The Global Boyhood Initiative

[MalagaNights]

Does anyone know much about this?

I've read this: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11882547/DAN-WOOTTON-Prince-Harry-Meghan-just-joined-war-men-plaguing-society.html

Yes it's the daily mail and yes it's attacking H &M.

I'm not interested in the H&M angle but did read it and wonder what GC feminists would think about the project?

On one hand it seems to fit with the GC position but then uses language such as 'boyhood is fluid' etc which is leaning towards gender ideology.
It seems an example of how they can be seen to overlap or at least GC be used as an explanation for gender ideology.

This organisation states (apparently, I haven't looked in to it beyond this article) that families enforce gender norms and heterosexuality.
Seems like they believe they and not parents should be bringing up the kids?

I'm not a gender critical feminist nor a gender ideologist and I personally really would not want these people near my kids with any of their beliefs.

Another misjudgement from the Markles.

It’s interesting that the author believes it would’ve been harmful to him, a bullied, gender non conforming boy who grew up to be gay man, seeing as ostensibly it’s a project aimed at helping boys who are harmed by stereotyping.

I think it’s very easy to tip the balance from a genuine desire to tackle harmful stereotypes into creating a new set of harmful stereotypes (or perhaps a new way to apply the old stereotypes?)

I'll come back to this as i think I found it recently and couldn't find anything wrong with it but I never trust these things now!

I think it's an example of how GC theory opens up the gate to gender ideology.

They have separated children's conceptual understanding of the word 'boy' from the categorisation of people with male genitalia. They've told children it's bad when people identify babies as boy or girl (GC feminists would mean it's bad when people treat babies as as boy or girl but is this distinction clear to children here?)

They talk about boyhood as fluid. Fluid into or across what? If you describe things or personalities into girl or boy, then aren't you opening up the possibility that boys can be fluid into the girl spectrum. Is this clear this doesn't mean they can now be girls, as they've been told what they like is more true of who they are than their bodies.

It's easy to see how this leads to belief in gender neutral child rearing, gender assigned at birth type thinking and gender is fluid so define yourself theory.

The GC point that your body is real and requires a clear and defined label is just lost in this belief system & confusion of some explaining gender fluidity.m to children.

Also it's just another ideology. Why should anyone have their kids exposed at school to GC ideology or gender ideology or an unclear mishmash between them, if this isn't what they as parents believe.

This stuff needs to be out of schools altogether.

Boys do need teaching & support to learn how to behave well and what is expected of them as people and as boys& men , but that doesn't require all this ideological priming with it.

Op you say "I think it's an example of how GC theory opens up the gate to gender ideology.". What is GC ideology, in your view?

Gender identity ideology: if a boy likes pink/plays with dolls he must be a girl, a girl who likes blue and football is really a boy

GC: girls and boys can play with any toys, they cannot change sex and toy choice is not evidence of an opposite sex gendered soul

One is patent nonsense and one is true. I'm not sure how it's the fault if people who believe the truth that other people believe something bonkers. Not just bonkers, but the precise opposite!

GC theory and gender ideology both believe gender is a social construct unrelated to biology, and this project is suggesting children should be taught that.

That is a belief and not a fact.

Many other people however believe gender roles are related to biology and that on average girls and boys are different have different interests and make different choices.

Why if you believe gender is related to biology should your children be taught in school that it's purely a social construct? It's just another imposition of a belief system.

Yes both GC feminists and those who may think gender is connected to biology agree that biological sex is real whilst the gender ideologists want to at least avoid naming this reality but they have different views about gender.

Can you not see how terms such as boyhood is fluid, gender is wrongly identified at birth etc muddy the water for kids and it's a very easy step to: you have a gender identity and we must prioritise this above your sex which is an irrelevance?

I wouldn't want my kids taught any of this. Just that biological sex is real and there are acceptable boundaries of behaviour we all agree in school whether you are a boy or girl
That's enough.

MalagaNights · Today 09:17

Your post is interesting and I do see your point.

I myself am not really GC or a feminist as I do not believe that while biology is real, so called gender (it used to be grammar till relatively recently) is entirely a social construct bearing no relation to biology.

While I agree a huge amount is stereotyping, I think there are elements which are not.

It would be extremely difficult to measure which is which though. I also think it is possible within the ‘confines’ of masculinity to have an apparently more feminine boy, and vice versa without losing masculinity or femininity. I do not personally believe in a definite ‘gender identity’, though people may feel they want to present or work in a more stereotypically masculine or feminine way.

While the associated stereotypes vary culturally, I think most cultures do try to use dress etc to mark out the two sexes. Mightn’t this mean that doing so has served a purpose through the centuries?

In churches some churches now, the Bible for reading at the pulpit has anything with ‘man’ crossed out, though the Lord’s Prayer is still ‘Our father’ and Jesus is he. This muddle started long before trans ideology was common, but has helped pave the way for language to be nudged in a direction of choice.

The Telegraph article I read (haven’t read the Mail one yet) had quotes from Miriam Cates MP and Safe Schools Alliance -

Miriam Cates, the Conservative MP, said she was worried that a stated aim of the Global Boyhood Initiative’s relationships and sex education curriculum was to train young children to become “agents of change for gender and social justice”.

She said: “Attempting to ‘re-educate’ small children for reasons of political activism is indoctrination and an abuse of the trust that children place in teachers and parents place in schools.”

She added: “It is also concerning that the Global Boyhood Initiative says they have widened their net to include ‘children of all genders’, which suggests they hold to an extreme position on gender ideology.”

Tanya Carter, of Safe Schools Alliance UK, said: “Children are male or female, boys or girls. We don’t understand why a school would need to get an outside agency in to challenge gender stereotypes in a primary school. This is done very simply by ensuring all children get equal access to resources and that no activities are deemed ‘for boys’ or ‘for girls’.

“Of course children shouldn’t be limited by their sex in a primary school and gender stereotypes should be challenged, but this is school culture stuff. Schools must be very careful that anything delivered to children is for their benefit and not because adults want to spread their particular worldview.”

"Schools must be very careful that anything delivered to children is for their benefit and not because adults want to spread their particular worldview.”

I think this conveys my concerns with this initiative. Even GC views shouldn't be taught to children.

General agreement in school that there are biological boys and girls and they all have the same opportunities and expectations for behaviour is sufficient.

Parents personal views on gender roles or identity is then up to them to convey to their children.