Labour has voted down the Tories' amendment to allow parents to see sex ed resources in schools.

[2fallsfromSSA]

Schools minister Catherine McKinnell claims there's no evidence of a widespread problem.

This is utterly disgraceful, we know there are many issues with school RSE resources and there is no reason at all to stop parents knowing what their children are being taught in schools.

Not only are many materials politically motivated and biologically inaccurate, we been told by many distressed parents over the years - themselves the victims of CSA - that some school materials use the same language that their abusers did

Schools need to work in partnership with parents, not against them.

Catherine McKinnell responded to our thread by unfollowing us.

https://x.com/safeschoolsuk/status/1890126088166339041?s=46&t=wKQqSS_HYEY78hJQTlX9tJw

We gave evidence 2 years ago at the WESC, we have documented the issues, we have met with the Department for Education numerous times to share the concerns of parents and teachers.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2023/05/21/women-equalities-committee/

But when you question it and are told what is being taught isn't compliant with DoE guidelines, you are told by your school's RSE lead (after several back and forwards emails) "I don't have time to find resources that are, if you can find them, please do send them".

It sounds like they were perhaps challenging to find the actual evidence- not how I personally would handle this, but if you had found inappropriate examples were you not in a position to share those? Or if someone had told you there were- did they not know what they were?
How did you know it wasn't compliant if you hadn't seen the evidence where it wasn't? So I would be making sure I provided that evidence. The likelihood is that a school will omit anything they consider contentious if they come across it as they don't want parents kicking off anymore than parents want to. Good teachers don't just blindly teach what's in front of them. Especially not in the current climate where parents do complain constantly I'm afraid.

Agree why can't people see it?

They sent me the slides - I went through them and cross referenced with Safe Schools guidance/DoE guidance on RSE stuff - and picked apart the assertions which were being made - one slide said there are three sexes M, F and intersex. So I pushed back and after 3 or 4 emails got told that she hadn't checked them and she didn't have time to look for compliant resources but I was welcome to provide them if I could!!

To be clear- just because I am discussing this does not mean I am a) teaching it or b) that anything I am discussing implies anything about my own stance or views.

Agree to both a and b.
And that your role as a parent and teacher can clash toom

My understanding is that the term "queer" is used now to cover changing preferences and fluid identity.

In real life "Preferences" is a choice between 2 so
F> M or F
M> F or M

^^ that is being Bi which is a sexual orientation

In real life "Fluid Identity" has zero to do with sexual reproduction, yet this idea is being taught. So in my prior example the norm was F&M so a girl is taught F&F can become F&M.

And Stonewall as a LGB organisation is claiming Lady Dick Lesbians. And that girls who refuse Lady Dick Lesbian partners are sexual-racist.

So queer is a term used to sneek a individuals out of heterosexual or homosexual.

Note you did not list hetero as it is the assumed orientation. So girls and more so lesbian girl are put under preasure to class boys as something they are not (girls).

The school is teaching that 'trans' is a moveable sex class and has a sexual orientation.

Asexual is having no interest in sex.

In real life "no interest" in sexual education terms is a failure in puberty
Not a child saying No (to all or one) or low sex drive (may be as a result of CSA) or being unable to negotiate social ques etc.
And in a wider context it says everyone else is having sex or wanting sex.

Note you did not list hetero as it is the assumed orientation. So girls and more so lesbian girl are put under preasure to class boys as something they are not (girls).

That because I was quoting evidence that ND more likely to identify as those groups- that was the context of the list.

The school is teaching that 'trans' is a moveable sex class and has a sexual orientation.

I should really hope not. They have nothing to do with one another.

didn't have time to look for compliant resources but I was welcome to provide them if I could!!

Wow! That's shockingly unprofessional.
I hope you pushed back on that.

^^ is TRA ideology been pushed into sex education

To be clear that list didn't come from anything to do with Education! It was from some research I read about ND individuals of which I have a personal interest as I have an Autistic child.

Evidence suggests that neurodiverse people, particularly those on the autism spectrum, are more likely to be gender diverse and have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or asexual sexual orientation, compared to neurotypical people.

Sorry you clearly ^^ did and that misquoting was due to my poor edit.

But I think that the over all point of hetero being assumed is still valid

If they are teaching queer sexual orientation that is what the school is doing.

queer sexual orientation,
asexual sexual orientation,
.....
^ is TRA ideology been pushed into sex education^

Now that you can spot this you can be more aware of the concepts underlying some research.

A number of concepts push into the area around sex with children or animals so if a researcher is moving away from a sub-class of 3 to a new classification system of I am who I say I am that can be a problem.

Parents have a right to know what their children are being “taught”.

Is it going to take a court case?

I did, but didn't get anywhere - I did write to the Governors but didn't get a reply which was shocking. The school haven't done any more trans indoctrination because I keep an eagle eye on the RSE curriculum when they send it out. I have said that I have no problem with my DCs being taught RSE, but I they are to be removed from any lessons where they are indoctrinating the children with GI.

My children are almost at the end of their school careers though so I would have pushed back and escalated MUCH harder if this was primary school and if I wasn't confident that they know that all of this is unscientific claptrap.

*Sorry you clearly ^^ did and that misquoting was due to my poor edit.

But I think that the over all point of hetero being assumed is still valid*

I'm really not understanding why you think heterosexual needs to be included in a list in that context? Can you explain?
It's saying ND are more likely to identify as something other than heterosexual. The assumed norm is always Heterosexual is it not? Purely by virtue of statistical likelihood if nothing else?

