Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Gender identity isn't scientific nor fact based.

It's years, decades really, since sex ed was just teaching the biology of reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases. For a very long time it's covered contraception, healthy relationships, and consent - all necessary and worthwhile topics. The issue is whether external providers go beyond this and teach from an ideological stance, introducing material that is not evidence based or not appropriate for the age group.

I'd add that this situation of out-sourcing certain subjects or topics, especially in high schools, is partly the result of underfunding. Many high schools no longer have a specialist Personal and Social Education (or variant of this post) teacher. They make form teachers teach PSE and understandably these staff don't feel qualified to teach the sex ed component so schools bring in outside providers, often with a company getting the contract for the whole authority. This results in less supervision of what is actually going on. Schools outsource responsibility as well as content.

Similar situation with high school music lessons and junior school PE lessons, though obviously with less contentious content. Lots of high schools no longer have a music teacher.

 

[multitool]

Many high schools no longer have a specialist Personal and Social Education (or variant of this post) teacher.

Just checked with somebody in the know. Most schools never did have specialist PHSE teachers and the lessons were farmed out to either form tutors or random teachers with gaps on their timetables. And now many are choosing to embed RSE and HE into other subjects.

Lots of high schools no longer have a music teacher.

How many is "lots"?

I've just done a job search on 'eteach' which I am told is the main source of advertised jobs. 16 job vacancies for music teachers vs 20 for Art teachers. Do schools no longer have Art teachers too?

I think you need to put some meat on the bones rather than just throwing out unsubstantiated claims.

"Lots" doesn't cut it. Nor does your talk of "outsourcing". It's meaningless without detail and context. Schools "outsource" every time they buy a subject textbook

 

[AuroraSaab]

Just checked with somebody in the know. Most schools never did have specialist PHSE teachers and the lessons were farmed out to either form tutors or random teachers with gaps on their timetables. And now many are choosing to embed RSE and HE into other subjects.

Every school I taught in had a specialist PSE (or equivalent) teacher who did the sex ed stuff at KS4, though form teachers might have done KS3 PSE and other stuff. They don't now, which is kind of the point...

How many is "lots"?
I've just done a job search on 'eteach' which I am told is the main source of advertised jobs. 16 job vacancies for music teachers vs 20 for Art teachers. Do schools no longer have Art teachers too?

Schools do away with permanent Music teachers and employ peripatetic staff to come in. So one teacher will teach in half a dozen schools and instead of having a lesson a week, kids will do Music for a term or even half a term. So an authority with 30 schools will need only 5 full time teachers not 30. Hence fewer job adverts.

Partly this is due to cutting back on arts subjects to give extra time to Maths, English, and Science. It also allows the use of temporary contracts rather than permanent staff.

https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/make-music-compulsory-schools-says-refreshed-plan

"A survey by Teacher Tapp released earlier this week found 22% of secondary school teachers said year nine pupils receive no compulsory music lessons, and a further 13% said they only study music for part of the year."

I think you need to put some meat on the bones rather than just throwing out unsubstantiated claims.

"Lots" doesn't cut it. Nor does your talk of "outsourcing". It's meaningless without detail and context. Schools "outsource" every time they buy a subject textbook

This is an umbrella organisation for sex ed providers listing lots of external providers.
https://www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/about/partners.

There will be other companies who aren't members of this particular umbrella group.

One of their members alone, Big Talk Education, teach in 160 schools.
https://www.bigtalkeducation.co.uk/bigtalk-education/#:~:text=About BigTalk Education - a leading UK sex education social enterprise&text=BigTalk Education is a UK,them safe, healthy and happy.

I don't think people realise what a huge business providing external training to both kids and staff is these days.

Textbooks usually cover the national curriculum - they wouldn't sell if they didn't - so the content is prescribed and unlikely to be contentious. If your child came home with a Year 7 History book with images of dismembered soldiers you might find that age-inappropriate though and complain. Likewise a Geography textbook that denied climate change.

Now we've established that there are loads of external companies providing sex and relationship education in UK schools, can you explain why there shouldn't be the same transparency about their teaching and materials as there is for other subjects? And the same rigour about the content being factual and evidence based? Especially when the head of Ofsted thinks there's a need for additional guidance.

 

[multitool]

Every school I taught in had a specialist PSE (or equivalent) teacher who did the sex ed stuff at KS4, though form teachers might have done KS3 PSE and other stuff. They don't now, which is kind of the point...

There are 4190 secondary schools in UK. Did you teach at all of them?

Your anecdote is not data.

Schools do away with permanent Music teachers and employ peripatetic staff to come in. So one teacher will teach in half a dozen schools and instead of having a lesson a week, kids will do Music for a term or even half a term. So an authority with 30 schools will need only 5 full time teachers not 30. Hence fewer job adverts.

