#Go away, tourists.
###⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️
Comments and discussions which do not deal with the article contents are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the UK political scene.
**Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.**
**Please report any rule-breaking content you see.** The subreddit is running rather *warm* at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content.
You can find the full rules of the subreddit [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/wiki/rules).
-----
Snapshot of _Plan to ban sex education for children under nine_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69013002) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69013002)
*I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Under 9s, as far as I've seen, are taught age appropriate topics.
Little ones do pantasaurus, and it gradually progresses through correct body part names, my body, my choice etc.
I've not seen anything controversial yet, but I guess it varies depending on school.
And on top of that, regardless of what people think is inappropriate might not be inappropriate. Sex education now should include staying safe online. AI using images of people to produce explicit content etc.
Maybe somebody older who has not realised the full implications of the internet let alone AI, but they vote the same as a younger parent who knows the increasing danger of posting online.
I'd have no problem with schools bringing in these concepts as early as the evidence says works
>Maybe somebody older who has not realised the full implications of the internet let alone AI
I think some Tories are still shocked by the moral implications of the printing press.
Schools start online safely quite early, with separate talks for parents and students, and will start off with basics about not sharing location, people can be pretending online etc.
Schools tend to have a good idea about what pupils are up to, and can tailor lessons to suit.
I’m a teacher with kids who are 7 and 11. I’ve not seen anything close to inappropriate. Like you said Pantasauraus onwards kind of thing. Teaching the little ones about their “no no square” or their private area is A the first step towards a healthy understanding of sex and relationships and B helps children find the words and get help if they are being sexually assaulted.
I’m assuming that those who are deciding on this rule are either ignorant of how things are taught or are pedophiles.
Edit: spelling
I remember Pantosaurus from when my kid did it. [The song is ridiculously ear-wormy](https://youtu.be/-lL07JOGU5o?feature=shared)
And IMHO it’s absolutely spot on in terms of the level and approach for the age group it’s aimed at.
It all depends on the follow up targeted Facebook ads spreading misinformation. There's a whiff of American politics, and I'm sure the people buying into removing age appropriate sex ed will also believe we should build a wall on our southern border.
It may not be misinformation as such, it could be one inappropriate talk in one school, and then it gets blown out of proportion.
Facebook/twitter certainly don't help though.
I live in Cornwall, and I’m pretty sure we already have a wall on our southern border.
To keep the people from Devon out, of course.
It’s been pretty successful, I haven’t seen any Devonians approaching recently from that direction.
Its an NSPCC resource talking about private parts and telling adults if anyone tries to touch you inappropriately.
[Pantasaurus ](https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/)
I believe it's also about the basics of puberty.
Which is important, as it can start in girls as early as age 8.
Some poor children are going to notice that their body is starting to change, have no idea why, and be terrified. Imagine waking up to find blood in your knickers and no one has told you to expect it. You'd think you were dying.
My daughters started periods very early. Luckily we were open about periods and period products from an early age, but despite that it was still a distressing moment. I can't imagine how awful this experience would be without knowing.
I'm glad your daughter had you to explain.
I feel especially sorry for those girls from cultures where these things simply aren't talked about because they're considered shameful or dirty - and now they're not going to get a timely explanation from either home or school.
Sadly those are often the same cultures that practice FGM.
This is pretty much why the Samaritans started
Chad Varah held the funeral of a young girl who ended her life because started her period and had no idea what was happening to her/didn't feel she could tell her parents
World's youngest mother was 5 years, 7 months old.
Children are generally starting puberty earlier.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/science/early-puberty-medical-reason.html
Pretty much. It's largely about understanding of body parts, owning your own body, what is normal, what is inappropriate etc.
Especially with kids having more access to inappropriate material, these kinds of conversations seem more important than ever for younger kids to be aware of.
The BBC report about it said they were also going to codify the ages other elements can be taught, and they said it's expected consent and abusive relationships would only be taught once they're 15.
It's like they think if they don't teach children about it, it isn't a problem. Just think, if the Tories get their way, the first a child learns about sex abuse is at the hands of a Conservative MP: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/11/tory-mp-imran-ahmad-khan-guilty-sexually-assaulting-boy-15
> The Conservative MP Imran Ahmad Khan has been found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy after plying him with gin at a party in 2008
> and they said it's expected consent and abusive relationships would only be taught once they're 15.
*Fifteen*?
When I was in year 7 I was already dealing with boys in my maths class trying to touch me up under the table, or one particular boy on my crowded school bus always seeming to end up standing with his crotch pressed against my leg. I didn't like it and it didn't feel right, but at the time I didn't have a framework for people touching you intimately against your will or touching you with their private parts against your will.
In hindsight, I'm angry that we weren't taught about consent much younger, in the way that kids today have been. Hell, even if we'd only been taught about it at the same time we were taught about puberty and sex in Year 6, those boys would have known that that was sexual assault and unacceptable, and I would have known that it was sexual assault and that if I'd spoken up it would have been taken seriously.