A number of concepts push into the area around sex with children or animals so if a researcher is moving away from a sub-class of 3 to a new classification system of I am who I say I am that can be a problem*

That is quite a leap and that seems to suggest that using "queer" or "asexual" is a slippery slope towards acceptance of bestiality or paedophilia which really is ludicrous.
I'm going to bow out of this now as whilst I have respect for concern around single- sex spaces for example or but I find the idea that teachers can turn kids gay or trans by mentioning it utterly offensive and ludicrous. Children don't suddenly think they are these things because they find out about it. The arguments around protections of women and woman only species are absolutely valid and I support this but a link being made with sex with children or animals means I have no interest in engaging with this anymore.
I wish parents with genuine non-bigoted concerns every luck and I hope schools are professional and helpful in supporting any concerns- because they really should be.

*spaces

I asked to see the materials taught at my DD’s school as part of the ‘right to consult’ process. The information made available to parents simply referred to other policies which it didn’t share. When I asked to see it, the head let me come to the school to see the documents in person. She wouldn’t send them to me for copyright reasons. Lo and behold, there was a slide suggesting that if a girl likes boy toys, or a boy likes girl toys, they may be trans. It didn’t use the word trans, but that was the implication. This was for young primary children. I objected on the basis that it was sexist to suggest there is such a thing ‘girl toys’ or ‘boy toys’ and the head agreed to remove the slide from the lesson.

No normal parent would be as motivated as I was to wade through the materials and check this. This material IS being taught to our children and it’s disgraceful that Labour are now going to build in more obstacles for parents who should be able to access lesson information easily.

Just in case parents are interested, these materials are in the pack from Jigsaw.

Note you did not list hetero as it is the assumed orientation. So girls and more so lesbian girl are put under preasure to class boys as something they are not (girls).

Ignore the cross out

In schools
girls risk of sexual assault after puberty remains high
boys fall as they age through into adulthood
So clear boundries if sex and sex segration help safeguarding
Girls are less likely to be sexually agressive and a boy can cross a boundry in a way a girl could not ( the Slut V Stud dynamic).
And TRA ideology says all girls be told that boys can be girls but SSA girls are told that the boy is a girl he so also a girlfriend canditate.
ND girls too have a risk of missing early warning of boundry crossing.
Boys will be much more effective in using intimidation to remove girls from their spaces.

Evidence suggests that neurodiverse people, particularly those on the autism spectrum, are more likely to be gender diverse and have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or asexual sexual orientation, compared to neurotypical people.

Was thinking about the maths behind this. ^^
(statistical analysis methods make me sad so feel free to point out errors)

Whole pop (F&M)
96% He
2% Ho
2% Bi

Sexual orientation is random cant be tracked by stats or mapped into the gene code.
But the ratio tracks across locations and races in western data reporting

TRA claim that gender diverse GD cant be tracked but is at least 1% of the population

(Per a quick google from semi-reliable sources )

autism as ND has a genetic element and therefore can be detected and screened out of the population.
It runs on fathers having higher causation than mothers

Rough detection rate in the US
1 in 100 girls
4 in 100 boys

Whole pop 2,000,000 (50% F & 50% M)
So
0.990 F NT
0.010 F ND

0.960 M NT
0.040 M NT

Then apply Random SO
If F & NT * SO
0.990 * 96%
0.990 * 2%
0.990 * 2%

If F & ND * SO
0.010 * ??__ % ( -Y% - Z% +96%)
0.010 * + Y% + 2%
0.010 * + Z% + 2%

Adding in GD the Y and Z get move the ND but not NT control group.

If this tracked, screening and removing the "gay gene" would have been possible as SO is then proven not to be random.

Why be outraged?

To be clear that list didn't come from anything to do with Education! It was from some research I read about ND individuals of which I have a personal interest as I have an Autistic child.

This was you being a parent^^
Nothing to do other teachers.
Just you.

You are looking at materials:

My understanding is that the term "queer" is used now to cover changing preferences and fluid identity.

And it you explaining a new sexual classifiction
Based on the mental state not the physical body.

You need to ask the question (or not) why has the researcher added in a special class ND + GD and what benefit if any did it provide to the research to invent this.

Queer theory and TRA have dominated research

You as parent should now be aware that the research has a bias which may skew the document you are reading.

You can be a bigot about your research after all its your child.

But as a professional be educated by parents who have give you examples of how they are being blocked by teachers in your industry and dont insist that it never happens.

The thread seems to have got away so bit of a non-sequiteur but to come back to say:
I was told that school can't give me materials to take away or view in the way that I can for all other subjects. It has to be at a meeting in school. My DC has a shelf of textbooks and printouts for science, maths, English etc. Copyrighted materials all available for the kids to take away.

The only subject that I can't see the materials for is the most sensitive one of all. But I'm not even sure that's the main point. I already know I don't like it. Do all the other parents think it's okay? That's the real question.

Ask about why the different contract arrangement was aproved for that?

If its online how the school approves the content, if they keep a "hard copy" of that version and how they are notified of changes and how that is tracked.

Are they in breach and dont care in other subjects?

Whats the penalty for them if they give you a copy

Etc.?

They aren't in breach of anything for other subjects. There are textbooks that school has paid for, and printouts with text or artwork reproduced under various different legal arrangements of copyright, fair use, etc. Music publishers protect their work with huge "no photocopies" notices, but DC can still borrow the original if they need help reading the dots.

The RSE supplier is claiming "commercial confidentiality", not copyright, which is weird - this is a lesson plan, not a cola recipe.

They are producing "new" to a "new" market so I can see why they try commercial confidentiality.

But the school are buying on behalf of the parent so why sign that contract. Was it easier than asking all the providers to remove it etc

Or In the end is the school hiding behind the contract as most parents will not have time to spend the time needed in the school reading the materials.

I'm not a parent but will gladly contribute to any crowdfunder for a challenge to this. It's bonkers and the arguments for not making materials available carry no water at all.