The women fighting to keep trans activism out of the classroom

[IwantToRetire]

As gender ideology infiltrates schools, more children are identifying as a different sex. This grassroots group is taking action.

One morning last June, outside a primary school in Devon, three women stood unobtrusively at the school gates handing out leaflets.
They were there at the request of a parent who was worried that an outside organisation had been invited in to teach the children – some as young as six – about “inclusiveness”.

On the surface, this appeared harmless. But this parent had safeguarding concerns about this particular LGBTQ+ supportive group – Pop’n’Olly – whose materials include teaching children about the “gender unicorn” and that a child can be born “male”, “female” or "another sex".

The three local women – Cathy Mudge, a retired midwife, Gilli Blick, a retired solicitor and grandmother, and Jenny Dingsdale, a mother of two children aged 11 and nine – decided to take some gentle direct action.

Article continues at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/02/women-fighting-to-keep-trans-activism-out-of-classrooms/

And at https://archive.is/19b6P

"Are you suggesting that the staff (head and others) are engaged in wage theft and defrauding the State by purchasing non-educational providers?"

No. How peculiar that is what you take from my posts so far. I said invited not purchased.

"Who is responsible for sourcing professionally trained staff?"

The head and chair of governors obviously. But visitors for the school for the purposes of pshe may not have qualifications at all, and sometimes no DBS. Teaching staff would be present for behaviour management etc .

Pshe visitors may be arranged by the the page co ordinator etc and this would be agreed by the head. But it's a bit disingenuous for you to suggest that say an ex or current footballer .( Perhaps an ex pupil) Coming to talk to the kids must have fully vetted educational qualifications, and inviting them to do constitutes theft and defrauding the state. Ditto representatives of charities the school has supporting or charities raising awareness of LGBT month or black history month etc. another example might be a person affected by knife crime or drugs etc.

"Its interesting how you move through your belief that the school is providing education but at the same time is not."

Obviously most subjects are delivered by qualified teachers to provide qualifications. Pshe is not an assessed topic but schools are required to discuss citizenship issues and outside visitors are commonplace. Albeit infrequent. LGBT +charities may only visit once a year if that.

I find it laughable that an organisation / charity talking or presenting to the children is considered " political indoctrination". Schools are required to accommodate British values of tolerance and respect.

"The lack of understanding or possible choice if activism ia rather worring when its someone who is involved in a school."

I would disagree that telling pupils about LGBT+ beliefs and gender critical beliefs is a political choice at all or any form of activism.

Some pupils in a school are gender critical and may well encounter a trans pupil in secondary if not in primary. Understanding the differing viewpoints is necessary to show tolerance even if you completely disagree with them. The fact is that heads and governing body are signing off and authorising visitors to schools across the country and this is very much in line with government guidance

If you want this to change you would be better advised to lobby the government to update their guidance...

@Walkden
From your posts it seems you have quite an odd view of what constitutes education and teaching. For example, from your posts on this thread:

Usually pshe is more of a discussion that being "taught". Students do not pass or fail it, there are no assessments etc.

Outside organisations come into school all the time. Sometimes they do an assembly, sometimes a presentation, staying safe online, fire safety etc. this is not " teaching" in any meaningful sense. It's not like they have regular timetabled lessons from these organisations...

The article does not mention what educational qualifications the visitors had. What the syllabus was, what the assessment criteria and skills were
Because they were not teaching....

You seem to be saying that education and teaching can only be delivered by qualified teachers in an educational establishment during timetabled lessons. That there must be a syllabus and assessment criteria which result in students passing or failing. And that anything else is not education and is not even teaching. This seems to me to be a very narrow and blinkered view of what education and teaching are.

"Are you suggesting that the staff (head and others) are engaged in wage theft and defrauding the State by purchasing non-educational providers?"
No. How peculiar that is what you take from my posts so far. I said invited not purchased.

You did say that these "invited" speakers weren't providing any sort of education to the children, and weren't teaching them. So why would they be invited to talk to the children in school time, when they should be being educated?

