Telegraph: Sex education for three-year-olds in Wales branded 'extreme and unbalanced'

[ResisterRex]

This is an outline of the hearings which seem to have begun. Perhaps most chilling of all, is that children now don't seem to be children, but "learners":

"A Welsh Government spokesman said: "Learners will only learn topics that are appropriate to their age and development."

This is what the barrister for the parents said:

"Paul Diamond, a barrister representing parents, said the RSE code was "the most extreme and unbalanced documents there could be".
"When parents send their children to school they don't expect to have psycho-sexual theories and 'plus issues' taught from the age of three," he said.
"This is the most comprehensive change in the school environment and it places its entire focus on one issue, that of LGBTQ+."

Then this for very young children:

"The RSE code says that from the age of three, lessons should promote "an awareness of how to communicate wants and needs in relationships" and "awareness of how needs relate to rights"."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/15/sex-education-three-year-olds-wales-branded-extreme-unbalanced/

I would be calling the police on anyone who was talking sex to my 3 year old child

I agree
children are curious about sex of course they are- can't you all remember being a child? We don't want to go back to the days of 'don't touch yourself there, it's disgusting'.
and being curious about gender differences surely means being curious about gender, which is a good thing. If we aren't curious about gender how on earth will things ever change- we'll just be stuck forever in a world of rigid gender roles unless we are curious about gender.

I agree with mumoffloofs, that is

I haven’t RTFT, but I just want to remind everyone that parents cannot take their children out of RSE lessons in schools in Wales as of this school year.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/mandatory-sex-education-lessons-go-24917018

It's not about being curious, it's saying normal childhood developments re curiosity is sexually motivated including between ages of zero and five.

You don't need to read the article, you can go straight to the safe schools alliance analysis.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/A_Review_of_the_Relationships_and_Sexuality_Education_Curriculum_in_Wales_-_October_2022.pdf

Three and four year olds should learn the proper names for their genitals to cut down on shame and to insure they can explain things if they are hurt or abused. They need to learn babies don’t come from the Argos catalog. They need to learn it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, but families can look very different.
I’m a lesbian who is not comfortable with the origins and practice of Queer Theory. Foucault thought eight year olds could give sexual consent to adults. Don’t get me started (insert rant here).

I don’t think children are that sexual naturally. I distinctly remember in year 6 when we had our first boys and girls body part education at school, that afterwards some kids with older siblings were gossiping and giggling about sex. No one really knew what it was properly or they just didn’t explain it to me, and I remember going home and my parents explained it was the difference between a man and a woman. The dictionary agreed and in my smug and naive geeky child ways I thought well those kids don’t know what they are talking about 🤣

And then a year later in beginning of secondary I found out what sex actually was. And the memory is seared in my mind because it wasn’t often my parents got one over on me as I was very much an annoying know it all! 🤣

Anyway sorry for the tangent. It’s unclear what’s actually being taught so not sure I can comment.

Datun, thanks for the SSA aalysis:
safeschoolsallianceuk.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/A_Review_of_the_Relationships_and_Sexuality_Education_Curriculum_in_Wales_-_October_2022.pdf

My own Googling turned up gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-01/curriculum-for-wales-relationships-sexuality-education-code.pdf

A scan of terms gave "Phrase not found" for girl, boy, girls, boys; but gave five (5) results for LGBTQ+.

Menstrual gave 4 results, but further reading gave no indication as to who exactly is involved. Menstruation - 0 results. Pregnancy - 1 result, no further info.

Leads me to ask - how do people, let alone children, know what "LGBTQ+" means, if they don't understand get to understand basic human and mammalian biology? And human history? Or is that the whole point; and it's not a bug, it's a feature?

It's just PoMo fucking about, then, really. And it just serves very well to shore up our existing patriarchal power structures. Spit.

Also did search on female and male - zero results.

How the fuck can you have a "Relationships and Sexuality Education Code" that has absolutely no instances of the words: female, male, girl, boy, girls, boys?

If you're teaching gender theory, you cant. None of those words can have a definition that doesn't undermine it.

