100 organisations ask Labour to abandon Tory revised guidelines on RSHE

[IwantToRetire]

The Conservative government launched a consultation in May on planned updates to guidance first issued in 2019, following a review of the reforms.

It proposed age limits on “sensitive” topics, ordered schools not to teach about “gender identity” and to share materials with parents.

Ministers were accused at the time of stirring up “culture war” issues in the run-up to the election.

The consultation closes today.

To coincide with its closure, more than 100 organisations including the ASCL and NAHT leaders’ unions, the PSHE Association, Sex Education Forum, Barnardo’s, Refuge and Everyone’s Invited have issued a joint statement calling for a “fresh start” to the review.

“We are calling on the next government to discard the draft guidance and begin this process in due course, focusing on the needs of children and young people and supporting teachers to deliver a high-quality, inclusive curriculum.”

Lucy Emmerson, CEO of the Sex Education Forum, said age restrictions would be a “backward step making children more vulnerable to abuse and harm”.

PSHE association chief executive Jonathan Baggaley, warned he had “deep concerns about the development process and shortcomings of the draft guidance, particularly on critical aspects of children’s safeguarding, wellbeing and inclusion”.

And Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo’s, said introducing age limits to RSHE topics “risks children missing out on crucial teaching about abuse and exploitation”.

Continues at https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-faces-pressure-to-ditch-tory-rshe-reforms/

What is your problem. You said year 10 kids are the legal age for sex. I pointed out you were incorrect. You've got a very weird attitude.

My comment that you've responded to was this: "That's a common feature of transactivists - they always discuss children by referring to adults. Their complete lack of understanding or care about children's wellbeing and rights is so clear" It's clear pattern used by transactivists (mainly but not solely male)

I'd just watched this interview where a transactivist lawyer (RMW), in response to comments from Bev Jackson highlighting the vulnerability of girls in all this, appeared unable to use the word girl, children or even young people but could only talk about trans people - repeatedly. And themselves of course.

x.com/GBNEWS/status/1811882078587289845

That's the pattern I'm talking about. We don't see it on here too often as this is a board of women who centre the rights of vulnerable children but it's so noticeable when you listen to transactivists speak. Children are hardly ever referred to. Because what's being demanded of children (sacrifice your health, future fertility, future satisfying sex lives and so on) is so completely unacceptable that it must be kept hidden.

We teach children about potential sexual abuse very young- e.g. pants rule. I mean that level of teaching. So that for the children who do see porn they know what to do
I've said this a lot, yet there is a continuous push to suggest I'm saying show kids porn, or describe it in detail. I'm not. I'm saying don't blanket ban discussion of it, which is the proposed change under consultation.

@CassieMaddox if you’re arguing for this sort of thing - the ‘you might see some things on phones or online that you find scary or that make you feel upset, you should talk to an adult about that’ kind of chat - then I don’t think anyone really disagrees with that. Previous posters (like @EasternStandard’s quote above) have already said about this.

I’m not sure that the new guidance bans doing that.

"We teach children about potential sexual abuse very young- e.g. pants rule. I mean that level of teaching. So that for the children who do see porn they know what to do
I've said this a lot, yet there is a continuous push to suggest I'm saying show kids porn, or describe it in detail. I'm not. I'm saying don't blanket ban discussion of it, which is the proposed change under consultation."

Let's break that down.

""We teach children about potential sexual abuse very young- e.g. pants rule. I mean that level of teaching."

The pants rule does not teach children about child sexual abuse. It teaches them things such as "privates are private" and who might need to see them, when and why. It also teaches them that they can talk to an adult they trust about " bad secrets" that they find upsetting.

It is age, and child development, appropriate.

www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

So from there, we have:

"I mean that level of teaching. So that for the children who do see porn they know what to do"

But we cannot get to "that level of teaching" or beyond the quote above from @CassieMaddox without much clearer posts. I know we won't get them but there we have it. We can't get to any detail at all.

For clarity, teachers must take care discussing pornography. Exposing children to information they're not ready for, or able to consent to, could land teachers in a whole load of hot water. See below and in bold in particular:

"Sexual abuse - Involves forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities, not necessarily involving a high level of violence, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening. The activities may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example, rape or oral sex) or non-penetrative acts, such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing, and touching outside of clothing. They may also include non-contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, sexual images, watching sexual activities, encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways, or grooming a child in preparation for abuse. Sexual abuse can take place online, and technology can be used to facilitate offline abuse. Sexual abuse is not solely perpetrated by adult males. Women can also commit acts of sexual abuse, as can other children."

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65cb4349a7ded0000c79e4e1/Workingtogethertosafeguardchildren2023-statutoryguidance.pdf#page154

This is what posters are saying when they talk about the whole system that wraps around children.

And YET AGAIN, there is NO BLANKET BAN PROPOSED.

I'm arguing that the age limits might cause teachers to feel they can't say things that in case they fall foul of the rules.
No, I don't think its controversial either but apparently we are in the minority.

There seems to be a misunderstanding from pp

Stop ranting. Yes there is. What do you think an age limit means?
For clarity, teachers must take care discussing pornography
Yes. I agree. The Conservative proposal is they aren't allowed to discuss pornography until children reach some arbitrary government mandated age. After that, as far as I can tell, they can say what they want.

It's a strange proposal that doesn't address the issues at hand. Shouting and accusing people of various things doesn't change that.

That's generous, Eastern. I don't believe there can possibly be a misunderstanding. How can you - having conversed in English for pages - misunderstand both the words in English in the draft guidance, and the words in English posted here? You can't.

See? Absolutely zero misunderstanding. Just a continued insistence on destroying children's boundaries.