Do you have any evidence that these outside providers of non-educational talks to children always do this for free? If they are being paid by the school (even if the payment is only expenses), they are being purchased using public money to deliver something which isn't teaching or education (according to you).

"This seems to me to be a very narrow and blinkered view of what education and teaching are."

I mean seriously an LGBT invites a speaker in for an hour a year, and this is indoctrination?

School gave an obligation to prepare students for the wider world and sometimes use teaching time for reward trips etc, and offer extra curricular activities to develop thinking skills social skills and team work.

Is the ex footballer coming to discuss his career and answer questions from kids teaching them to be a footballer?

Do you object to the above ? Is it acceptable for schools to invite ex pupils who became famous in some way?

Yes on one level I appreciate the patient and stamina.

But my post was more I've only just had time to check FWR, notifications say this thread has been busy, so I think I've just got time to catch up on developments .... but then it is more groung hog day than developments.

Although I do appreciate for those newer to FWR they need to time to ask questions and think things through. Didn't there used to be a thread for those wanting time to go back over basics, or whatever you want to call it. (Plus of course the obscure FWR culture and humour that can be a bit opaque! )

But then when is it that and when is it just intended aggravation, for the sake of aggravation.

It depends on what the LGBT speaker (or any speaker about drugs, knife crime, football etc) is speaking about.
As part of a balanced PSHE / citizenship programme most speakers will be OK. But it's still the responsibility of the school to check what speakers will be talking about to children. Schools are 100% responsible for vetting speakers, checking materials & ensuring sessions are age-appropriate & aligned with safeguarding policies.

I do hope you're in no way involved in teaching children as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have limited understanding of the legislative and moral framework that schools operate in - making all sorts of claims that are completely false.

"But it's still the responsibility of the school to check what speakers will be talking about to children. Schools are 100% responsible for vetting speakers, checking materials & ensuring sessions are age-appropriate & aligned with safeguarding policies."

And as I've said this is all arranged by the pshe co ordinator and signed off by SLT/ the head. I've made it clear that the moral framework includes British values as laid out by government guidance including tolerance and respect, amongst others including those of different opinions and belief. If acknowledging that some people believe in the concept of gender and others do not makes me immoral then so be it.

As you've said heads and safeguarding staff are vetting these presenters and their content against the legal and moral framework and deciding it is entirely appropriate for them to speak to students, including at the school the article referred to.....

@Walkden

Walkden · Today 16:14

》 AnSolas · 07/02/2026 18:07
"Are you suggesting that the staff (head and others) are engaged in wage theft and defrauding the State by purchasing non-educational providers?"

No. How peculiar that is what you take from my posts so far.

This was the context :

AnSolas · 07/02/2026 18:07

Walkden · 07/02/2026 13:42
A bit like how parents take kids out of school in term time because of the "educational value" of the trip to Spain Disneyland etc

Are you suggesting that the staff (head and others) are engaged in wage theft and defrauding the State by purchasing non-educational providers?

I have asked you to expand on your point so that we both understand the point(s) being discussed.

I said invited not purchased.

If the schools employed staff are unwilling or unable to provide the lesson who is responsible for sourcing the lessons on gender?

If the school outsource the lesson should they recognise that there is a cost involved in providing a lesson?

Who funds the educational lessons for gender?

The school?

Or

A third party?

If it is a third party Funder what is the aim/motivation of having individuals (who are not employed as direct educators by the school and who may not be qualified to do what they are doing) to access a school and becomming involved in a educational lesson on gender?

Has the school an obligation to examine the possible aims/motivation of the Funder when outsourcing to a third party?

The head and chair of governors obviously. But visitors for the school for the purposes of pshe may not have qualifications at all, and sometimes no DBS.

So then do you accept that the school are responsible for the appointment of non-school staff to attend the school and provide materials on gender?

If not who is responsible?

Teaching staff would be present for behaviour management etc .

Why do you remove the staffs responsibility of oversight of the visitor content on gender?

