This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sex-education-schools-sunak-transgender-b2545586.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most important part of "sex education" for young children is making sure that children understand that they can say no to people who want to touch them without their consent.
The people who would benefit the most from these proposals are paedophiles who want to make sure that their victims don't have the words to tell anyone what they've been doing.
You'd be surprised the number of nonces in general. I work in child protection within secondary schools, and the number of kids who have been SA is appalling, with the perpetrators never actually getting prosecuted. Often close families.
It wouldn't help at all I doubt.
We've been prosecuting them as long as I can remember, I'm 66 btw, and they've never gone away. My hometown is rife with it and always has been.
>The people who would benefit the most from these proposals are paedophiles who want to make sure that their victims don't have the words to tell anyone what they've been doing.
Sp the Toties and their donors?
That doesn't require sex education. WTF? You just tell kids to say no and report anything who accepts anything. You call it something else than Sex Ed. 726 likes? And this board is delusional and has ZERO understanding of optics. Embarrassing.
Sometimes it can be parents who are doing the abusing, I would argue educating children about this cuts out the chance that no one will teach them until it’s potentially too late
I don't really understand what's being banned here because I've never known sex ed to occur for under 9s anyway? It's always the last year or two of primary school which makes them 9-10 or 10-11.
My 4 year old was taught the correct terms for genitals, how families use made up terms, why private parts are private, who should and shouldn't be allowed to see your privates. That most kids have a dad and a mum, some 2 mums etc.
1 parent freaked out that their 5 year old knew what a vulva is.
I don't know what is being banned but I fear it's the above.
I hear what you’re saying, but those body parts are still our *sexual organs*. It’s important for children to learn why these parts of our bodies are distinct in regards of who should be allowed to see or interact with them.
The fatal flaw of the Conservative’s anti-sex ed stance (assuming we were able to take it in good faith and at face value, which obviously we cannot) is that it conflates sex with sexualisation. This *is* sex eduction, but that’s **okay**, because learning about your sexual organs and your right to have those parts of you respected *is not equal to* being objectified or spurred on in how to use them.
Which begs the question, what are the Conservatives even mad about? They’re shadow boxing invisible demons, here. Little kids aren’t being taught how to use sex toys or look up porn online. They’re just looking for their next culture war target, and/or they want children to remain vulnerable to exploitation.
The conservatives are mad that trans people exist and that sometimes children also question their gender.
The whole thing is an anti "gender ideology" take.
The amount of trans children is incredibly small and the whole system is going to suffer because of their hatred for anything related to trans people.
Much like how they are doing this across other policy areas too. When Lee Anderson was in the fold he admitted they are going to fight the next election on anti-trans stances.
In case anyone needs a reminder: gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition NOT a political position.
Yep, agree completely. It's giving kids a basic understanding of bodies and life. Babies are made with our bodies. Not really that weird to just tell them that, they figure it out bloody quick enough anyway. Just with a really poor understanding of how anything works, and with a sense of not wanting/being able to talk about it with more knowledgeable adults in a non weird way.
The conservatives are really bad at running the country. And most of the country can see this. So they need to come up with fake problems so they can say we're dealing with it. It's like when demagogues attack marginalised groups, saying they're the reason things are so shit, not the people in charge of making things not shit.
Sex ed is a classic example. You see the GOP doing it as well in places like Florida. Ironically a lot of the politicians pushing it turn out to be massive perverts themselves.
My 2 and a half year old understands that her younger brother has a willy and that she doesn't.
Who are these parents who are hiding genitals from their kids? I honestly don't understand the thinking here at all.
Don't they have bath times in the evenings?
Like the clown on the other thread who claimed his friends 6 year old kid learned about anal sex in a "sexual diversity assembly".
No, they didn't. That shit just doesn't happen.
My wife is a teacher who has recently been teaching year 1s about all these things. The kids were absolutely fine with it - no laughing or embarrassment. There is no good reason to not teach them at this age.
Oh interesting. My kid did not get taught those things, other than that what's in your pants is private. That alone actually caused angst in the class that I won't go into, but it's to do with the fact that these 4/5 year olds don't yet have an innate sense of modesty developmentally, so I'm not sure the school has got it right in their teaching. Could have waited till 6 or 7 I think. It's interesting that different schools do different things and someone should probably figure out what's the right thing.
What the person mentioned is part of the Year 1 curriculum. It might be broken up into smaller chunks across the year, not specifically coming under sex ed - for example boundaries and saying no would be just a regular part of PSHE, along with safe adults, and body parts may be included in Science (or the kids will bring them up regardless, in my experience).
Personal, social and health education.
I remember we had it in school like maybe every six months? It wasn’t a regular lesson but a random one they threw in every now and then.
Ah ok! I don't recall having that. In P6 we had what was literally called sex education. In high school we had something called "life skills" which sadly incorporated far fewer life skills than you'd hope, but definitely included some more sex ed type stuff with a banana.
Yeah it was a very random thing. Our teacher used to write the lesson plan on the board and that would show up every now and then and we always forgot what it was lol.
We had our proper “sex education” in year 6 and it was more biology and anatomy. I remember them talking about bodily changes like when hair will start to grow and girls getting periods (boys got separated from girls after learning the basics of it, and the girls then got the more in-depth stuff privately).
I think people just don’t think of “sex” as the biological side (unless they want to attack trans people) and only think of it as the activity. Maybe they should just call it biology at this point.
Edit- forgot to mention - the proper “sex education” class in year 6? One lesson. One friggin lesson. About 45 mins to an hour. The whole year.
Yes true. In my own experience I would criticise the lack of biological teaching overall. We had the basics and they would say that they taught us about periods etc. but really they scratched the surface on that - actually understanding the complexities of female fertility and the menstrual cycle is something I learned the vast majority of after school. (Of course this is also something that is scarily poorly understood within medical science and the NHS as well due to sexism so it's a whole system problem.) Those things I will be sure that my daughter knows much sooner than I did as I doubt things have improved in that regard.
EDIT also that's really interesting that the boys didn't get taught the same level of detail about periods etc. I can understand not wanting to teach the boys and girls together because of embarrassment issues but the idea that this isn't something the boys needed to know about is an example of the sexism I'm talking about.
Right? Sex ed isn't even on the curriculum for under 9s now and wasn't when I was at school. We have guidance of how to speak to pupils if they naturally ask questions, but it's nothing that could be even remotely considered sex ed. The basic puberty/hygeine talks start from year 5 onwards.
This is 100% an attempt to win votes by making people think that they're heroically banning a make believe lesson where we're telling 6 year olds about blowjobs. It doesn't exist. And the biggest hygiene war we have is just trying to get them to wash their hands after going to the toilet, never mind anything else!
I'm glad other people are seeing this. This sounds exactly like the ages I got various bits of sex ed in the 2010s. Our school did 3 lessons, one late in year 5, 2 in year 6. Puberty, Childbirth and Sex (in that order.) Then didn't have another lesson on it until year nine, and then in year 10 our school did a sex and relationships day, which covered everything from LGBT issues to Consent, to Contraception, to Porn, to Marriage (you got to choose 3 workshops to do, and the 4th was a weird video on marriage run by a couple of the local religious bods).
Really doesn't sound like a change at all, really.
Thing is, kids start puberty earlier and earlier these days, NHS says it's perfectly normal for girls to start their puberty at 8. They should be prepared for that.