From little children right up to the leader of the opposition, no-one knows what any of those words mean, or what sex even is.

Yes, Datun, that's what I'm starting to understand. And it makes me despair, it really does.

In this scenario, how on earth do they explain pregnancy and childbirth? A totally random event, like lightning strikes?

But all children need is to be taught how to challenge gender stereotypes. So that the boys playing in the kitchen and wearing princess dresses ante not either ridiculed or told they must be girls. You don't need. Curriculum based on queer theory to do that.

Aligning normal child development with children being sexual beings is not the same as understanding normal childhood development in order to spot signs of abuse. These two concepts are worlds apart.

To the poster who said you can take children out, this new curriculum does not allow for it and embeds this queer theory influenced across the whole curriculum

If the whole analysis is difficult to read, a summary of it has been published on our news page:

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2022/10/09/welsh-rse-code-queer-theory/

I can't read the article, but all of this pearl clutching just proves to me that people are not reading the actual code. There's nothing surprising on there. There's mention of teaching of sexual relationships at 11+, and not before. There's mention of gender issues at 3+ and 11+, but it says that the lessons should challenge stereotypes. Good.
I cannot for the life of me see what the problem is from a GC stand point really. As for SSA link, I'm failing to see anything but speculation and clutching at straws.

As for learners, I worked in Wales for a decade. 'Learners' is how children have been referred to in every curriculum for yonks. It's not that deep.

But all children need is to be taught how to challenge gender stereotypes.

That's exactly what the code asks educators to do.

No it doesn't. It asks that educators address this under the umbrella of transgender identity. It's quite the opposite of challenging stereotypes. It's assuming that those who do not conform are likely to be trans.

Have you read the analysis of it?

The fact you call concerns about safeguard "pearl clutching" is a red flag in itself. The whole code is influenced by queer theory which seeks to break down societal boundaries and overrides safeguarding.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2022/10/09/welsh-rse-code-queer-theory/

Not just can't read the article, but the thread, which contains an archived link, analysis and reasoning.

Can't read, or won't read?

"This new RSE Code was chiefly designed by two academics who subscribe to queer theory, EJ Renold and Ester McGeeney. The Code is based on the idea that queer theory should make its way into the classroom as part of the ‘perpetual revolution’.
Prior to the final version of the Code, two major preparatory documents were written up to justify their changing of the curriculum content and its title from ‘sex’ to ‘sexuality’. These documents contain no testable hypotheses or evidence-based research.

Yeah i did the analysis. I thought it was a lot of hot air. Then I read the actual code and could not see anything inappropriate about it.

"Not that deep". "Pearl clutching" "a load of hot air".

Anything more constructive to say?

For example, how can you challenge stereotypes when you have redefined sex and insist everyone instead has a gender identity.

"The Redefinition of Sex
The redefinition of biological sex within the Welsh government curriculum code and guidance is indicative of the influence of posthumanism and Queer Theory. In the Welsh curriculum guidance (Document D), which is now in use in schools across Wales, male and female instead follow the tenets of Queer Theory, and are redefined as “genders” from a spectrum with which one must identify, distinctly separate from sex. The transition to this posthumanist mode of thought begins with the scientifically inaccurate definition of sex"

The resources make reference to ‘The Good Sex Project’, in which McGeeney cites Gayle Rubin’s ‘Charmed Circle’: here the concept of ‘erotic injustice’ is discussed in relation to the fact that children are prevented from engaging in certain sexual activities such as ‘cross-generational sex’, pornography and prostitution.

Erotic injustice.

It's notable how so many people seem to view children's lack of a 'sex life' as reely sad for them. Deprivation almost. For them. It's always about ' providing something' for the poor child. Their rights. Them.

Children's rights to sex. Move along, nothing to see here.

Anyone who subscribes to gender ideology is hellbent on reinforcing gender stereotypes. Transgenderism relies on them to exist. It's the whole point. You cant have a 'gender identify' without them. That's what it is.

How are they challenging gender stereotypes if they cant define girl, boy, man, woman? How are they challenging homophobia if they cant define homosexuality?