Do the staff in the room not have responsibility and accountability for the visitors deliver the gender materials?

Pshe visitors may be arranged by the the page co ordinator etc and this would be agreed by the head.

Is this you agreeing that a PSHE visitor providing teaching on gender is providing a service which has been organised by school staff and which should be signed off by the Head?

If not what are you suggesting is going on?

But it's a bit disingenuous for you to suggest that say an ex or current footballer .( Perhaps an ex pupil) Coming to talk to the kids must have fully vetted educational qualifications, and inviting them to do constitutes theft and defrauding the state.

I never suggested that a football player would attend the school at all. But please feel free to quote me if I did.

If you dont understand a question just ask for it to be reworded.

Ditto representatives of charities the school has supporting or charities raising awareness of LGBT month or black history month etc. another example might be a person affected by knife crime or drugs etc.

Again I have made no comment on any of the above with the sole exception that gender lessons are is linked to the T.

But again please quote me if you want to ask me a specific question on a specific part of my posts

Obviously most subjects are delivered by qualified teachers to provide qualifications.

Again this is a "Who is responsible for sourcing professionally trained staff" question.

If you wish to discuss this you need to either agree or disagree that a PSHE is part of the formal educational process which is delivered by the school in an agreed format and delivered by an agreed method which remains the responsibility of the Head and the Govenors

So which

PSHE is part of formal education provided by the school?

Or

PSHE is not part of formal education provide by the school?

Pshe is not an assessed topic but schools are required to discuss citizenship issues and outside visitors are commonplace.

So again

Is PSHE content and delivery in an agreed format the responsibility of the school / the Head /the Governors?

If not who is responsible?

Albeit infrequent. LGBT +charities may only visit once a year if that.

So again

Is charity choice the charity topic/ content and delivery in an agreed format the responsibility of the school / the Head /the Governors?

If not who is responsible?

I find it laughable that an organisation / charity talking or presenting to the children is considered " political indoctrination".

Thats a personal opinion.

However the OP was clear that the problem was an activist organisation which was presenting /providing material / teaching children what most will agree is misinformation :

》》
On the surface, this appeared harmless. But this parent had safeguarding concerns about this particular LGBTQ+ supportive group – Pop’n’Olly – whose materials include teaching children about the “gender unicorn” and that a child can be born “male”, “female” or "another sex
《《

Schools are required to accommodate British values of tolerance and respect.

"Accommodate" that is an interesting choice of word.

"Accommodate British values" is mischaracterisation of the legal obligation which is imposed on the school.

The statement itself reads as a reversal of the schools legal function.

Eg :

https://www.nga.org.uk/knowledge-centre/promoting-british-values-in-schools/

All schools are required by law to promote the fundamental British values of:

• democracy
• the rule of law
• individual liberty
• mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs

" If the schools employed staff are unwilling or unable to provide the lesson"

This is a bit of a stretch. What makes you think staff are unwilling or unable to provide a lesson?

"Is charity choice the charity topic/ content and delivery in an agreed format the responsibility of the school / the Head /the Governors?"

Asked and answered.

I was responding to your comment:
"I mean seriously an LGBT invites a speaker in for an hour a year, and this is indoctrination?"

Stephen Ireland (paedophile chair of Surrey Pride) was an "LGBT" speaker in a local secondary school several days before he was arrested and jailed for raping a 12 year old boy plus a range of other sex cromes (voyeurism, making, distributing indecent photos)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2kkrxdpndo

We have no idea whether he used his visits to schools to source, groom amd abuse children. But airily handwaving away the potential for speakers to indoctrinate children, especially with today's social media which we know Ireland used to access young people, shows a naivety in the face of reality.

Many "LGBT" speakers argue passionately for girls to be compelled to undress in front of their male peers (Stonewall, translucent etc). Many argue for the language of women to be eradicated and replaced with an impersonal listof "body part havers". Many tell children that their uncomfortable pubertal bodies can be cured with a sex change etc etc.