It's under the banner of RSHE which starts in primary school with the basics of relationships e.g. different families exist, some touching is inappropriate, it's ok to say no etc; plus staying safe online, puberty but also about recognizing and being able to report sexual abuse. Schools are also supposed to have a policy for dealing with questions from kids about sexual matters with a nod to the point that kids might find stuff online instead if they don't - with a nod to the science/biology aspects of reproduction.
I know a parent not best pleased when there 6 year old came back questioning if they were gay because they like playing with boys, sexuality, that's a difficult concept when so young you are not yet sexual yourself. I'm not sure what was gained by the school teaching about gay love. A discussion about family units and their various composition would seem more appropriate to me, if one is so keen to get the rainbow out.
It's really crazy. Sex is a fact of life and while kids don't need to know too much about it learning that they have private areas or about consent in general or about different types of families is just a part of a good education.
Proper sex education is the best tool you can equip your children with to prevent sexual abuse, it's insane that people who 'want to protect the kids' will oppose this.
Parents, as good willed as they try to be, are not always the best educators when it comes to such topics. It's insane the amount of women I know who had their first period, before knowing what it is.
What a disgusting policy for the Tories to tug on, just to stoke the culture war on their way out.
Parents can also still educate their children.
Nothing is being robbed from a parent for age appropriate sex-ed being taught in schools, except the parent having a complete monopoly on the extent of the child's knowledge.
I remember my mum giving me sex ed when I was 8. She was a nurse and had a lot of human anatomy books. She told me what a penis was, what a female reproductive system does etc. using the books to show me pictures. I remember my dad kicking off saying I shouldn’t know words like “penis” and “vagina”, but my mum just responded with “she’s coming up to the age where she might get her period, she needs to know” and that was that. I didn’t get it until I was 13, but her friend’s daughter started her period aged 8 during class and it traumatised her, she thought she was dying so my mum wanted me to be informed.
There’s nothing inherently *sexual* about sex ed, it’s literally just providing kids with knowledge about their bodies and about consent. I wasn’t told what sex was until I was older, but at least I knew what happens to a body in puberty and what’s only mine to touch.
My wife tells me the story of having her first period when her parents were going through a divorce (and she lived with her dad).
She had no idea what was going on - and neither did he! What an awful experience to go through.
Between this and the Cass report (with its looming threat of “reforms” for even *adult* transgender care), does anybody else feel like the Tories are out to destroy bodily autonomy in the UK from the ground up?
This pearl clutching about children being taught the very basics of sex education is some radical US Christian-nut-job type bullshit. It’s scary enough on its own, but it also betrays a pattern of the Cons sliding further into line with US Republican opinions of how much vulnerable individuals get a say in what happens to their own body. I keep wondering when they’re going to start nibbling at the edges of women’s’ rights to abortions in the UK as well.
>Between this and the Cass report (with its looming threat of “reforms” for even adult transgender care), does anybody else feel like the Tories are out to destroy bodily autonomy in the UK from the ground up?
[People who grew up under Section 28](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/027/763/07B89120-B48D-45FB-AF1D-49AF6CD16790.jpg)
But the gay rights movement and the trans rights movement are *completely* different! I know that because some conservatives told me they shouldn't be equated! And why would they lie?
I remember, as a gay man, the political climate around Section 28. Fortunately I had left school and was in my early 20s. There are many parallels between the homophobic climate in Britain then and the trans panic in the Britain of today. For example, there is a close connection between the use of ‘nature’ in homophobic discourse then and ‘biology’ in transphobic discourse now.
However I would also draw a parallel, possibly stronger, between the trans panic and another 1980s phenomenon: the panics over ‘Satanic abuse’ or ‘ritual abuse’ in working class and other deprived communities. These panics were spearheaded by an alliance of batshit-crazy “Christians” and batshit-crazy feminists who are ideological ancestors to today’s ’gender-critical’ feminists. The ‘Satanic Conspiracy’ feminists had activists and allies in the medical and social work professions, and the media, in the same way as the TERFs do today.
Take Hilary Cass as an example: I very much doubt that she has a religious agenda, but if I were a betting man I would put money on her being a doctrinaire feminist.
It’s incredibly damning that Cass openly follows the LGB Alliance . But then we are living in the strange Looking Glass world of Sunak and Badenoch, where prejudices become ‘protected characteristics’.
The LGB Alliance is not only an anti-trans hate group. It actually doesn’t like … gay people … and is ‘equal marriage critical’. One of their campaigns a year or two ago was: ‘Being against gay marriage doesn’t make you homophobic’.
Having married my longterm partner, I find the implications of this distinctly worrying. These people do not in any sense speak for gay men. They also seem to have suddenly appeared from nowhere, which is suspicious to say the least.
Cass threw out a bunch of evidence for not meeting an extremely high standard for evidence, concluded "there's no evidence to support transitioning", and then later claimed "porn is turning people trans" *with no evidence*. She's so biased, you'd have to be wilfully blind to not see it after a casual examination. She knows the media won't bother looking and they'll cover for her when presenting to the masses. Why would she bother doing any coverup herself when she knows everyone with a voice is on her side anyway.
"Evidence" needs to meet high standards, otherwise it isn't evidence it is "best guess" or "opinion". The Cass report did NOT say "there's no evidence to support transitioning". She said, correctly, "this is an area of remarkably weak evidence”. There is a MASSIVE difference between those two statements. Just because the current research evidence in the field of gender identity is weak does not mean that it is non-existent. Nor does it mean that stronger supporting evidence can not be discovered. Unfortunately, the chances of getting a better, stronger evidence base are low due to pressures from powerful lobbies that cannot accept the possibility that real-world evidence might not support their strongly-held beliefs and thus oppose such research. On the other hand, administering irreversible, life-changing procedures on the basis of weak evidence about long-term outcomes would not be tolerated in any other field of field of medicine, childcare or psychology. This is why things are so "stuck" at the moment.
The Cass report does NOT say anywhere ""porn is turning people trans". The report says, correctly, "Several longitudinal studies have found that adolescent pornography consumption is associated with subsequent increased sexual, relational and body dissatisfaction" and cites the relevant research. The report also states "research commentators recommend more investigation into consumption of online pornography and gender dysphoria is needed". Unfortunately, any such investigations are also likely to fall foul of pressures from powerful lobbies that cannot accept the possibility that real-world evidence might not support their strongly-held beliefs.
> Just because the current research evidence in the field of gender identity is weak
It's only 'weak' if you insist on impossible double blind trials as an absolute standard. The truth is it's not weak at all.
> administering irreversible, life-changing procedures on the basis of weak evidence about long-term outcomes would not be tolerated in any other field of field of medicine, childcare or psychology.
The evidence that exists for gender affirming care is just as strong as for other fields of medicine. So no, you're just flat out wrong here.
> The Cass report does NOT say anywhere ""porn is turning people trans"
I didn't say the report says it. But Dr Cass has made those claims since the report came out.
> powerful lobbies
Yes, because trans people are all just *so* wealthy and powerful...
I hope you find a way out of the transphobic phantasm your trapped it. Because the Gender Critical worldview just flat out does not match reality. Facts dont care about your feelings.
Of course they are and sooner rather than later. Look at who's buying the Telegraph and how much influence he has on the government. He's some sort of religious nut who seems to believe that having money is a sign from God that he has to use it to change society.
>I keep wondering when they’re going to start nibbling at the edges of women’s’ rights to abortions in the UK as well
Parliament is literally about to pass a law decriminalising abortion until birth. The Tories aren't banning abortion they're expanding it to immoral levels
>Between this and the Cass report (with its looming threat of “reforms” for even *adult* transgender care),
The Cass report doesn't recommend any restrictions on adult transgender care.
