Age-appropriate sex education set to be enforced by Sunak administration

[ChristinaXYZ]

Article in the Telegraph this evening - apt as Clare Page is gardening to challenge the ICO's decision on parents being able to see materials. (Usual place "Transparency In Schools - FOI Appeal To Access Secret Lesson Plan")

BAck to the DT article

"There are concerns that third-party companies are exposing schoolchildren to explicit content and contentious ideas about gender....

The Prime Minister wants to strengthen guidance for teachers on relationships and sex education (RSE) to make sure children are only taught lessons that are age-appropriate.

It comes amid concerns that some schools are contracting sex education out to third-party companies which are exposing youngsters to explicit content and contentious ideas about gender.

Parents would also be given greater rights to request sight of the materials, even if they are provided by a commercial organisation, under the plans.

Current Government guidance on relationships and sex education makes clear that parents should have visibility of what is being taught to their children, such as the books used in lessons....

But parents have complained that they are being denied access to contentious resources in areas such as race, transgender and sex education where external inclusion companies provide them.

Earlier this month the Information Commissioner ruled that parents are forbidden from receiving a copy of the content of sex education lessons which urged children to become transgender allies...."

read more

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/27/age-appropriate-sex-education-set-enforced-sunak-administration/

And no details but the article ends:

"Mr Sunak also intends to look to review the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex rather than gender.

This would mean that biological males cannot compete in women’s sport and other single-sex facilities such as changing rooms and women’s refuges will be protected.

It would also mean clarifying that self-identification for transgender people does not have legal force, meaning transgender women have no legal right to access women-only facilities.

A Downing Street source said that protecting women and girls is a priority for Mr Sunak’s administration."

The above does not quite make sense as I don't think amending the Equality Act of itself would mean that spaces all become single sex suddenly unless the government is moving on that separately. And I believe transwomen don't have the right to enter spaces declared 'single sex' now - the problem is so few places actually declare their toilets or changing rooms absolutely single sex. What would be good would be if the government would say they (pubs, shops and other businesses) have to have single sex spaces and may have unisex in addition. Fingers crossed!

Like the principles, but Gillian Keegan (education sec) is all TWAW, so I wonder how it will actually play out

She was, but women in her constituency have met with her recently and seem to think she understands the concerns. She also supports the Cass Review.

I had educate and celebrate recommended recently. Are they one to avoid?

Yes. They are gender identity evangelists.

I think the problem in the past has been that the external provider has made a contract with school that their resources cannot be shared due to 'copyright'. The schools have then said we can't share. Some I believe made compromises whereby parents could go into the school to look at them. Total mess.

I'd like to see part of this being clear or put into legislation that schools must not enter into contracts for these materials which mean there's any barrier that would stop them sharing the materials with parents, and with the parents of prospective pupils.

Preferably I'd want that in law so there can be no fudge or grey areas. It should have the effect of stopping these dodgy "charities" making a pile of cash and undermining safeguarding. It's the very least we as parents could ask or expect.

Age appropriate sex education was proposed in Florida, but that got re-branded as the "Don't say Gay" bill by activists.

Be very careful how the media and activists try to re-brand this.

I would be worried if they were coming to my school. Some info here from Safe Schools Alliance
safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2022/02/20/the-neu-educate-and-celebrate/

That would be very welcome

meanwhile Labour have renewed their commitment to throwing child safeguarding away.

Age appropriate sex education was proposed in Florida, but that got re-branded as the "Don't say Gay" bill by activists.

Be very careful how the media and activists try to re-brand this.

My first thought too, you can just imagine the likes of The Guardian and OJ and others, it will be all “Section 28 again.” However, after the recent incidents with Mermaids, I’m slightly hopeful they will think twice.

For this reason, it might have been a politically savvy move to appoint someone seen as open-minded as education secretary - not someone who's obviously GC.

He is the father of two girls. I hope he has strong feelings about single sex spaces.

I don't think the ed sec is GC @Sidaway

Excellent. Thanks for that.

It is written by the Chief Political Correspondent, Camilla Turner, and you know what they do - talk to MPs, ministers, press offices, Downing Street all day and sometimes all night.

The very first sentence is indicative of briefing, signalled in that time-honoured phrase: 'The Telegraph understands':

"Rishi Sunak plans to clamp down on inappropriate sex education classes in schools, The Telegraph understands."

That very sentence also has a link to an article all about Miriam Cates's speeches / debates about the nature of what is being taught in schools about sex.

