Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by BowdonUK, Jun 5, 2019.
The law of course
You seriously think the CPS are going around regularly prosecuting 13 year old boys for having consential sex with 12 year old girls?
10% of our kids would be in jail if that were the case.
13 year old boys can't have legally consensual sex with 12 year olds that's the point.
Prosectuted or not they still commit the offence and I don't accept that it's responsible parenting to facilitate a 13 year old son to have sex with another child.
At primary its simple stuff - a theme that goes through the primary curriculum is being nice to others, not bullying them because they are different to you. Just because your family is this way, and their family is another way is no reason to be nasty to someone. For those of you worried about pushing 'an agenda', I think you'd be surprised at how non-controversial it all is.
I think some people want to be upset by sex education to confirm some preexisting ideas they have. Reality has no bearing on this, WONT YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?! Childten getting sex changes and such. All from this horrible sex education the liberal radicals are forcing on them
Perhaps you could discuss the topic rather than making snarky comments.
Also @ahar I feel you dodged my question a little there. You originally said the education included the "pointing out the complexities of gender".
You then said that basically means "being nice to others". I don't think that answers the specific question: what is included in the curriculum to address in your words the "complexities of gender"?
I can't force you to answer if you don't want to but I'm sure many of us are curious.
It always differs a bit between the way that teachers want to implement it, and like all areas of the curriculum there isn't a word for word template that teachers have to follow. Thus I can't say "this is exactly what teachers do and don't say".
However, if you're interested in what guidance is given, I've included the programme of study below that lots of schools in Hertfordshire use - pages 10 and 11 cover gender etc
Then the schemes of work - see page 14, 4f.
(The Grid is a website of various resources that Hertfordshire schools use)
For learning materials we use https://www.jigsawpshe.com/. You have to pay to get full access, but they have some stuff on their site you can look at.
Hopefully that's helpful.
Because their stone age beliefs tell them to get involved, Islam hates all that LGBT stuff obviously.
I don't have the time to read through the vitriolic polarised typical GD responses.
But has anyone actually referenced the article in question and confirmed that it was sex education? I very much doubt the latter, but happy to see evidence to the contrary.
The radio I was listening to was LBC with Nick Ferrari interviewing Ester McVey. It's towards the end that sex education comes in to the conversation. Then after that I was looking up various articles mainly around the Birmingham protest to see what they was actually protesting about.
I'm not sure I can listen to her patronising voice to look up the exact minute though.
My cousin's daughter goes to one of the schools that was originally protested, she is 4. They are basically being taught how some kids have two dads and some have two moms. I'm pretty sure also there is some information about how it is ok for girls to wear boys clothes and vice versa.
It doesn't need to be mentioned, when they are in the last year of primary school then fair enough normal sex education should be taught. We weren't told about gays or bisexual people when we went to school and most people are not homophobes.
Originally the protest was about this and perhaps for most it still is, but there is a sinister element of extremists in there which my cousin himself told me about. For them it is about "our religion is right bla bla bla". Doesn't help when ninjas come to the school protesting about "my kid my choice"...
My question was somewhat provocative, as I'm aware of the current discussion and only a part of one side has labelled it sex education.
Disappointingly shallow original post tbh - very click bait.
So presumably you do not have a problem with this, and this is what is being taught.
Can you be more specific? Is there a problem with the school or the protesters?
I don't like it being taught as I believe it confuses small children. My little boy knows pink is a girl's colour and shouts out when I give him a pink plate for example (sometimes he'll ignore it) that it's a girls plate. I don't want school messing his head up and saying pink is boys too. Just an example, color itself thing is not important.
Read what I said, then digest it if you can't comprehend what I said then go out get a breath of fresh air.
I'll throw in my ha'porth on this. I'll also be upfront about my position, which I'm sure will surprise no-one. I am opposed to segregation. That's my "ideological grounds". So I'll tolerate it only when it's unavoidable due to social norms and I regard those social norms as being wrong. I won't jump to segregation as the first choice because it might be more convenient.
A practical objection to desegregation, not an ideological one. The solution is therefore also practical - don't use a box in that way. Have a physical box available outside of class. Have a virtual "box" that can be accessed remotely.
Also, your preferred "solution" of segregation doesn't solve the problem you raise. You would still have children being identified as the asker of the question. In your system, the child would have to speak the question in class. That's worse than writing it down and putting it in a box, even if they're identified as the asker of the question in both scenarios.
That's a better point, but again segregation isn't a good solution to it. You're still making it necessary for children to speak up in class and ask questions in person. Ideally that shouldn't be a problem, but it is. Many will be too embarrassed to do so and therefore won't get an answer. Segregation might make some children somewhat less embarrassed about asking questions, but only because of segregation - the existence and promoting of segregation makes segregation expected and therefore makes people more comfortable when segregated. This might fall into my position of "I'll tolerate it only when it's unavoidable due to social norms and I regard those social norms as being wrong."