>does anybody else feel like the Tories are out to destroy bodily autonomy in the UK from the ground up?
I'm not sure what teaching eight year olds about sexual intercourse has to do with that.
>This pearl clutching about children being taught the very basics of sex education
Children are still going to be taught sex education.
Kids don't give a shit, this is adults being weird.
And there should be no opt-outs for parents either. Who wants a country full of badly educated teenagers.
Especially nowadays, where most kids have tablets or smartphones.
These devices basically allow them to access porn and talk to random strangers from all over the world.
You can't keep your kids from learning about this stuff.
shit like "blue balls, you cant start me and not stop it gives blue balls"
or different names for body parts so people can sexually abuse kids, without them accidentally telling someone "they showed me their catamaran and let me play with it" i dont know names nonces use so thats my best guess.
then theres shit like going blind from wanking, making your vag loose from use, loads of shit.
>shit like "blue balls, you cant start me and not stop it gives blue balls"
>then theres shit like going blind from wanking, making your vag loose from use, loads of shit.
We definitely don't need to teach eight year olds this stuff.
There are so many myths out there about stds and contraception. For example that showering after sex can prevent HIV. People are more likely to believe whatever they hear first.
It's so an opposite to teach children what to do if someone is abusing them.
humanity spent 300,000 years in naked groups with everything on display, including your parents fucking every night. millions still do
growing up completely ignorant is very fucking odd
Is it not true though? Kids need to know about their body parts so they can tell their parents if something's wrong. Being against this is implicitly supporting the people that could take advantage of children's ignorance.
yeah that's one thing, that stuff's ok, but i think it's more about obedience, inducing shame and empowering religious conservative voters - who have their own crazy ideas about god's deep concern with what's in people's pants
if they're not teaching kids twenty genders they're shutting the whole thing down. one polarised whackiness after another.
A lot of parents don’t want to teach their kids this stuff that young. My dad kicked off when my mum told me what a vagina and penis is and what happens when a woman gets her period. I was 8 and she was worried I’d come on at any time because her friend’s kid started during class when she was 8 and it completely traumatised her, she genuinely thought she was dying. So my mum wanted me to be prepared. But out of everyone in my class, I was one of the few kids to have this at home at that age.
My sister currently has two young daughters and doesn’t want them to learn *anything* about periods, what a vagina is, or even what a trans person is, and one of them is 7. Many parents are afraid if they learn this stuff that young they’ll start having sex, but that’s simply untrue, kids don’t have sex drives for a start and kids aren’t being taught what sex is, just what happens to the body or about consent. There’s currently threats from parents of the kids who attend my nieces school, to pull them out and homeschool them if the child learns what a transgender person is etc. It’s *insane*, and not a single one of these parents is religious either.
One day I hope we will look back with great shame about the way trans people were treated in this era. 40 odd years ago it was gay people who had lies and misinformation spread about them by the far right, now it’s trans folks. How I feel for them.
Not every child has a mother.
Of course, I’d *hope* that the other adult figures in their life would step in and have that conversation, but you can’t assume that’s going to be the case for every child. You have to work to the lowest common denominator.
Do you seriously believe all mothers (if the child has a mother) are that good? I've met grandmothers who can't talk to their daughter about sex because of embarrassment.
It is irresponsible! Teaching the basics at age appropriate intervals means kinds stay safe and know what to expect of their own bodies! Know when something isn't okay and can call out abuse when it happens!
The extra part about banning "gender ideology" is just maddening culture war nonsense. When are these conservatives gonna get it through their thick skulls that no one cares that trans and queer people exist. I suffered from gender dysphoria for a solid 13 years when puberty started and aside from nearly ending myself, going anorexic over body dysmorphia that refused to acknowledge the cause and eventual self-harm along with suicidal ideation, all it would've taken was a brief description in my early/mid teens that trans people experience a few types of gender dysphoria, there are treatments for it and that it's not sonething so taboo that to even think those thoughts felt like commiting social suicide such that I didn't even really connect to any of my friends until after I came out in my mid 20s!
I've never felt more like I have a will to live and I could've had this a decade ago if I wasn't made to be afraid of it, but no, let's ban it all - if the trans kids end up dead then it's no biggie. /s
The United states.
People really underestimate how backwards the Christian right actually is. Fundamentalist Christian groups are no different to fundamentalist islam. They are far more dangerous though as these Christian nut jobs have the money and influence to affect government policy.
Who wrote the current curriculum ? The Government. Whose driving this ? A right wing think tank - is it based in Tufton St perchance ?
Sunak is a drowning man trying to grasp at anything.
Don't drink the kool aid folks.
I should mention that sex ed for children is not some orgy as is sometimes presented, but is important for their safety in letting them know the facts.
This policy makes no sense. I understand that maybe it’s a case of wanting to maintain children’s innocence, however we are in a society where that is not possible.
Pretty much most songs reference sex these days. The amount children pick up online is hard to imagine.
Education is always the best option.
The tories really are clutching at the culture wars straws, aren't they?
Rainbow lanyards the other day.
Sex education today.
It's pathetic and is not the way to win an election. Or perhaps they know that and it's more about energising their dwindling base to actually get out and vote when the time comes to try and stem some of the losses?
Sooner we have an election the sooner these chucklefucks can fuck off once and for all.
We definitely didn’t do sex ed stuff in my primary school until about year five or six. I wonder how different this is to what most schools have been doing anyway. Everyone in uproar again though.
yes, WE know but the naming allows for this sort of stupid debate. Sex implies sexual activity because thats what sex is.
a different name someone i saw say Puberty Education which is better but still not perfect. we had PSHE at school, surely Personal Health Education is enough
Afaik, the only ‘sex education’ taught at 9 is about how puberty works I.e. periods, wet dreams, breast growth, erections, pubic hair, and other anatomy. But this is based on when I was 9 9 years ago, and when my sister was 9 5 years ago. I don’t know why the government would do this other than to push the age up in the future due to their illogical hatred of the LGBTQIA+ and wanting to commit a soft genocide by restricting education about important topics for learning about yourself.
Also the ‘bad guys’ of history have always restricted the rights of minority groups. And to predict the hateful comments, not all LGBTQIA+ and furries are not paedo/zoophiles and the latter are not minority groups, they are a cancer on society and the only things that don’t deserve life.
lol hahah i remember that shit
some dude walking naked down a hallway in a house, then it pauses, and zooms onto his junk and its like THE PENIS or something.
There are pupils in my year 5 (age 9 and 10) who have started their periods. Very hard to explain what is happening to them without some kind of sex-ed/body awareness.
That was a weird little side step. So we are ignoring everything that has officially been said about this policy and we are sticking to the baseless theory that they will stop young girls learning about periods because you think that’s the only thing they could be talking about?.
Have you actually done any research into this, or did we seriously not get past the headline?.
The article states what will or won't be taught in year 6, and after 13 (which is seperate to my point) whilst stating NO sex Ed will happen before age 9. I'd suggest a quick recap yourself.
The article at no point mentions teaching young girls about periods, or puberty in anyway. You’ll also notice that any reference to the idea is completely absent from the criticism of the policy that takes up a majority of the article. That is because professionals would look silly making that argument after explicitly being told it’s not being changed by the government.
What’s happened here is you’ve read a snippet of some very bad journalism and you’ve filled in the gaps with your imagination.
From the actual guidelines we are talking about.
