Mumsnet Logo
My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

Don’t politicise Relationships, Sex & Health Education, 50+ VAWG experts warn

27 replies

IwantToRetire · 24/03/2023 16:43

In the wake of a number of devastating and high-profile murders of women, the exposure of misogyny and racism in our police forces, and the rising impact of online misogynist influencers – the government has often restated its commitment to tackling violence against women and girls. Prevention work, including RSHE, is a critical part of the government’s Tackling VAWG Strategy – which commits that the Department for Education will better support teachers to deliver the RSHE curriculum. As such, we were keenly awaiting the scheduled review of the RSHE statutory guidance, which we now understand the government intends to bring forward by a number of months.

In light of recent headlines – which have the potential to incite opposition to much needed RSHE delivery in schools, we are seeking assurances that the upcoming review will not be unnecessarily politicised, and will be focused on what children and young people need to live happy and healthy lives, and the urgent need to do more to tackle VAWG and the rising influence of online misogyny in schools.

Worth reading the letter in full and the headlines they reference as indications that the issue is being politicised. And to see who have signed it.

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/dont-politicise-relationships-sex-health-education-50-vawg-experts-warn/

Don’t politicise Relationships, Sex & Health Education, 50+ VAWG experts warn | End Violence Against Women

Following recent headlines which have the potential to incite opposition to desperately needed Relationships, Sex, Health and Education (RSHE) in schools, a coalition of 54 organisations and experts in violence against women and girls have today (22nd...

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/dont-politicise-relationships-sex-health-education-50-vawg-experts-warn

OP posts:
Report

dimorphism · 24/03/2023 17:12

No mention of parents I see. or safeguarding.
Parents, you know, those people who house, clothe, feed and nurture their children. Care about them the most and know them best. Poor form.

Sounds like a funding pitch. Also with all the listening to children's voices a little worryingly as if they're adults, not children. We've seen that before.
Maybe they mean well but I am not convinced by this.

Report

ResisterRex · 24/03/2023 17:57

This is the statement:

"In light of recent headlines[1][2] – which have the potential to incite opposition to much needed RSHE delivery in schools, we are seeking assurances that the upcoming review will not be unnecessarily politicised..."

They're relying on these for it:

No1:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/09/ofsted-chiefs-warning-explicit-sex-education-lessons/

No2:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/08/sex-education-review-is-politically-motivated-say-teaching-unions

So do they mean that people will use these headlines to oppose the outcome? If so, am I reading this that the opposition will come from those heavily invested in the QT+?

So the letter is OK? But yes I agree about the fact it doesn't include parents' concerns. And parents who've had to navigate ROGD/who are navigating it right now, are important, as are their kids.

Cass was going to look at schools. That has to be part of this review too. Yes it's sex education but it's also a vehicle for transing gay kids. The bit from Cass:

"Several issues that were raised with us are not explored further in this interim report, but we have taken note of them. These will be considered further during the lifetime of the Review and include:
● The important role of schools and the challenges they face in responding appropriately to gender-questioning children and young people."

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Web-Accessible.pdf

Report

AlexandriasWindmill · 24/03/2023 18:06

Hmm. There's a bit too much focus on being led by DCs, I think. And ironically a number of the signatories don't know what a woman is so it's odd they've been asked to sign a letter specifically referencing VAWG.
RSHE is politicised and current delivery and topics are contentious. It's only the very naive, those pushing their own agenda, or those who are wilfully blind that pretend it isn't. Wonder which it is for most of those organisations.

Report

OhHolyJesus · 24/03/2023 18:40

This is interesting, thanks for sharing.

The overlap with those claiming to want to further work on VAWG whilst not knowing what a woman is never ceases to amaze.

Education is political, sex education especially and as the 'personal is political' and as I'm personally very invested in safeguarding children I support the investigation to be as politicised as is necessary.

For example I'd love to hear what Labour have to say about it this. The answer may even sway my vote.

Report

ResisterRex · 24/03/2023 20:11

Looking more closely at those who signed it. What are School of Sexuality Education doing on there, while Transgender Trend or Bayswater, or Safe Schools are not? Were the latter group not asked about it?

I also don't see nia on there (did I miss them?) and they've been good at holding the line. In fact, they went out early doors about TWAW and the damage it does to the sector. Many - not all - of the others meekly complied.

Why are the Humanists on there? Can't see a link between them and sex education.

And I wonder if all those who signed it, interpreted those headlines and what they mean about politicising the issue in the way I did. If so then they haven't signed the letter they thought they signed, as I think it means "take care with the TQ+".

Report

EndlessTea · 24/03/2023 22:03

I feel extremely sceptical about this. I remember this thing of compulsory relationships education at school being floated as the solution to end VAWG and I wasn’t on board with it. I don’t think ending VAWG should be down to teachers at school to solve.

It all felt really manipulative, the way it was lobbied for. Not properly grassroots.

And low and behold- barely anything about misogyny or ending VAWG taught, it has just been a Trojan horse for kink and the sexualisation of minors to be normalised.

Fuck off.

Report

dimorphism · 25/03/2023 15:14

The School of Sexuality Education forced girls in a classroom environment to draw the dick pics they'd been sent and claimed this was a good thing, rather than the clear child abuse (according to the definition in KCSIE - schools statutory safeguarding guidance) that it is.

I missed they were signatories.

Anything signed by them should cause children and parents to run screaming in the opposite direction. And teachers who a) want to safeguard children or b) don't want to be sued. It's all pomo queer theory with them and they have absolutely no knowledge or interest in safeguarding and appear not to have read or trained on KCSIE - which at least every teacher in school needs to have done.