An authority with 30 schools? 80% of secondary schools are academies. They have no relationship with whatever rump remains of a LEA.

"A survey by Teacher Tapp released earlier this week found 22% of secondary school teachers said year nine pupils receive no compulsory music lessons, and a further 13% said they only study music for part of the year."

22% is a minority. It isn't "lots".

This is an umbrella organisation for sex ed providers listing lots of external providers.
https://www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/about/partners.

There will be other companies who aren't members of this particular umbrella group.

One of their members alone, Big Talk Education, teach in 160 schools.

There are over 32,000 schools in the UK. 160 isn't a very big number.

Now we've established that there are loads of external companies providing sex and relationship education in UK schools,

"We" have established no such thing. And even if we had, which we haven't, it's then a huge leap to assume that they are providing unsuitable materials... especially considering nobody has yet been able to produce any evidence that it has happened.

I know from close contact with my children's school and from discussions with teachers that safeguarding is the number one priority, not only because staff want children to be safe, but also because it can result in school closure if OFSTED find issues. I also know that everything put in front of children is scrutinised to an absolute paranoid degree.

It's no good quoting Spielman because she gave no specifics. For all you know she might have been referring to PHSE teaching in a faith school. You've made assumptions according to your own axe that you keep on grinding As it stands there is yet to be any actual evidence of children being taught '72 genders' and all the stuff you are trying and failing to present as commonplace.

This is just you up to your usual tricks, isn't it.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

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.

I don't agree with that at all, to me it doesn't matter whether it is 3, 250, of 4500 schools, like it said it is wrong. Also you haven quite the history of calling things you don't agree with either ''panic'' claim that there is no evidence for etc. but you fail to provide evedicne to the contrary yourself, you respond like a tory.. making the issue sound smaller even if nothing shows you really known where you're talking about.

 

[multitool]

I don't agree with that at all, to me it doesn't matter whether it is 3, 250, of 4500 schools,

I wasn't having a discussion with you. I was challenging Aurora to put a number to the word "many".

She couldn't, and she still can't.

so you haven quite the history of calling things you don't agree with either ''panic'' claim that there is no evidence for etc. but you fail to provide evedicne to the contrary yourself, you respond like a tory..

Yeah...it's not very easy to find evidence that something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist.

making the issue sound smaller even if nothing shows you really known where you're talking about.

Yeah,would it be better if I just rocked up and spouted some incomprehensible, frankly weird and pointless bullshît, like you do?

 

[AuroraSaab]

There are 4190 secondary schools in UK. Did you teach at all of them? Your anecdote is not data.

Neither is your 'just checked with somebody in the know'. You constantly dismiss other people's experiences whilst holding up your own as the last word on the issue. That's on every thread, not just this one.

An authority with 30 schools? 80% of secondary schools are academies. They have no relationship with whatever rump remains of a LEA. 22% is a minority. It isn't "lots".

There are over 32,000 schools in the UK. 160 isn't a very big number.

"We" have established no such thing.

We've established there are lots of external providers of sex ed, surely. It was a pretty long list on that web site. Lots of schools cooperate on training and bulk purchase, even though they are academies.

But again, this is just dismissing concerns because the number doesn't reach some arbitrary figure you have in mind. It's your whole 'Unless women are regularly being raped in toilets it's not a big deal'/'It's only a few men in women's prisons' thing again.

I know from close contact with my children's school and from discussions with teachers that safeguarding is the number one priority, not only because staff want children to be safe, but also because it can result in school closure if OFSTED find issues. I also know that everything put in front of children is scrutinised to an absolute paranoid degree.

Of course it's a priority in every school. But age inappropriate or non factual content in sex ed isn't a safeguarding issue. The Ofsted issue - which Spelman raised - is that Ofsted's brief is to ensure minimum content standards are met, not to comment on whether the content is too much. Hence her suggestion of more guidelines and clarity for schools.

It's no good quoting Spielman because she gave no specifics. For all you know she might have been referring to PHSE teaching in a faith school. You've made assumptions according to your own axe that you keep on grinding As it stands there is yet to be any actual evidence of children being taught '72 genders' and all the stuff you are trying and failing to present as commonplace.

Once again, this your fall back position of 'It's not happening' .... then 'Well if it is happening it's not happening very much'. Next it will be 'Well it doesn't matter anyway because nobody cares'.

I haven't said it's commonplace. I've said there are concerns, shared by the head of Ofsted - who was obviously talking generally about the recent media coverage not faith schools - and that external providers should be giving fact based content not ideologically slanted information.

It seems to be the case that anything concerned with gender ideology is immediately dismissed by you as a culture war issue. There is literally nothing that would make you pause for five minutes, whether it's age inappropriate sex education in schools, lesbians wanting to meet in exclusive groups, males in women's sports and prisons, single sex services...