In primary school:
- the risks around online gaming, scams and why social-media sites and gambling sites are age restricted - should not be taught before Year 3
- puberty and the key facts about the menstrual cycle - not before Year 4
-sex education - not before Year 5 (in line with what pupils learn about conception and birth, as part of the national curriculum for science)
What year do you think girls currently learn about the key facts of the menstrual cycle at this very moment before these new guidelines are introduced? Is it year 4 by any chance?.
Edit. Link for an article with the full guidelines for your perusal and hopefully realisation you have been chatting bollocks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-69017920.amp
Seems people had quite varied educations. In my primary school (mixed state school near London) in the late 90s, we didn't have anything until year 6 (age 10-11) but they taught us most stuff at that point, including about condoms etc, and it included a very graphic video of a woman giving birth and showed full non-sexual nudity of adults. After that in secondary school we had lessons on the subject every year as part of both biology and PSHE lessons.
I genuinely *cannot comprehend* why Catholicism might have any kind of vested interest in keeping people sexually ignorant so they don't use birth control, accidentally get pregnant in their teens, pump out lots of Catholic babies, and lack the words to tell their parents what Father Slippyfingers was doing to them behind the altar after choir practice.
Totally stumped here.
Yes, but not in the way that you think. It's things like "you have private parts, it's not OK for other people to be touching them, if they are, tell somebody", and relationships stuff (like "there are lots of different types of families, some people have two mummies").
the only people who don't want to teach the concept of consent and what is and isn't okay to be doing at that age, are the people of the jimmy saville persuasion.
but he was good friends with thatcher, so it does track i guess.
What I don't get with this type of thing, is why the fuck is Rishi Sunak saying when kids should or shouldn't have sex education? Is he some kind of authority on children's education or development?
I work in publishing and we do lots of books on soft learning about families, where babies come from etc.
If these things are available publicly for children to see them what is the point in banning it in education?
Serious question: is sex Ed in the UK done with 8 year olds?
I remember girls going for a girls only assembly in the last year of primary school so 10-11 years old which I guess was about periods
I also remember sex ed in secondary school at about 13 years old
Do 8 and 9 year olds currently get sex ed? What are the benefits of doing it that young?
Girls are starting puberty earlier, but even in the past, some girls started menstruating at 8. It happened to my mums friend’s daughter, so my mum decided to tell me what periods were at that age. This was over 20 years ago. More girls start early now.
So it makes sense now for kids to learn a year or two earlier than in the past. Also sex ed at this age is totally unrelated to actual sex, it’s just telling them what is private and the only people who are allowed to see those parts. It gives kids the tools and knowledge so they know how to tell someone if they are being abused. They’re not learning about sex, condoms, STIs etc they’re too young for that.
Yes, but sex ed is not the thing you're thinking of. It's a much broader topic, covering things like "some parts of your body are private. If people are touching you there, you need to tell an adult", "people have lots of different types of families, some of which include having two mummies". One major benefit is that it's basically the *only* way in which paedophiles abusing children in their own family ever get caught.
It’s absolutely staggering how many people are willing to have an opinion attacking this policy without having a basic grasp on what the policy actually is.
Firstly the guidance hasn’t been released yet, so full details are not available. The government however has been very clear that it will not be changing how puberty will be taught to young girls and that awareness over potential abuse should be treated as a separate issue from sex education.
What exactly is the problem here?.
So this thread aged like hot milk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-69017920.amp
Funnily enough the actual guidelines look nothing like the independent claimed they would and nearly every single talking point raised turned out to be little more than hysterical misinformation.
You mean if we ignore absolutely everything that the guidelines say we can still pretend there is an issue?.
Which specific concern are you under the impression hasn’t been addressed by these guidelines being released?. Because as far as I can see it’s literally all there in the article and you didn’t actually give an example
They should ban teaching kids about transexuals, it's thems and they's, they don't need to know about that shit at their ages. They're taught that it's normal, that's why there's so many weirdos around these days, sorry but it's far far from it.
It's common knowledge on reddit, that the exponential growth of teenagers identifying as LGBT has nothing to do with indoctrination in schools, so take your common sense elsewhere.
The entire debate stemming from a catastrophic failure in leadership by a talentless, witless PM throwing political shit at the wall hoping something sticks.
Bad faith actors have been hijacking early years sex ed by pushing some very weird and inappropriate shit. These people claiming its to prevent or be able to report SA is disingenuous as thats handled with a short conversation and check-ins, not by pushing ideologies. HD check required for anyone pushing back on this
> Bad faith actors have been hijacking early years sex ed by pushing some very weird and inappropriate shit.
Big if true.
Can you support this with anything except isolated incidents culled from tabloids with no evidence they're representative of a general trend?
Or are you defining "weird and inappropriate shit" as things like "being gay is ok" or "trans people exist"?
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sex-education-schools-sunak-transgender-b2545586.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most important part of "sex education" for young children is making sure that children understand that they can say no to people who want to touch them without their consent. The people who would benefit the most from these proposals are paedophiles who want to make sure that their victims don't have the words to tell anyone what they've been doing.
Giving the amount of nonces in Westminster I wouldn’t be surprised.
You'd be surprised the number of nonces in general. I work in child protection within secondary schools, and the number of kids who have been SA is appalling, with the perpetrators never actually getting prosecuted. Often close families.
I wouldn't. It's gone on since time immemorial and isn't likely to stop no matter what we do.
Might help if we have an actually functional justice system.
It wouldn't help at all I doubt. We've been prosecuting them as long as I can remember, I'm 66 btw, and they've never gone away. My hometown is rife with it and always has been.
That’s a shame. It’s heartstrickening that we’ve just accepted it as a part of life.
Well that's a fair point to make.
You do get a really bad sense of MPs from all the stories that leak out, a lot of them do seem to be perverts.
A million times this. I'm often disappointed by this sub on social issues but I'm so glad the consensus on this has been near unanimous.
Because it is pretty obvious.
Yes. And considering how widespread child sexual abuse is this really is something that children need to know.
>The people who would benefit the most from these proposals are paedophiles who want to make sure that their victims don't have the words to tell anyone what they've been doing. Sp the Toties and their donors?
And several royals
[Why I share my story - TheTikTokAdvocate](https://www.tiktok.com/@thetiktokadvocate/video/7280595982985874731?lang=en) (Noting that this isn't me)
The Pro Pedophile bill
That doesn't require sex education. WTF? You just tell kids to say no and report anything who accepts anything. You call it something else than Sex Ed. 726 likes? And this board is delusional and has ZERO understanding of optics. Embarrassing.
My parents taught me this, guess parents aren’t the same these days.
Thats the job of the parents to teach them that. Not the state.
Sometimes it can be parents who are doing the abusing, I would argue educating children about this cuts out the chance that no one will teach them until it’s potentially too late
Nonce parents would agree with you
I think it's important to teach kids under 9 some sex education. They need the information and language to understand abuse and tell someone.
I don't really understand what's being banned here because I've never known sex ed to occur for under 9s anyway? It's always the last year or two of primary school which makes them 9-10 or 10-11.
My 4 year old was taught the correct terms for genitals, how families use made up terms, why private parts are private, who should and shouldn't be allowed to see your privates. That most kids have a dad and a mum, some 2 mums etc. 1 parent freaked out that their 5 year old knew what a vulva is. I don't know what is being banned but I fear it's the above.
This sounds like the exact type of sex education I want my child to have (at least at that age)
It's what I wish I'd had, making things taboo and unspeakable only does harm!
Yep. But the way people go on about it, you'd think that they're showing children explicit porn videos.
