am just sensing a little bit of projection here.

And I have to say I find the way in which constant references are made to the risk of self-harm and suicidal ideation in gender-questioning children by gender ideologists really disturbing.

Coercive control: "if you don't do what I want, I'll kill myself (and you don't want me to die, do you?)"
Gender ideologists: "if you don't do what we want, they'll kill themselves! (and you don't want children to die, DO YOU?)"

How is it different?