Here's what EVAW say:

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/government-rshe-proposals-would-harm-children-by-limiting-vital-education/

Quality relationships and sex education based on consent and equality is a crucial part of preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG); giving young people the knowledge and skills to navigate romantic relationships in a healthy and respectful way. We’re deeply concerned that with its draft guidance, the government is failing young people in a number of ways:

Shutting down conversations about relationships and sex to supposedly ‘protect children’, when we know that conversely, this stops children from being able to identify unhealthy relationships, pushes sexual abuse into the shadows and leaves children less able to find help if they need it. Stopping younger children from having guided, informed discussions about sex and relationships will only put them at risk. There is overwhelming evidence that by giving them the support, skills and knowledge they need to navigate the world they live in, quality RSHE helps protect children’s rights and freedoms to a childhood free from abuse.

An overall lack of coherence in what can be taught, and when. While porn, image-based sexual abuse and sexual harrasment can be taught from year 7, sexual acts, sexual violence and domestic abuse cannot be taught until year 9. Given image-based sexual abuse is a form of sexual violence, and it is clearly impossible to teach about porn without being able to reference sexual acts, we’re concerned that these new age restrictions are not only incoherent and confusing for teachers and their pupils, they may deter schools from teaching RSHE at all. In addition, separating forms of gender-based violence in this way means teachers are unable to show how these acts are all connected, with their roots in the male power and entitlement that inequality produces

I agree with them. And respectfully, I'd rather listen to the opinions of organisations that know a lot about this, than the opinions of some Internet randoms who seem incapable of considering any perspectives apart from their own.

I can guess but I’m relieved so many of you are clear and knowledgeable when it comes to this

I find some of the posts difficult especially when considering children, girls foremost but boys too

eastern, resister do you have children and what kind of age are they?

The good thing is, lots of bumping the thread up is happening.

I’m feeling like I’ve misunderstood Cassie somehow.

For clarity, in case it’s not obvious from my previous posts - I don’t think there’s anything wrong with warning children that sometimes there might be things (without going into any specifics) they see that make them feel scared or upset, and that they should talk to a trusted adult about those things.

I absolutely disagree that there is any general need to be speaking to groups of children of primary school age about pornography. I don’t see a way that that can be done in an age appropriate way.

As far as I understand it, the new guidance would permit the general chat, and make clear that specifics about porn is inappropriate under year 7. With a carve out in cases among specific classes where it might be appropriate to discuss it earlier because of something that has happened among that class. That sounds right to me.

(Just to say, I’m not saying the carve out would necessarily be appropriate to porn vs all the other age limits it would also apply to, but it is there and therefore I guess could be used if exceptional circumstances demanded it)

Same and I think from primary age this is done already and won’t change. PANTs is good as is education to parents and young children re online safety which is happening and won’t end.

Secondary I would consider rape culture re male teens finding various things funny and toxic masculinity. I would include adults propagating this environment. Also make sure you don’t re traumatise as per posts below.

And if google is your reference point as opposed to working with children professionally, parenting children etc then it's easy to get sucked in by propaganda and political ideology - rather than what matters when safeguarding children.

To get back to the purpose of the thread, which is about alerting those on FWR that a Government consultation looks like it might be derailed by vested interest groups.

Unfortunately this has been true for more that a few years - quote:

Some of these organisations' opposition can only really be explained by an irrational opposition to anything the Tories did. I can't believe that EVAW, Rape Crisis, Refuge, the IWF, White Ribbon, NSPCC, Barnardo's (the list is too, too long) don't think this approach is wrong. They think they have to posture.

Many of these groups are what are called 2nd or 3rd tier groups. ie they are not front line workers. They are in theory meant to represent those who are actually doing the front line work, but nine times out of ten are anything but that. They become career stepping stones for people who rarely have actually experience, but lots of confidence to comment. And of course exploit their privileged positions to further their particular political loyalties.

For instance I dont think EVAW have every made a comment about trans women and women only spaces, let alone know or have any experience of the pressure on children in (some) schools to conform to the notion of gender identity.

It maybe in the next few days they will admit to having been part of this letter, but in the meantime to sign a letter, based on their second hand exeprience, and doing it secretly is very, very dubious.

Occasionally there are times when a thread on FWR would be more useful in the immediate term and possibly for future reference if it dealt with practical responses to an actual occurrence.

There is nothing to stop someone who wants to re-activate the discussion about what is or is not appropriate in schools to start a thread to do this. Having stray posts about this in amongst a thread about a political process that may impact on that, means that they get lost and the thread becomes just another rehashing of differences.

Added to which, as pointed out on another thread, as mumsnet went to the bother of setting up 2 forums so that those who dont think the issue of sex and gender is relevant to feminism, it seem bizzare to come to the forum about sex and gender. As though only to create negativity.

Feminist Chat exists for those who want to discuss women's issues but not through the prism of sex and gender.

The point is porn does not have a place to be mentioned! It doesn’t matter what you think anyway!

The consultation is about relationship, health and sex education. There is a lot more to it than gender identity. Many of the charities listed are experts in VAWG and domestic abuse. So of course they have an opinion and a right to comment on this.

Frankly I'm shocked by the willingness to write off womens charities just because you disagree.

You aren't the thread or board police, and don't get to dictate how threads go. Its pretty tedious you starting threads and getting annoyed when posters with a different opinion to you comment.

Eh? You've lost me.
I can only assume many posters here either have very young children, no children or very adult children so have not had to run the gauntlet of porn/sexting and conversations you'd rather not be having. The genie is not going back in the bottle, no matter how much you bury your head in the sand.

My "reference point" is charities who are experts, reading and talking to experts etc. Not FWR posters with very particular areas of interest and a limited interest in any other perspectives. HTH.