To me, that’s not sex education but just general education. Vulva is not a sexual term, those parents are idiots
I hear what you’re saying, but those body parts are still our *sexual organs*. It’s important for children to learn why these parts of our bodies are distinct in regards of who should be allowed to see or interact with them. The fatal flaw of the Conservative’s anti-sex ed stance (assuming we were able to take it in good faith and at face value, which obviously we cannot) is that it conflates sex with sexualisation. This *is* sex eduction, but that’s **okay**, because learning about your sexual organs and your right to have those parts of you respected *is not equal to* being objectified or spurred on in how to use them. Which begs the question, what are the Conservatives even mad about? They’re shadow boxing invisible demons, here. Little kids aren’t being taught how to use sex toys or look up porn online. They’re just looking for their next culture war target, and/or they want children to remain vulnerable to exploitation.
The conservatives are mad that trans people exist and that sometimes children also question their gender. The whole thing is an anti "gender ideology" take. The amount of trans children is incredibly small and the whole system is going to suffer because of their hatred for anything related to trans people. Much like how they are doing this across other policy areas too. When Lee Anderson was in the fold he admitted they are going to fight the next election on anti-trans stances. In case anyone needs a reminder: gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition NOT a political position.
Yep, agree completely. It's giving kids a basic understanding of bodies and life. Babies are made with our bodies. Not really that weird to just tell them that, they figure it out bloody quick enough anyway. Just with a really poor understanding of how anything works, and with a sense of not wanting/being able to talk about it with more knowledgeable adults in a non weird way.
The conservatives are really bad at running the country. And most of the country can see this. So they need to come up with fake problems so they can say we're dealing with it. It's like when demagogues attack marginalised groups, saying they're the reason things are so shit, not the people in charge of making things not shit. Sex ed is a classic example. You see the GOP doing it as well in places like Florida. Ironically a lot of the politicians pushing it turn out to be massive perverts themselves.
My 2 and a half year old understands that her younger brother has a willy and that she doesn't. Who are these parents who are hiding genitals from their kids? I honestly don't understand the thinking here at all. Don't they have bath times in the evenings?
Yea, just wait till you buy a reliable Swedish station wagon and your kid tells his friends “my dad rides a Vulva”
Use the word RECTUM in a sentence: "I used to have two new cars but my ex-girlfriend rectum."
The biggest problem with that sentence is saying ride instead of drive.
[удалено]
Like the clown on the other thread who claimed his friends 6 year old kid learned about anal sex in a "sexual diversity assembly". No, they didn't. That shit just doesn't happen.
My wife is a teacher who has recently been teaching year 1s about all these things. The kids were absolutely fine with it - no laughing or embarrassment. There is no good reason to not teach them at this age.
Oh interesting. My kid did not get taught those things, other than that what's in your pants is private. That alone actually caused angst in the class that I won't go into, but it's to do with the fact that these 4/5 year olds don't yet have an innate sense of modesty developmentally, so I'm not sure the school has got it right in their teaching. Could have waited till 6 or 7 I think. It's interesting that different schools do different things and someone should probably figure out what's the right thing.
What the person mentioned is part of the Year 1 curriculum. It might be broken up into smaller chunks across the year, not specifically coming under sex ed - for example boundaries and saying no would be just a regular part of PSHE, along with safe adults, and body parts may be included in Science (or the kids will bring them up regardless, in my experience).
What is PSHE? I'm in Scotland so the curriculum is probably slightly different.
Personal, social and Health education.
Personal, social and health education. I remember we had it in school like maybe every six months? It wasn’t a regular lesson but a random one they threw in every now and then.
Ah ok! I don't recall having that. In P6 we had what was literally called sex education. In high school we had something called "life skills" which sadly incorporated far fewer life skills than you'd hope, but definitely included some more sex ed type stuff with a banana.
Yeah it was a very random thing. Our teacher used to write the lesson plan on the board and that would show up every now and then and we always forgot what it was lol. We had our proper “sex education” in year 6 and it was more biology and anatomy. I remember them talking about bodily changes like when hair will start to grow and girls getting periods (boys got separated from girls after learning the basics of it, and the girls then got the more in-depth stuff privately). I think people just don’t think of “sex” as the biological side (unless they want to attack trans people) and only think of it as the activity. Maybe they should just call it biology at this point. Edit- forgot to mention - the proper “sex education” class in year 6? One lesson. One friggin lesson. About 45 mins to an hour. The whole year.
Yes true. In my own experience I would criticise the lack of biological teaching overall. We had the basics and they would say that they taught us about periods etc. but really they scratched the surface on that - actually understanding the complexities of female fertility and the menstrual cycle is something I learned the vast majority of after school. (Of course this is also something that is scarily poorly understood within medical science and the NHS as well due to sexism so it's a whole system problem.) Those things I will be sure that my daughter knows much sooner than I did as I doubt things have improved in that regard. EDIT also that's really interesting that the boys didn't get taught the same level of detail about periods etc. I can understand not wanting to teach the boys and girls together because of embarrassment issues but the idea that this isn't something the boys needed to know about is an example of the sexism I'm talking about.
Fear is the correct term here Let’s find out the facts before Reddit starts going into overdrive …damm too late
Which is exactly what the Headteachers response said, they are coming up with a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Right? Sex ed isn't even on the curriculum for under 9s now and wasn't when I was at school. We have guidance of how to speak to pupils if they naturally ask questions, but it's nothing that could be even remotely considered sex ed. The basic puberty/hygeine talks start from year 5 onwards. This is 100% an attempt to win votes by making people think that they're heroically banning a make believe lesson where we're telling 6 year olds about blowjobs. It doesn't exist. And the biggest hygiene war we have is just trying to get them to wash their hands after going to the toilet, never mind anything else!
I'm glad other people are seeing this. This sounds exactly like the ages I got various bits of sex ed in the 2010s. Our school did 3 lessons, one late in year 5, 2 in year 6. Puberty, Childbirth and Sex (in that order.) Then didn't have another lesson on it until year nine, and then in year 10 our school did a sex and relationships day, which covered everything from LGBT issues to Consent, to Contraception, to Porn, to Marriage (you got to choose 3 workshops to do, and the 4th was a weird video on marriage run by a couple of the local religious bods). Really doesn't sound like a change at all, really.
Thing is, kids start puberty earlier and earlier these days, NHS says it's perfectly normal for girls to start their puberty at 8. They should be prepared for that.
It's under the banner of RSHE which starts in primary school with the basics of relationships e.g. different families exist, some touching is inappropriate, it's ok to say no etc; plus staying safe online, puberty but also about recognizing and being able to report sexual abuse. Schools are also supposed to have a policy for dealing with questions from kids about sexual matters with a nod to the point that kids might find stuff online instead if they don't - with a nod to the science/biology aspects of reproduction.
[Why I share my story - TheTikTokAdvocate](https://www.tiktok.com/@thetiktokadvocate/video/7280595982985874731?lang=en) (Noting that this isn't me)
This is purely a desperate attempt by the Tories to try and win back some actual conservative voters.
[удалено]
You mean my 9 year old isn't going to be watching an actual couple have sex in front of him (ala monty python)? Outrageous!
I know a parent not best pleased when there 6 year old came back questioning if they were gay because they like playing with boys, sexuality, that's a difficult concept when so young you are not yet sexual yourself. I'm not sure what was gained by the school teaching about gay love. A discussion about family units and their various composition would seem more appropriate to me, if one is so keen to get the rainbow out.
It's really crazy. Sex is a fact of life and while kids don't need to know too much about it learning that they have private areas or about consent in general or about different types of families is just a part of a good education.