These are narrow niche political viewpoints and children don't have the life experiences or intellectual development to assess them. They shouldn't be presented in schools as some sort of factual presentation.

This is not a generic provider.

This is a provider which per the OPs opening post

On the surface, this appeared harmlsss. But this parent had safeguarding concerns about this particular LGBTQ+ supportive group – Pop’n’Olly – whose materials include teaching children about the “gender unicorn” and that a child can be born “male”, “female” or "another sex

Did the Heads and Governing body of this school do its due diligence before signing off and authorising these visitors to school?

Or should they have asked if that provider would be that telling pupils about LGBT+ gender beliefs and gender critical beliefs in a balanced way?

"All schools are required by law to promote the fundamental British values of:

• democracy
• the rule of law
• individual liberty
• mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs"

I've already commented that schools teach tolerance and respect, especially as many schools have pupils that are gender critical and other that are trans.

You've evidently never run a SRE / PSHE department in a school. I have in a number of schools
You've also appear unaware of how the lack of guidelines under the last government - which removed numerous sources of advice for schools under their "bonfire of red tape - resulted in all sorts of dubious political lobby groups & porn obsessed adult groups / individuals seeing opportunities to provide materials and sessions for schools about a sensitive curriculum area that's a challenge for many schools to teach (think this was covered earlier in the thread).

I don't know how much experience you've had of teaching sex ed to whole classes of say 14 year olds? I assure you, many teachers are reluctant to teach this as it's a tough call.

"This is not a generic provider."

Are you implying that schools responsibilities change if they use a "generic provider"?

What would constitute a " generic provider"

"I don't know how much experience you've had of teaching sex ed to whole classes of say 14 year olds? I assure you, many teachers are reluctant to teach this as it's a tough call."

Does anyone call it sex ed anymore 🤣.

In all seriousness, I've been asked to deliver reproduction lessons for years 7 to 11. For science exams what is examined under GCSE curriculums is the two sexes. No specific knowledge of intersex is needed, although kids often ask about it.

I've also had to "teach" dangers of sexting healthy relationships, contraceptives etc for pshe. Where possible some teachers may express preferences to cover some topics over others but I've never seen someone refuse to deliver a lesson nor encountered a situation whereby "porn obsessed "external providers are " bought" in because no staff were willing to deliver a lesson.

In my experience pshe co ordinators are diligent hard working conscientious professionals a d don't bring in external provid e because of convenience.

It the school staff are willing and able why is the school outsourcing gender lessons to a third party when the school has the capacity to resource internally?

"It the school staff are willing and able why is the school outsourcing gender lessons to a third party when the school has the capacity to resource internally?"

Why do schools bring in the police to talk about knife crime or the fire brigade to talk about home safety when the school has capacity to resource internally ?

Is it because they are committing wafe theft and defrauding the state or is it that the page coordinator has decided there is some benefit to pupils to doing so?

You appear to be attempting to package the providers

• who have an clear agenda and

• who do teach children that they can "change sex" as "inner gender" is the key factor in this change

with all other providers who may have a much more balanced viewpoint and appropiate materials.

You are "implying" all schools are selecting generic /off the shelf like for like provision when there are a wide range of providers and a wide variation in quality of materials supplied.

Eg you use LGBT as if a provider whos belief is based on a "male women" can not be teaching homophobic ideas such as the male lesbian "woman"

So my question is should due diligence have spotted a problem with a provider which has materials which claim that humans come in more that the 2 sex?

Is the organisation teaching a "gender unicorn" the best organisation to bring into the school as it is highly unlikely that such a school visitor will have a balanced view on gender beliefs and gender critical beliefs

AnSolas · Today 19:24

Walkden · Today 16:22
"The lack of understanding or possible choice if activism ia rather worring when its someone who is involved in a school."
I would disagree that telling pupils about LGBT+ beliefs and gender critical beliefs is a political choice at all or any form of activism.
Some pupils in a school are gender critical and may well encounter a trans pupil in secondary if not in primary. Understanding the differing viewpoints is necessary to show tolerance even if you completely disagree with them. The fact is that heads and governing body are signing off and authorising visitors to schools across the country and this is very much in line with government guidance
If you want this to change you would be better advised to lobby the government to update their guidance...