Report

dimorphism · 25/03/2023 15:15

I thought it was wordy and unclear. Whenever I read anything like that I tend to assume there's a hidden anti-child agenda these days, sadly.

Report

dimorphism · 25/03/2023 15:17

I suspect the best thing for VAWG would be to prevent access to porn for young boys - by sending all parents on courses on how to lock down children's phones so they can't see it. Or get teachers in schools to do it if the kids want their phones in school.

And massive fines for sites that don't have very rigorous over 18 checks for anyone accessing. You could have a system where the user had to prove they were over 18 along the lines of the 2 factor authorisation banks use etc.

Report

dimorphism · 25/03/2023 15:32

Anyone who wants to learn more about the extremely dubious jaw dropping practices of the School of Sexuality Education read this thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4765114-tanya-carter-from-ssa-live-on-radio4-at-noon-today-rsedebate?page=5&reply=124771408

Report

MrsOvertonsWindow · 25/03/2023 16:02

That's a naive letter from adults who should know better. It's not political to challenge the unhinged queer theory advocates for their age inappropriate, anti safeguarding, porn soaked and often anti girls and women materials that are being offered to schools - it's basic safeguarding of children.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/identity-politics-sex-education-schools/

.

Identity politics and sex education in schools - Transgender Trend

Reviewing sex education in schools is not enough without tackling the gender identity ideology that lies beneath it.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/identity-politics-sex-education-schools

Report

ResisterRex · 26/03/2023 14:06

Report

WarriorN · 26/03/2023 19:33

Roughly 10 years ago Jayne Butler was my breastfeeding peer support.

How times have changed.

Report

WarriorN · 26/03/2023 19:35

Jessica Ringrose is always popping up in dubious places with badly planned and dodgy ideas.

Report

WarriorN · 26/03/2023 19:37

RSE education features on woman's hour tomorrow, I'm crossing toes and fingers someone from SSAUK is on.

Report

MrsOvertonsWindow · 26/03/2023 19:41

WarriorN · 26/03/2023 19:37

RSE education features on woman's hour tomorrow, I'm crossing toes and fingers someone from SSAUK is on.

I'd expect a man from Stonewall, a drag queen and maybe Jane Fae or someone from Mermaids? 🙄

Report

WarriorN · 26/03/2023 19:45

They want parents' views so hoping not; if it, is my god, I will be hammering twitter and bbc complaints!

Report

IwantToRetire · 31/03/2023 18:42

There is another press release not signed by others but in the name of the group End Violence Against Women* headed:

Concerns vital Relationships & Sex Education review is based on contested claims and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric
https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/concerns-vital-relationships-sex-education-review-is-based-on-contested-claims-and-anti-lgbtq-rhetoric/

(*) EVAW - We’re a group of feminist organisations and experts from across the UK, working to end violence against women and girls in all its forms.

Made up of over 135 specialist women’s support services, researchers, activists, survivors and NGOs, we believe that violence against women is not inevitable and work to tear up the systems that enable it and build a fairer world in its place.

The End Violence Against Women Coalition was formed in 2005 by frontline support services, survivors and researchers – because we are louder together.

Taking an intersectional, anti-racist approach, we work to transform the political and social systems that enable violence against women. We drive social change through campaigning and shaping policy, and by challenging the wider cultural attitudes that tolerate and normalise this abuse.

OP posts:
Report

ResisterRex · 31/03/2023 18:50

So EVAW is now for males and "TQ+". They need to catch themselves on.

Report

IwantToRetire · 31/03/2023 19:22

So EVAW is now for males and "TQ+".

And the implication is that they speak for front women's VAW groups! :'(

OP posts:
Report

ResisterRex · 31/03/2023 19:23

I found the corresponding tweet:

twitter.com/evawuk/status/1641799312127434754?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

1127 views
6 retweets
5 likes

What are they even for at this point?

Report

EndlessTea · 31/03/2023 19:33

I wonder how many of their 135 member organisations are thrilled that EVAW are using them to push anti-woman propaganda.

Report

IwantToRetire · 31/03/2023 20:18

I get the impression that some posts in organisations like this have been "infiltrated" and what has been happening is that whole herd thing.

Because nobody says anyhing, then nobody feels able to say anything.

Even the language is part of a set of politics which might be valid to those who constructed it, but in terms of doing outreach, ie conveying your ideas to a wider group they just dont work. ie they often use the word "minoritised" which maybe a laudible way of saying the dominant culture minoritises us, but in terms of connecting with a wider audience just doesn't work.

In the past I (and others) have asked why they are so quick to put out statments about the police (which may be accurate) but have never (as far as I know) ever put out a statement about how vital women only (as in biological sex) is essential for support services for women who have experienced male violence.

I wonder if the member groups at the end of the year review the work of this "representative" group and consider do they really speak for us?

OP posts:
Report

ValancyRedfern · 31/03/2023 21:09

When they say they don't want rse politicised, they mean they want it to follow their political agenda, not anyone else's. They think safeguarding and protecting single sex spaces are both right wing culture war rubbish, rather than actually what schools should be doing.

Report

ResisterRex · 01/04/2023 07:02

This deserves its own thread but since EVAW are going on a misguided / somewhat suspect attack on behalf of these organisations against parents, it goes here too. They should think long and hard about whose interests they're championing

LGBT charity Proud Trust ‘contacted teenager without parent’s permission’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/845a89da-cfee-11ed-9a78-fca06b87e87b?shareToken=d753ad3ac3bd1d4a8e041758a5ed8b03

Report
Similar threads
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Sign up to continue reading

Mumsnet's better when you're logged in. You can customise your experience and access way more features like messaging, watch and hide threads, voting and much more.

Already signed up?