Proper sex education is the best tool you can equip your children with to prevent sexual abuse, it's insane that people who 'want to protect the kids' will oppose this. Parents, as good willed as they try to be, are not always the best educators when it comes to such topics. It's insane the amount of women I know who had their first period, before knowing what it is. What a disgusting policy for the Tories to tug on, just to stoke the culture war on their way out.
Parents can also still educate their children. Nothing is being robbed from a parent for age appropriate sex-ed being taught in schools, except the parent having a complete monopoly on the extent of the child's knowledge.
And if those parents happen to be abusive, then that child doesn't have the outside teaching to go 'hey this is wrong'.
The parents were doing just fine. Look at the schools right now and the degeneracy and self-harm, that is widespread among teenagers.
I remember my mum giving me sex ed when I was 8. She was a nurse and had a lot of human anatomy books. She told me what a penis was, what a female reproductive system does etc. using the books to show me pictures. I remember my dad kicking off saying I shouldn’t know words like “penis” and “vagina”, but my mum just responded with “she’s coming up to the age where she might get her period, she needs to know” and that was that. I didn’t get it until I was 13, but her friend’s daughter started her period aged 8 during class and it traumatised her, she thought she was dying so my mum wanted me to be informed. There’s nothing inherently *sexual* about sex ed, it’s literally just providing kids with knowledge about their bodies and about consent. I wasn’t told what sex was until I was older, but at least I knew what happens to a body in puberty and what’s only mine to touch.
Your mum sounds like a proper legend.
Your mum sounds like a proper legend.
Your mum sounds like a proper legend.
And the ones who need the education most (kids sexually abused by family) won't get that, will they?
My wife tells me the story of having her first period when her parents were going through a divorce (and she lived with her dad). She had no idea what was going on - and neither did he! What an awful experience to go through.
Between this and the Cass report (with its looming threat of “reforms” for even *adult* transgender care), does anybody else feel like the Tories are out to destroy bodily autonomy in the UK from the ground up? This pearl clutching about children being taught the very basics of sex education is some radical US Christian-nut-job type bullshit. It’s scary enough on its own, but it also betrays a pattern of the Cons sliding further into line with US Republican opinions of how much vulnerable individuals get a say in what happens to their own body. I keep wondering when they’re going to start nibbling at the edges of women’s’ rights to abortions in the UK as well.
>Between this and the Cass report (with its looming threat of “reforms” for even adult transgender care), does anybody else feel like the Tories are out to destroy bodily autonomy in the UK from the ground up? [People who grew up under Section 28](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/027/763/07B89120-B48D-45FB-AF1D-49AF6CD16790.jpg)
But the gay rights movement and the trans rights movement are *completely* different! I know that because some conservatives told me they shouldn't be equated! And why would they lie?
I remember, as a gay man, the political climate around Section 28. Fortunately I had left school and was in my early 20s. There are many parallels between the homophobic climate in Britain then and the trans panic in the Britain of today. For example, there is a close connection between the use of ‘nature’ in homophobic discourse then and ‘biology’ in transphobic discourse now. However I would also draw a parallel, possibly stronger, between the trans panic and another 1980s phenomenon: the panics over ‘Satanic abuse’ or ‘ritual abuse’ in working class and other deprived communities. These panics were spearheaded by an alliance of batshit-crazy “Christians” and batshit-crazy feminists who are ideological ancestors to today’s ’gender-critical’ feminists. The ‘Satanic Conspiracy’ feminists had activists and allies in the medical and social work professions, and the media, in the same way as the TERFs do today. Take Hilary Cass as an example: I very much doubt that she has a religious agenda, but if I were a betting man I would put money on her being a doctrinaire feminist.
[удалено]
It’s incredibly damning that Cass openly follows the LGB Alliance . But then we are living in the strange Looking Glass world of Sunak and Badenoch, where prejudices become ‘protected characteristics’. The LGB Alliance is not only an anti-trans hate group. It actually doesn’t like … gay people … and is ‘equal marriage critical’. One of their campaigns a year or two ago was: ‘Being against gay marriage doesn’t make you homophobic’. Having married my longterm partner, I find the implications of this distinctly worrying. These people do not in any sense speak for gay men. They also seem to have suddenly appeared from nowhere, which is suspicious to say the least.
Cass threw out a bunch of evidence for not meeting an extremely high standard for evidence, concluded "there's no evidence to support transitioning", and then later claimed "porn is turning people trans" *with no evidence*. She's so biased, you'd have to be wilfully blind to not see it after a casual examination. She knows the media won't bother looking and they'll cover for her when presenting to the masses. Why would she bother doing any coverup herself when she knows everyone with a voice is on her side anyway.
"Evidence" needs to meet high standards, otherwise it isn't evidence it is "best guess" or "opinion". The Cass report did NOT say "there's no evidence to support transitioning". She said, correctly, "this is an area of remarkably weak evidence”. There is a MASSIVE difference between those two statements. Just because the current research evidence in the field of gender identity is weak does not mean that it is non-existent. Nor does it mean that stronger supporting evidence can not be discovered. Unfortunately, the chances of getting a better, stronger evidence base are low due to pressures from powerful lobbies that cannot accept the possibility that real-world evidence might not support their strongly-held beliefs and thus oppose such research. On the other hand, administering irreversible, life-changing procedures on the basis of weak evidence about long-term outcomes would not be tolerated in any other field of field of medicine, childcare or psychology. This is why things are so "stuck" at the moment. The Cass report does NOT say anywhere ""porn is turning people trans". The report says, correctly, "Several longitudinal studies have found that adolescent pornography consumption is associated with subsequent increased sexual, relational and body dissatisfaction" and cites the relevant research. The report also states "research commentators recommend more investigation into consumption of online pornography and gender dysphoria is needed". Unfortunately, any such investigations are also likely to fall foul of pressures from powerful lobbies that cannot accept the possibility that real-world evidence might not support their strongly-held beliefs.
> Just because the current research evidence in the field of gender identity is weak It's only 'weak' if you insist on impossible double blind trials as an absolute standard. The truth is it's not weak at all. > administering irreversible, life-changing procedures on the basis of weak evidence about long-term outcomes would not be tolerated in any other field of field of medicine, childcare or psychology. The evidence that exists for gender affirming care is just as strong as for other fields of medicine. So no, you're just flat out wrong here. > The Cass report does NOT say anywhere ""porn is turning people trans" I didn't say the report says it. But Dr Cass has made those claims since the report came out. > powerful lobbies Yes, because trans people are all just *so* wealthy and powerful... I hope you find a way out of the transphobic phantasm your trapped it. Because the Gender Critical worldview just flat out does not match reality. Facts dont care about your feelings.
Link’s broken, but I agree that this does feel *very much* like incoming Section 28.v2
Section 28¾
Fixed link to a working image I think
Yeah, that's working for me now.
Yeah seems like there’s some light experimentation going on with some far right figures to push the envelope with British politics.
Of course they are and sooner rather than later. Look at who's buying the Telegraph and how much influence he has on the government. He's some sort of religious nut who seems to believe that having money is a sign from God that he has to use it to change society.
>I keep wondering when they’re going to start nibbling at the edges of women’s’ rights to abortions in the UK as well Parliament is literally about to pass a law decriminalising abortion until birth. The Tories aren't banning abortion they're expanding it to immoral levels
>Between this and the Cass report (with its looming threat of “reforms” for even *adult* transgender care), The Cass report doesn't recommend any restrictions on adult transgender care. >does anybody else feel like the Tories are out to destroy bodily autonomy in the UK from the ground up? I'm not sure what teaching eight year olds about sexual intercourse has to do with that. >This pearl clutching about children being taught the very basics of sex education Children are still going to be taught sex education.
