What does schools must not teach children they are born in the wrong body mean for PSHE?

[BulletandtheBullseye]

What does this update to the department of education guidelines look like in practice?

Does use of gender identity, agdender, genderfluid and pansexual contravene this new guidance?

How?

Of course I think it does. But when arguing with schools who think it doesn’t what would you say? This is for primary if it makes any difference. For children with autism also.

Is there any way of school teaching gender identity that doesn’t involve teaching children they can be born in the wrong body?

They could be teaching stereotypes are bad and some (many of us) don’t identify with the stereotypes pushed onto our sex or they could teach a small extreme have gender dysphoria and how it is a mh condition that needs my help and not discrimination or bullying (or those peoples safeguards taken away from them) but this is in the relationship section so i fear it’s gender ideology that will harm my kids and need help to articulate without screaming that the school themselves is what kids need safeguards from if they push this brainwashing.

I don’t know what it means… most teachers will ignore it…

Does use of gender identity, agender, genderfluid and pansexual contravene this new guidance? This is interesting, I teach Year 6 SRE and none of these words feature in our lessons so not an issue, I don't think. I haven't read the updated guidance so will do.

It does at my kids school. I’ve just seen the documentation that lists these.

Even if teachers would choose to ignore these terms in practice they are on the documentation they use. Which means other teachers may see this as a sign to use these terms. It is in direct contradiction with assurances they will follow the Department of Education guidelines. It’s a safeguarding risk.

They have other sections about discussing stereotypes and how we shouldn’t be limited by them. Then reinforce an ideology that relies on teaching that any girl who doesn’t declare she’s a girl must identify with being submissive, her body an object for men to have access to. It suggests she can opt out of misogyny and male violence she’s victim of by choosing to be a boy. And she desperately wants to find a way to escape that at present as it’s happened in school. She has autism, so black and white thinking. There’s no way of teaching gender identity without teaching her she might be born in the wrong body and she will take that literally and that translates as school teaching a very vulnerable girl to access male toilets. It’s setting her up to be even more vulnerable.

Of course just now she won’t have free reign when out to go off to the men’s. But she will need independence soon and us teaching her how to be safe when out with friends goes out the window if school have been pushing her to accept that she can be born in the wrong body and opt out of the male violence and misogyny by choosing to be a boy. Teaching this ideology in any form is a safeguarding risk. And it ignores department of education guidance. A school that thinks it’s ok to ignore department of education is a risk in itself.

But I can’t say that. I need to articulate how these terms contravene the Department of Education guidance and how that’s not optional.

Even if they skimmed over this the likelihood is it will be brought up by kids as there are kids in the class who have older siblings/parents who identify as trans. When my kid asks we are very clear that so and so prefers this name & these clothes now & we respect that because anyone can like any clothes/names. But that boys can’t be girls and if the boys say they feel girly and follow them to the toilets they need to scream the house down. They need facts. Not schools taking away their ability to name material reality and voice concerns. I can’t see how there’s any way schools use these terms without dismantling safeguarding. I can’t see how they can follow the Department of Education guidelines and teach this.

But they will argue they can. Or it’s not a big thing in class discussions and so on.

So I need arguments. The concise, succinct kind they can’t worm their way out of.

So any help please!!

*any girl who doesn’t declare she’s a boy

I think it means just that: we must not teach them that their bodies may be the “wrong” ones for their “true selves”.

The guidance also says we must teach them “facts and the law” about gender identity “in an age-appropriate way”. Thanks to the guidance, we now teach them that “some people believe that they have a gender identity” etc.

But I can’t say that. I need to articulate how these terms contravene the Department of Education guidance and how that’s not optional.

As far as I remember the guidance also asserted that any teaching has to be evidence based. There is none for gender identity.

Try safe schools alliance. This is totally their area.

BulletandtheBullseye are they using a particular scheme at your school? It seems that this is the issue. There isn't a set scheme that schools must use, although they must cover all the statutory areas of the curriculum. I'd be curious to know what your school is using to compare it with what we have chosen in our school.

They could teach that some people don't feel like their body reflects who they are / who they want to be? Then look into the reasons, maybe.

Safe schools alliance have factsheets and letter templates which might be useful.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/

They aren’t using any scheme. They were very clear last year they don’t do that and that’s clearly true.

It reads like it is an old stonewall written plan that they have adapted for themselves. Poorly. In a way that doesn’t meet the new guidelines.

Teaching people don’t identify as stereotypes pushed on their sex is great.

But then why have it in the relationships section? What stereotypes we buy into (and does any woman out there identify with being a gentle and submissive sex object??) has nothing to do with sexuality.

If gender identity were in the combating stereotypes section then fair enough. Or even in identity (although I’d be asking what they mean by that and ensuring their definition and explanation met the updated guidelines).

But it’s in relationships. Along with the use of genderfluid, pansexual, cis gender and everything else that comes from gender ideology and isn’t evidence based.

I have ssa links and tt saved and will go through them. They are great but I’m looking to be direct about the specific problems with these terms with regard to department of education update and the safeguarding risks, especially for a girl with autism. In a way they can brush off by claiming it does comply with it.

I’m great with persuasive arguments and knowing all the information. I’m terrible with being concise and unemotional. So looking for how other parents would phrase this, because you all are likely wiser than me.

Hip (I’m sorry I just signed up here so don’t know how to bold this)

It’s gender reassignment that’s a protected characteristic. Not gender identity. That’s just a meaningless term that has no evidence base to back it up.

Can gender reassignment be taught in an age appropriate manor for ten year olds with send/autism?

If so why should it be in the relationships section of the plan and not under mental health.

And why would teaching about gender reassignment in any section of pshe education require teaching about genderfluid people, pansexuality, cis gender or agender, again all in the relationships section. Following heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual. All of which are protected by laws and are words that have meaning, especially important to children with autism who have ehcps documentation that teachers and educational psychologist are in agreement that factual, accurate terminology is important for teaching pshe to them and for safeguarding. Pansexual isn’t in our laws, nor can it be- sex is binary so we can be attracted to same, opposite, both or neither. Genderfluid isn’t in our laws, nor is cis gender or agender.

This is helping to clarify my thoughts though so thank you for input. I expect it’s the type of illogical point they might make (with good intentions, but still inaccurate).