(EDIT: looking through later posts in the thread, I see someone has already suggested a practical solution to both those practical problems - give every child a piece of paper to write on and have every child put it in the box during the class, so it becomes impossible to know which child asked which question)
Segregation doesn't lend itself to inclusion. It's possible to be inclusive in what's taught while being exclusive on the grounds of sex/"race"/whatever, but it's unlikely. It's also unlikely that there would be a lack of bias - "seperate but equal" doesn't exactly have a good track record.
More importantly to me, I think that segregation is itself a bad thing to be teaching children. Especially sexual segregation when teaching about sexual relationships. The mismatch is particularly bad for that, given that most sexual relationships are heterosexual, i.e. very much not segregated by sex.
As for the sex and gender and spectrum stuff a few people have brought up, I think that's best addressed by being absolutely clear about sex and gender being completely different things and only statistically related.
Sex is physiological. In almost all cases in humans, it's a binary grouping with two discrete groups. Only a tiny minority of humans are intersex.
Gender is completely different. It's mostly artificial and always tendencies rather than absolutes. It's also a vast array of different spectrums and everyone is at different places on different spectrums at the same time in the same place and different places on the same spectrum at different times and in different places. How gendered something is will change from time to time and place to place. Pink is the best known example - in this country within a few decades pink went from being gendered quite strongly masculine to being gendered extremely strongly feminine. Gender is usually just fashion.
An example to try to clarify my position:
Here and now more male people than female people are interested in cars. That makes being interested in cars gendered masculine to some extent here and now.
Here and now more female people than male people are interested in dancing. That makes being interested in dancing gendered feminine to some extrent here and now.
A girl is interested in cars and dancing. This makes her gendered somewhat masculine when it comes to cars and somewhat feminine when it comes to dancing.
A boy is interested in cars and dancing. This makes him gendered somewhat masculine when it comes to cars and somewhat feminine when it comes to dancing.
None of these things makes the girl less female or the boy less male. None of these things should be considered a problem. These things are just illustrations of the fact that nobody is average for their sex in all things at all times in all ways in thought, word and deed in every way.
Personally, I think the entire concept of gender should be binned because it's probably impossible to change the way it's implemented to match what it actually is - a multitude of tendencies and thus irrelevant to any individual.
It's interesting you mention pink.
That was often a boys colour up until about the start of the 20th century, from memory around the start of WW1....
Think about that for a moment when considering what is the correct colour/clothing style for a boy vs a girl (it was also common for boys to wear dresses up till a certain age up to the late 1800 or early 1900's).
It's amazing how worked up people get around "gender norms" that have only been "norms" for a short space of time (often only within the lifetime of their grandparents).
A lot of "sex education" at a young age is basically (as people have said) telling kids it's alright to be different, if you've got two parents at home (and if they're married or unmarried*), one parent**, or both the same sex, or it you want to play with the construction toys as a girl or the dolls as a boy***.
Effectively it's "not everyone is the same, and there is no guilt in being different", which is a pretty good message to be honest (and one that as computer nerds I'm surprised there is so much hate for given how people who played videogames, or likes messing with computers and radios were often perceived in schools at one point).
*As that was a huge stigma for a long time.
**As was this until fairly recently (certainly it was still usually portrayed as almost automatically and certainly a bad thing when I was in school).
***Oddly enough it's fine for boys to play with the dollies the advertisers spent a fortune selling to them, as long as it's got a ray gun or gripping hands and eagle eyes).
I comprehend very well - you want all children to be taught that they must conform to whatever made-up gender stuff you approve of and that sex and gender are the same thing.
Your son "knows" that pink is a girl's colour solely because he's been taught to believe that. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. You can test this yourself - have something pink touch you and see if you turn into a girl. Then try blue and see if you turn into a boy. If you don't, then you have just proved that you are wrong. Pink is not a girl's colour. Pink is currently a feminine (not female) colour in this time and place and that's true solely because it's the current fashion. It wasn't in the past. It might not be in the future. It's just fashion. Many aspects of gender change and many of them make no sense. In Scotland, for example, one style of dress is very masculine and all other styles of dresses are very feminine. Why? Because that's the fashion. In ancient Rome, almost everyone routinely wore a dress (tunica) because that was the fashion. High heel shoes were originally very masculine, as were leggings. Trousers were extremely masculine until relatively recently. None of this stuff is real. It's all just fashion. Would you teach your son that he must wear very short socks all the time for all of his life because they're currently fashionable? Or that he must never, ever wear a watch because they're currently unfashionable? Why impose some fashion choices on children and not others?
Telling people about different sets of parents is entirely about reducing bullying id hazard, i think this is a worthwhile thing to teach, though I can't particularly remember much at 4, so maybe it's too young out of being not worthwhile, but then every kid is different.
I'm sure the pedagogy folk have researched this though.
Well said Angilion.
Separate names with a comma.