Kids don't give a shit, this is adults being weird. And there should be no opt-outs for parents either. Who wants a country full of badly educated teenagers.
The Tory party.
As Trump once said "I love the poorly educated". Now that's a politician who understands his base.
Their opinion doesn't count as they irredeemably fucked in the head.
Children have to be taught the right stuff before they hear nonsense.
nonce-sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZjXYaAbBVw&pp=ygUVbm9uY2Ugc2Vuc2UgYnJhc3MgZXll
Especially nowadays, where most kids have tablets or smartphones. These devices basically allow them to access porn and talk to random strangers from all over the world. You can't keep your kids from learning about this stuff.
And they want to raise the age at which children learn about online safety, inappropriate materials and coercive behaviour 🤦♀️
What is the 'nonsense'?
shit like "blue balls, you cant start me and not stop it gives blue balls" or different names for body parts so people can sexually abuse kids, without them accidentally telling someone "they showed me their catamaran and let me play with it" i dont know names nonces use so thats my best guess. then theres shit like going blind from wanking, making your vag loose from use, loads of shit.
>shit like "blue balls, you cant start me and not stop it gives blue balls" >then theres shit like going blind from wanking, making your vag loose from use, loads of shit. We definitely don't need to teach eight year olds this stuff.
There are so many myths out there about stds and contraception. For example that showering after sex can prevent HIV. People are more likely to believe whatever they hear first. It's so an opposite to teach children what to do if someone is abusing them.
Kids can't complain about grooming if they don't know what it is in the first place. *\[image of a tory tapping his head\]*
humanity spent 300,000 years in naked groups with everything on display, including your parents fucking every night. millions still do growing up completely ignorant is very fucking odd
It's because certain people in power are, at the very least, ok with children not knowing what is happening to them when they are abused.
that's just stupid. it's about forming a tax-paying personality in the masses
Is it not true though? Kids need to know about their body parts so they can tell their parents if something's wrong. Being against this is implicitly supporting the people that could take advantage of children's ignorance.
yeah that's one thing, that stuff's ok, but i think it's more about obedience, inducing shame and empowering religious conservative voters - who have their own crazy ideas about god's deep concern with what's in people's pants if they're not teaching kids twenty genders they're shutting the whole thing down. one polarised whackiness after another.
Essential knowledge.
When did Andrew Tate start advising on government policy?
How many girls of 9/10yrs start their menstrual cycle? Now imagine just how scary that would be if you didn't know what was happening!
According to The Times, the guidelines state that 8 year olds will be taught about that.
Hooe so!
Girls would still be taught about puberty and their menstrual cycle. You could read the article if you are confused.
I thought their mothers would teach them beforehand.
A lot of parents don’t want to teach their kids this stuff that young. My dad kicked off when my mum told me what a vagina and penis is and what happens when a woman gets her period. I was 8 and she was worried I’d come on at any time because her friend’s kid started during class when she was 8 and it completely traumatised her, she genuinely thought she was dying. So my mum wanted me to be prepared. But out of everyone in my class, I was one of the few kids to have this at home at that age. My sister currently has two young daughters and doesn’t want them to learn *anything* about periods, what a vagina is, or even what a trans person is, and one of them is 7. Many parents are afraid if they learn this stuff that young they’ll start having sex, but that’s simply untrue, kids don’t have sex drives for a start and kids aren’t being taught what sex is, just what happens to the body or about consent. There’s currently threats from parents of the kids who attend my nieces school, to pull them out and homeschool them if the child learns what a transgender person is etc. It’s *insane*, and not a single one of these parents is religious either.
One day I hope we will look back with great shame about the way trans people were treated in this era. 40 odd years ago it was gay people who had lies and misinformation spread about them by the far right, now it’s trans folks. How I feel for them.
Parents absolutely must have the right to opt their kids out of any education they deem unacceptable.
Not every child has a mother. Of course, I’d *hope* that the other adult figures in their life would step in and have that conversation, but you can’t assume that’s going to be the case for every child. You have to work to the lowest common denominator.
Do you seriously believe all mothers (if the child has a mother) are that good? I've met grandmothers who can't talk to their daughter about sex because of embarrassment.
It is irresponsible! Teaching the basics at age appropriate intervals means kinds stay safe and know what to expect of their own bodies! Know when something isn't okay and can call out abuse when it happens! The extra part about banning "gender ideology" is just maddening culture war nonsense. When are these conservatives gonna get it through their thick skulls that no one cares that trans and queer people exist. I suffered from gender dysphoria for a solid 13 years when puberty started and aside from nearly ending myself, going anorexic over body dysmorphia that refused to acknowledge the cause and eventual self-harm along with suicidal ideation, all it would've taken was a brief description in my early/mid teens that trans people experience a few types of gender dysphoria, there are treatments for it and that it's not sonething so taboo that to even think those thoughts felt like commiting social suicide such that I didn't even really connect to any of my friends until after I came out in my mid 20s! I've never felt more like I have a will to live and I could've had this a decade ago if I wasn't made to be afraid of it, but no, let's ban it all - if the trans kids end up dead then it's no biggie. /s
Is Sunak making the UK become Saudi Arabia, Iran, Irak ?
The United states. People really underestimate how backwards the Christian right actually is. Fundamentalist Christian groups are no different to fundamentalist islam. They are far more dangerous though as these Christian nut jobs have the money and influence to affect government policy.
Y'all qaeda
I didn't have Sunak going for the nonce vote on my bingo card.
Who wrote the current curriculum ? The Government. Whose driving this ? A right wing think tank - is it based in Tufton St perchance ? Sunak is a drowning man trying to grasp at anything. Don't drink the kool aid folks.
I should mention that sex ed for children is not some orgy as is sometimes presented, but is important for their safety in letting them know the facts.
This policy makes no sense. I understand that maybe it’s a case of wanting to maintain children’s innocence, however we are in a society where that is not possible. Pretty much most songs reference sex these days. The amount children pick up online is hard to imagine. Education is always the best option.
The tories really are clutching at the culture wars straws, aren't they? Rainbow lanyards the other day. Sex education today. It's pathetic and is not the way to win an election. Or perhaps they know that and it's more about energising their dwindling base to actually get out and vote when the time comes to try and stem some of the losses? Sooner we have an election the sooner these chucklefucks can fuck off once and for all.
We definitely didn’t do sex ed stuff in my primary school until about year five or six. I wonder how different this is to what most schools have been doing anyway. Everyone in uproar again though.
They should change the name from sex education. For under 9s it’s basically just consent education, there’s nothing sex about it.
It's sex education as in male and female. Not sexual intercourse education.
yes, WE know but the naming allows for this sort of stupid debate. Sex implies sexual activity because thats what sex is. a different name someone i saw say Puberty Education which is better but still not perfect. we had PSHE at school, surely Personal Health Education is enough
Thank you. It’s maddening that everything needs to be explained in detail before people are prepared to listen.
Afaik, the only ‘sex education’ taught at 9 is about how puberty works I.e. periods, wet dreams, breast growth, erections, pubic hair, and other anatomy. But this is based on when I was 9 9 years ago, and when my sister was 9 5 years ago. I don’t know why the government would do this other than to push the age up in the future due to their illogical hatred of the LGBTQIA+ and wanting to commit a soft genocide by restricting education about important topics for learning about yourself. Also the ‘bad guys’ of history have always restricted the rights of minority groups. And to predict the hateful comments, not all LGBTQIA+ and furries are not paedo/zoophiles and the latter are not minority groups, they are a cancer on society and the only things that don’t deserve life.
lol hahah i remember that shit some dude walking naked down a hallway in a house, then it pauses, and zooms onto his junk and its like THE PENIS or something.
