Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

And here is Aurora's heroine, Julia Bindel, mainstreaming the notion that paedophiles are part of the rainbow LGBT+ community:

If you're going to search the internet desperately looking for people who you imagine I agree with every word they say, you could at least get their name right.

The fact that you seem unable to grasp that not all gender critical women have the same view about absolutely everything shows that you don't even see women as individual human beings. They're just a homogeneous group to you, without their own thoughts or agency.

I don't think you have anything of value to offer this discussion so I haven't bothered watching that clip. Julie Bindel is a lesbian woman though so if she wants to discuss the effect of adding other groups under the LGB banner and what that means for lesbians that's up to her.

Sounds like you're just miffed because Bindel and Kathleen Stock are starting a group just for lesbians and excluding men who identify as lesbians. Seems fair enough to me.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

How many is "many"?

Think that is the wrong question, it's more about the quality of the outsourced education, if indeed like @AuroraSaab says that outsourcing ''training'' isn't really neutral than that should be the core issue. I mean it's fine to teach about 72, 180, or 999 genders if it's based on real accepted facts not based on the stance or opinion of some because they happen to work in education.

and as soon is it is about gender or climate you see some usual suspects go in all kind of bends to defend it but it is just the same as a school outsourcing history lessons and getting an Russian giving the Russian view on history.

 

[theclaud]

Think that is the wrong question.

LOL. I suppose it is the wrong question to put to people who just make stuff up.

 

[multitool]

Think that is the wrong question, it's more about the quality of the outsourced education, if indeed like @AuroraSaab says that outsourcing ''training'' isn't really neutral than that should be the core issue. I mean it's fine to teach about 72, 180, or 999 genders if it's based on real accepted facts not based on the stance or opinion of some because they happen to work in education.

You want a discussion about how many angels can dance on a pinhead. I'm more interested in reality.

If the very people who whipped up a panic, launched a review, then didn't actually manage to find any evidence for it, that tells you something about the panic.

It's classic Aurora, though. Same crap as her moral-panic about marauding manladies filling up women's toilets.

 

[Ian H]

...marauding manladies filling up women's toilets.

With what??

 

[multitool]

With what??

deluging dimorphs

 

[AuroraSaab]

So when the head of Ofsted says 'some sex education lessons have no basis in science' (link in earlier post) and later calls for 'clearer and more specific guidelines' on sex education, we should ignore her because there are no problems and it's all manufactured outrage....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/amanda-spielman-ofsted-rishi-sunak-geoff-barton-association-of-school-and-college-leaders-b2298201.html?amp


If you've read the whole report, as you claim, you would see it was not just about single instances of particular lessons, but also about the external groups that have contracts for teaching sex ed in local authorities pushing unscientific concepts like gender identity and, additionally, the stuff they have on their websites.

It's not unreasonable that the materials and lesson plans used by external groups should be fact based, and available for parental scrutiny just like every other scheme of work. If the European Research Group had an educational branch that went into schools to teach about the EU you'd rightly want to ensure their materials and teaching was factually based, not driven by an agenda. Likewise if a religious group were providing external training or materials in schools.

Transparency over what is being taught in schools, whether it's sex ed or anything else, is always a good thing.

I won't bother asking you to curtail the personal abuse that you litter every offering on the forum with. It's your shtick. It's what you do. You can't help but fall back on it eventually in every single thread, whatever the topic. It adds nothing to the discussion though and adds no strength to your argument.

 

[classic33]

So when the head of Ofsted says 'some sex education lessons have no basis in science' (link in earlier post) and later calls for 'clearer and more specific guidelines' on sex education, we should ignore her because there are no problems and it's all manufactured outrage....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/amanda-spielman-ofsted-rishi-sunak-geoff-barton-association-of-school-and-college-leaders-b2298201.html?amp


If you've read the whole report, as you claim, you would see it was not just about single instances of particular lessons, but also about the external groups that have contracts for teaching sex ed in local authorities pushing unscientific concepts like gender identity and, additionally, the stuff they have on their websites.

It's not unreasonable that the materials and lesson plans used by external groups should be fact based, and available for parental scrutiny just like every other scheme of work. If the European Research Group had an educational branch that went into schools to teach about the EU you'd rightly want to ensure their materials and teaching was factually based, not driven by an agenda. Likewise if a religious group were providing external training or materials in schools.

Transparency over what is being taught in schools, whether it's sex ed or anything else, is always a good thing.

I won't bother asking you to curtail the personal abuse that you litter every offering on the forum with. It's your shtick. It's what you do. You can't help but fall back on it eventually in every single thread, whatever the topic. It adds nothing to the discussion though and adds no strength to your argument.

Link doesn't work.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The link works for me. Here's what she said:

'Addressing more than 1,000 school and college leaders on Friday, Ms Spielman added: “But I think that makes it doubly important that the RSE in schools really is well grounded in facts, in evidence, just like other areas of education, because otherwise controversy could so engulf it that it could make schools more risk averse and jeopardise the good RSE which I think all of us really want to see.

“I do think good guidelines – clearer and more specific guidelines – really could help everybody get it right.”'

 

[multitool]

I won't bother asking you to curtail the personal abuse that you litter every offering on the forum with. It's your shtick. It's what you do. You can't help but fall back on it eventually in every single thread, whatever the topic. It adds nothing to the discussion though and adds no strength to your argument.

Saying you post crap is not personal abuse. It's a comment on your posting.

Stop trying to be the perpetual victim.

 

[icowden]

Saying you post crap is not personal abuse. It's a comment on your posting.

Stop trying to be the perpetual victim.

Gaslighting again?

 

[multitool]

Evening VuVu

 

[qigong chimp]

So when the head of Ofsted says 'some sex education lessons have no basis in science' (link in earlier post) and later calls for 'clearer and more specific guidelines' on sex education, we should ignore her because there are no problems and it's all manufactured outrage....

Some sex education lessons should have no basis in science, should cover all the stuff about sex that isn't scientific. If sexual encounters were indistinguishable from scientific experiment, and admitted of no creativity and intense inter-subjectivity and pleasure then... well, advertising wouldn't get so much mileage out of sex for a start.

 

[winjim]

Some sex education lessons should have no basis in science, should cover all the stuff about sex that isn't scientific. If sexual encounters were indistinguishable from scientific experiment, and admitted of no creativity and intense inter-subjectivity and pleasure then... well, advertising wouldn't get so much mileage out of sex for a start.

Psychology is a branch of science.

 

[qigong chimp]

Oh puh-leeze.