And the article ends with another old media familiar, namely a 'source', but not any old source:

"A Downing Street source said that protecting women and girls is a priority for Mr Sunak’s administration."

There you have it. As David Frost used to say on that television programme: 'The clues are there!'

Highly political this, putting it out in front and against the direct signals coming from the Labour opposition. Also appeals to the party members where popularity has been lukewarm and could do with a boost.

The use of terminology that you highlight is also highly political. I don't mean in this article but the use of words to mean their opposite by a movement or ideology is deliberate and key to achieving its ends. We need to resist this and hold on to meaning instead of obeying the diktats of hostile activists.

It would also mean clarifying that self-identification for transgender people does not have legal force, meaning transgender women have no legal right to access women-only facilities.

This paragraph suggests that those males who get a GRC will be able to access women-only facilities, by saying only those who self-id have no such right.

The EA does provide for excluding even those with GRCs, so this is actually a bit disappointing. It reads as if neither Sunak nor the journalist is aware of this.

As the GRA includes a privacy clause, that prevents anyone from asking anyone else whether they have a GRC, let alone asking to see it, it does nothing at all for women to say those who do have one can come in, while those who do not can be excluded. Any man can present himself at e.g. a refuge and say he is a woman, and if the refuge has to allow in men with GRCs, they have to let them all in.

I don't think the ed sec is GC

No, but she seems to care about safeguarding children from what I've seen.

And if she starts to drill down into the sexist, porny guff being taught to children in schools, she might change her mind.

There's nothing like reading what adult men are teaching kids about gender ideology and sex education to focus your mind on what is appropriate.

Rishi Sunak is a dad and really likes data.

I'm planning to send him an email with some data/facts on the law in this area. He may not read them, but it might be worth a shot?

God I hope he does.

This is a very good point I hadn't thought of.
It doesn't actually matter what she has said before. Only what she listens to & does next. Someone who is not already tied to the gc camp in anyone's mind might be positive. If she is open minded and evidence led.

Bet it's no coincidence that the Mermaids paedophile / porn / safeguarding scandal has unfolded, along with Educate & Celebrate's dodgy choice of patrons to talk to children at the same time that the Sunak has made this commitment. You don't have to be a social worker to see that self interested adults sharing their personal fascination / experiences about sexual identity with young children is a Savile like disaster waiting to happen.

Plus all the clueless adults running Stonewall / LGBT school groups for mixed age children to discuss sex / sexuality in school & age inappropriate SRE materials from the queer theory groups and the evidence is all there. Finally the press are starting report it. Schools have been protected from much of this scrutiny, but not for much longer - especially now we see who's being invited in to speak to children.

While nobody's allowed to ask to see a GRC, though, they ARE allowed to ask for a birth certificate (in situations such as refuges, job applications etc for example). So it would be possible to exclude self-ID transwomen on that basis, as theirs will say "male", while allowing those with a GRC, whose birth cert. will say "female". Not much use for toilets, changing rooms etc. though of course, as you can't really demand to see a birth cert then.

The difficulty then is that when you want to use the EqA exemptions to exclude ALL males, even those with a GRC, it's very difficult to prove that a TW with a GRC is not eligible, as they can wave their "female" birth certificate, but can't be required to state whether they have a GRC (which would mean they are not actually female). So even though it may seem pretty obvious to an observer that they are male, there's no legitimate way of proving this to justify excluding them from the space or position - on paper they are the same as an actual woman. So this is one of the main issues with making GRCs available to a much wider group than before.

How in the hell did the GRA get through with such dodgy secret stuff. The mind boggles.

The more you look at the GRA and the debates at the time, the more it seems logical Labour will not budge on it or on single sex spaces. It is a mess that needs post-legislative scrutiny. They won't want to get into examining it as regards success/failure because it leads directly back to them.

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/high-court-sex-education-wales-25517931#comments-wrapper

Reading this it seems the Welsh government think the Welsh people are too dumb to understand what it's aims are so pointless trying to explain anything to them.

Patriarchal or supremely arrogant

From the comments.

Welsh Government have published something called the AGENDA pack, for primary schools (children aged 7-11 years old), to support RSE. It says that 'gender identity' is a person's 'inner sense of self', and that children's feelings about gender identity 'start early, around the age of 2-3'. This is an extraordinarily contentious statement, offered up as fact. So the claims that Welsh Govt do not teach very small children about gender identity is simply not true. The AGENDA pack tells schools that every child has a 'gender identity' which they can have 'feelings' about before they start school.

Teaching preschoolers that there's no such thing as sex, and they mustn't identify if someone is a male.