[удалено]
There are pupils in my year 5 (age 9 and 10) who have started their periods. Very hard to explain what is happening to them without some kind of sex-ed/body awareness.
Where does it say the tories are planning to stop teaching girls about their periods? Oh yeah, it doesn’t.
What do you think sex ed in primary school consists of?
That was a weird little side step. So we are ignoring everything that has officially been said about this policy and we are sticking to the baseless theory that they will stop young girls learning about periods because you think that’s the only thing they could be talking about?. Have you actually done any research into this, or did we seriously not get past the headline?.
The article states what will or won't be taught in year 6, and after 13 (which is seperate to my point) whilst stating NO sex Ed will happen before age 9. I'd suggest a quick recap yourself.
The article at no point mentions teaching young girls about periods, or puberty in anyway. You’ll also notice that any reference to the idea is completely absent from the criticism of the policy that takes up a majority of the article. That is because professionals would look silly making that argument after explicitly being told it’s not being changed by the government. What’s happened here is you’ve read a snippet of some very bad journalism and you’ve filled in the gaps with your imagination.
>General secretary Daniel Kebede said they need the opportunity to discuss puberty and relationships with trusted adults. Again, back atcha
From the actual guidelines we are talking about. In primary school: - the risks around online gaming, scams and why social-media sites and gambling sites are age restricted - should not be taught before Year 3 - puberty and the key facts about the menstrual cycle - not before Year 4 -sex education - not before Year 5 (in line with what pupils learn about conception and birth, as part of the national curriculum for science) What year do you think girls currently learn about the key facts of the menstrual cycle at this very moment before these new guidelines are introduced? Is it year 4 by any chance?. Edit. Link for an article with the full guidelines for your perusal and hopefully realisation you have been chatting bollocks. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-69017920.amp
[удалено]
Seems people had quite varied educations. In my primary school (mixed state school near London) in the late 90s, we didn't have anything until year 6 (age 10-11) but they taught us most stuff at that point, including about condoms etc, and it included a very graphic video of a woman giving birth and showed full non-sexual nudity of adults. After that in secondary school we had lessons on the subject every year as part of both biology and PSHE lessons.
I genuinely *cannot comprehend* why Catholicism might have any kind of vested interest in keeping people sexually ignorant so they don't use birth control, accidentally get pregnant in their teens, pump out lots of Catholic babies, and lack the words to tell their parents what Father Slippyfingers was doing to them behind the altar after choir practice. Totally stumped here.
[удалено]
I think you've mistaken an obvious joke for a serious and earnest criticism of the Catholic church.
Yes, but not in the way that you think. It's things like "you have private parts, it's not OK for other people to be touching them, if they are, tell somebody", and relationships stuff (like "there are lots of different types of families, some people have two mummies").
We had it at Catholic primary over 30 years ago and again at high school.
Anyone can have kids. Not everyone can be a good parent. You can blame the government but the problems starts in the house.
the only people who don't want to teach the concept of consent and what is and isn't okay to be doing at that age, are the people of the jimmy saville persuasion. but he was good friends with thatcher, so it does track i guess.
Wonder if this rishi is organising for his retirment plan or he was paid a bunch of money for it. Probably both, slimey fuck
What I don't get with this type of thing, is why the fuck is Rishi Sunak saying when kids should or shouldn't have sex education? Is he some kind of authority on children's education or development?
I work in publishing and we do lots of books on soft learning about families, where babies come from etc. If these things are available publicly for children to see them what is the point in banning it in education?
Get ready for when the Tories decide these books need to be removed from libraries.
What is it with conservatives are preventing children from understanding when they are being abused? Is every conserative a nonce?
I heard Dishy Rishi’s wife has shares in a private company that offer sex education to children… Ok, not really. But would anyone be surprised?
Serious question: is sex Ed in the UK done with 8 year olds? I remember girls going for a girls only assembly in the last year of primary school so 10-11 years old which I guess was about periods I also remember sex ed in secondary school at about 13 years old Do 8 and 9 year olds currently get sex ed? What are the benefits of doing it that young?
Girls are starting puberty earlier, but even in the past, some girls started menstruating at 8. It happened to my mums friend’s daughter, so my mum decided to tell me what periods were at that age. This was over 20 years ago. More girls start early now. So it makes sense now for kids to learn a year or two earlier than in the past. Also sex ed at this age is totally unrelated to actual sex, it’s just telling them what is private and the only people who are allowed to see those parts. It gives kids the tools and knowledge so they know how to tell someone if they are being abused. They’re not learning about sex, condoms, STIs etc they’re too young for that.
My daughter didn’t start till 13 so don’t know about that. Great answer though. Didn’t think about the abuse angle
Yes, but sex ed is not the thing you're thinking of. It's a much broader topic, covering things like "some parts of your body are private. If people are touching you there, you need to tell an adult", "people have lots of different types of families, some of which include having two mummies". One major benefit is that it's basically the *only* way in which paedophiles abusing children in their own family ever get caught.
Why are people defending teaching 6 year olds about sex. It's far too young, this headline is ridiculous.
[удалено]
It’s absolutely staggering how many people are willing to have an opinion attacking this policy without having a basic grasp on what the policy actually is. Firstly the guidance hasn’t been released yet, so full details are not available. The government however has been very clear that it will not be changing how puberty will be taught to young girls and that awareness over potential abuse should be treated as a separate issue from sex education. What exactly is the problem here?.
So this thread aged like hot milk. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-69017920.amp Funnily enough the actual guidelines look nothing like the independent claimed they would and nearly every single talking point raised turned out to be little more than hysterical misinformation.
Except that doesn't actually address any of the major points that people have raised here at all.
You mean if we ignore absolutely everything that the guidelines say we can still pretend there is an issue?. Which specific concern are you under the impression hasn’t been addressed by these guidelines being released?. Because as far as I can see it’s literally all there in the article and you didn’t actually give an example
They should ban teaching kids about transexuals, it's thems and they's, they don't need to know about that shit at their ages. They're taught that it's normal, that's why there's so many weirdos around these days, sorry but it's far far from it.
It's common knowledge on reddit, that the exponential growth of teenagers identifying as LGBT has nothing to do with indoctrination in schools, so take your common sense elsewhere.
The entire debate stemming from a catastrophic failure in parenting in Britain in recent years, sad
The entire debate stemming from a catastrophic failure in leadership by a talentless, witless PM throwing political shit at the wall hoping something sticks.
Explain how that works.
I agree with Mr. Sunak here. UK is becoming a better place to raise kids than the rest of Europe.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bad faith actors have been hijacking early years sex ed by pushing some very weird and inappropriate shit. These people claiming its to prevent or be able to report SA is disingenuous as thats handled with a short conversation and check-ins, not by pushing ideologies. HD check required for anyone pushing back on this
> Bad faith actors have been hijacking early years sex ed by pushing some very weird and inappropriate shit. Big if true. Can you support this with anything except isolated incidents culled from tabloids with no evidence they're representative of a general trend? Or are you defining "weird and inappropriate shit" as things like "being gay is ok" or "trans people exist"?
So isolated incidents with rising frequency are AOK? Big if true Why are you linking weird and inappropriate with trans and gay people? Wtf?
> with rising frequency are AOK? Big if true It might be significant *if you can demonstrate it*. Can you?
This is just a lie, and makes it very clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.