None of it matters to you, which is fine. It matters to others though and your constant deriding of every single thing concerning gender as pearl clutching and irrelevant is dismissive of the genuine concerns that many people, including many women, have.

 

[multitool]

There is no evidence.

And that is the bottom line. You are very good at whipping up an a priori argument and then positing that because you've been able to make it, it must be true and it counts as evidence.

This will disappear into the mist because there is no substance to it. And you'll latch on to whatever the next crap is you see on twitter GC accounts and regurgitate it here.

 

[multitool]

In other news anti-trans campaigner and hate cultist Maya Forster loses her mind over Oxfam's guidance on language used around parenthood, and complains that Oxfam are "abolishing" the word mother:

She neglects to post up the entire guidance which makes it clear that it is about using language preferred by the parent, in order to be inclusive, IF the parent is trans.

These 'GC' people are so intellectually dishonest. It's no wonder Aurora is the way she is.

 

[AuroraSaab]

These 'GC' people are so intellectually dishonest. It's no wonder Aurora is the way she is.

Lol. You just can't help yourself. You find it impossible to make an argument that doesn't eventually fall back on abuse, whether it's me, other posters, or somebody else making the argument on social media.

There is no evidence.
This will disappear into the mist because there is no substance to it.

Then providers will happily share their materials, Ofsted will get clearer guidelines, and we'll all be happy because there's transparency and no problems identified.

There is literally nothing in the public domain discussion on gender that makes you pause though. I mean, literally not a thing that would make you think about why people might be questioning it. Not even male rapists in women's jails made you go 'Hang on a minute...'.

If it's in the Daily Mail it must be wrong so you just dismiss every issue around gender as unworthy of your superior intellect.

You seem to have forgotten that it was you who introduced the topic of school sex ed lessons to the thread back on page 143:

"Oh, and has anybody here with kids noticed how they have been coming home talking about felching after a PHSE lesson?"

You have spent 5 pages moaning that something 'isn't worth talking about' when the only reason we are talking about it is because you brought it up.

This thread has gone to sleep a couple of times but it's you who've seen fit to resurrect it. You seem to spend a lot of time trawling Twitter to find women who make you cross so you can post them here and be rude and aggressive. Honestly, you do my job for me.

(Edited for spelling)

 

[winjim]

In other news anti-trans campaigner and hate cultist Maya Forster loses her mind over Oxfam's guidance on language used around parenthood, and complains that Oxfam are "abolishing" the word mother:
View attachment 3343

She neglects to post up the entire guidance which makes it clear that it is about using language preferred by the parent, in order to be inclusive, IF the parent is trans.

View attachment 3344

These 'GC' people are so intellectually dishonest. It's no wonder Aurora is the way she is.

There's an interesting conversation to be had about the words 'mother', 'father' and 'parent', their meaning, how the meaning can shift with context, their relationship with sex and gender, and their use as both noun and verb.

I expect I'll bring it up this Sunday, I usually do.

 

[multitool]

You seem to spend a lot of time trawling Twitter to find women who make you cross so you can post them here and be rude and aggressive. Honestly, you do my job for me

"seem". The word people use to impute something that isn't true. I spend no time 'trawling' Twitter to find stuff. It appears in my feed occasionally and very occasionally I post it here.

Again, you are playing the victim and invoking misogyny. It's dull, Aurora. Loads of people have remarked on your dishonesty.

 

[multitool]

There's an interesting conversation to be had about the words 'mother', 'father' and 'parent', their meaning, how the meaning can shift with context, their relationship with sex and gender, and their use as both noun and verb.

I expect I'll bring it up this Sunday, I usually do.

In the context of theclaud's OP, it's pretty relevant

Lots of values ascribed to those words. You would have thought all feminists would recognise it and not just the ones who aren't transphobes

 

[winjim]

In the context of theclaud's OP, it's pretty relevant

Lots of values ascribed to those words. You would have thought all feminists would recognise it and not just the ones who aren't transphobes

It's interesting even before you consider trans identity. Insistence on the same strict definition in all contexts runs the risk of diminishing the experience of a lot of cis people.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The fact is you've spent days saying 'Why are we talking about sex ed?' when it was you that introduced the topic in the first place.

You resurrect the thread and then moan when people discuss what you've posted. Then you eventually fall back on calling people some variety of thick or dishonest when they don't agree with you.

It's not just to me though. You're condescending and abusive to just about everybody you engage with on this forum. Occasionally the mask drops entirely and you let us know what you really think about women's looks, those who do manual work, or people who read tabloids. Any valid points you might have are lost because you bring nothing to this debate but a sneering arrogance.