This is not a generic provider.

This is a provider which per the OPs opening post

On the surface, this appeared harmlsss. But this parent had safeguarding concerns about this particular LGBTQ+ supportive group – Pop’n’Olly – whose materials include teaching children about the “gender unicorn” and that a child can be born “male”, “female” or "another sex

Did the Heads and Governing body of this school do its due diligence before signing off and authorising these visitors to school?

Or should they have asked if that provider would be that telling pupils about LGBT+ gender beliefs and gender critical beliefs in a balanced way?

Well, let's hope your teaching of the compulsory SRE components of the science curriculum (which are very specific of course) are more informed than some of your ramblings about the RSE / HE curriculum. (You'll find the phrase Sex Ed used repeatedly in the statutory guidance linked below)

If anyone's interested, here's the new DfE statutory guidance for schools on Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education (from Sept 2026).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6970e7e67e827090d02d42e0/Relationships_education_relationships_and_sex_education__RSE__and_health_education__for_intro_1_September_2026_.pdf

It's very detailed and well worth reading.

Interesting extracts re gender identity which will go some way to stopping transactivists exploiting children

"69. Pupils should also be taught the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment. This should recognise that people have legal rights by virtue of their biological sex which are different from the rights of those of the opposite sex with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Pupils should also be taught to recognise that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as with the other protected characteristics, have protection from discrimination and should be treated with respect and dignity.

70. In teaching this, schools should be mindful that beyond the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment there is significant debate, and they should be careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact. For example, they should not teach as fact that all people have a gender identity. Schools should avoid language and activities which repeat or enforce gender stereotypes. Schools should be mindful to avoid any suggestion that social transition is a simple solution to feelings of distress or discomfort.

...

72. Where schools decide to use external resources, they should avoid materials that use cartoons or diagrams that oversimplify this topic, that could be interpreted as being aimed at younger children, or that perpetuate stereotypes or encourage pupils to question their gender. Schools should consult parents on the content of external resources on this topic in advance and make all material available to them on request...."

Because they were not teaching....

I don't agree with you.

But if they were not teaching they were preaching.

That is also unacceptable in a school setting. Schools don't invite faith leaders in to argue in favour of people following a particular faith (with the exception possibly of faith schools). By teaching ideology as fact this is what was happening here.

Using semantics doesn't work. It was wholly wrong.

I notice you haven't engaged with the substance of my post at all. What on earth do these questions of yours have to do with my post?

If you wish to discuss this you need to either
• agree or
• disagree
that a gender section in PSHE is part of
■ the formal educational process
which is delivered by the school in an agreed format and delivered by an agreed method
● which remains the responsibility of the Head and the Govenors

So which is it?

The gender section of PSHE is part of formal education provided by the school?

Or

The gender section of PSHE is not part of formal education provide by the school?

Sorry to derail. But how do parents know this is occurring? I remember mine having assemblies by outside organisations and never being told in advance or even any communication after to say who it was!

Do we just have to email the school to ask how they teach pshe? Or on the school website these days?

It depends...

From memory re MN posts

Some schools have an open policy and will provide the information as part of any school communication.

Some will only provide the information if asked.

Some will say that they have signed a contract which prevents them from sharing the materials (IP issues)
If pushed they will require the parent to attend the school to go through the materials on site.

You should email if you/ your child is not given access to a syllabus which covers the topic. Or a list of planned presentations for the term/year. Or where the education is delivered mainly via screentime/handouts which dont make it home.

Plus you should be asking what they are being taught as your moral /ethical code may differ to what is being taught.
Some times the teacher will do a "both sides" to what would be a firm No/Yes from your pov.

Plus if you know your school culture you should have an idea if the school has activism or not.
You can ask try parents whos children have taken the same class with the same teacher in prior years