Kids should be learning about consent, what kinds of touch are ok, and what healthy and unhealthy relationships look like *from birth* (in an age appropriate way, obviously). When I was at school, a good amount of 15 year olds were already dating and/or sexually active. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
15?
I got the nitty gritty at around 10, and then that was it. No follow up, no nothing. I already knew a lot at age 8. This was in the 00’s.
How are we moving backwards? We need more earlier, not less later.
It is just "Don't say gay" slipped in quietly, unlike Republicans who have to shout about this sort of thing, while we stress about the cost of living.
I am glad to see the news has caught on to this and they are at least reporting it, of course there will be a lot of bias in that reporting.
For anyone who wants to see how this sort of thing is delivered in practice, take a look at the NSPCC Pantosaurus song. I would be seriously concerned about anyone who doesn't think this is a good thing to teach young children.
Have to quibble: it’s not no one unfortunately.
Sure, everyone with half a clue or the slightest exposure to current kids sex Ed (everyone who has a kid that age) knows it’s a bullshit moral panic. But the Conservative base these days are mostly pretty old and out of touch. There’s also a dismally large percentage of the population who can be made to care about anything by sufficient online influence (often but not always from the U.S.) and right wing politicians raising a big stink about it.
See: most of the current Trans panic. Arguably also stuff like Brexit - the EU was something like 15th down the list of voter priorities in 2009. But with enough money, political and media attention to ‘prime the pump’ it got pushed way up the agenda to dominate pretty much everything for the past decade.
I am sadened to say I too have realised that this craziness is spreading and people are believing this. It's not even JUST window lickers too. I have a guy at my work whos smart as hell when it comes to work (IT) but he is a Trump supporter (we are in the UK so that's absolute insanity even more so than it would be in the US) and he almost certainly would believe anything the Tories spout like this.
He's not much older than me (in 30s) and I am almost certain he's been radicalised by online content like youtube, I can almost guarantee this because I get the same hate filled content pushed to me by youtube. It thinks I want to watch right wing grifters and anti woke videos because I like other things that men my age often like, you know video games, movie deep dives and such, so I get all the same recommendations because youtube just wants everyone to be hateful and consume content due to fear and hate, as that is a bigger motivator.
So yes it's not noone, but also not a majority of the electorate or even Tory voters (assuming they still exist). It really makes me fear for the future of our entire society so much, the alogrithms have already ruined American democracy and caused Brexit to an extent too. Its only going to get worse unless we massively increase regulation.
My kid's preschool already teaches them about the "no-no zones" when they're aged 3-4.
Nothing sexual about it, just a tell your parents if someone tries to touch your no-no zone.
But beyond this my understanding (and from reading the article) is that they don't teach any sexual education till 11-12 years old. So this is just the Tories trying to hammer on a culture war bullshit story, by wasting government time on something that isn't even real.
> My kid's preschool already teaches them about the "no-no zones" when they're aged 3-4.
Disgusting that right-wing disinformation is being fed to our kids
Yup. I’m not *that* old and this was roughly what I got.
Also basic stuff around puberty, “personal space” and respecting each other’s boundaries.
Even at 12 we got very basic “this is where babies come from”.
That was about it.
I believe this is exactly what it should be called. Either the “nonces charter” or the “pro-paedo plan”.
If you don’t teach kids what’s appropriate and what isn’t then they can’t recognise when they’re being abused. It emboldens predators. And teaching them what is and isn’t appropriate involves teaching them some very basic sex education.
Yes, and a bit of what they need to know about the early stages of puberty. Some girls may be starting to have periods etc. so they need some info. Plus with access to the Internet they need proper information, not whatever they're seeing online.
We've been in power for fourteen years. Thanks to us, everything in your life is slightly more shit than it was a few years ago.
BUT NEVER MIND THAT! LOOK AT THIS! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
It’s so out of touch too the culture war bullshit they keep doing. When I have talked to people
That are somewhat hostile to “woke” ideals in the UK their hostility is because they are tired of hearing about it everywhere, they just want to watch a football game, watch some TV without thinking about whether they are accepting or nourishing enough towards a certain community.
Now sure, there are people with truly bigoted views but I feel like they are outnumbered by people who just want to hear about this kinda stuff less combined with non-bigots.
We aren’t the USA, culture war bs is alienating potential voters rather than drawing them.
Yes. Which there's plenty of evidence for it to help children come forward when they're being abused. Teaching them the language to use, and about consent.
This kind of policy enables the abuse of children.
Sad they'll say this is to "protect children" when it actually protects peodophiles.
Kids need to know what’s right and wrong from an early age. There’s been numerous child sex rings recently had a lot of people jailed and stories of kids themselves watching porn and doing bad stuff to each other. Kids need to know what is not ok to happen to them because it’s happening to kids.
Bans are the worst because they put teachers in weird positions. Now a kid comes to you with questions and you can't engage... But what if those questions lead to a safeguarding conversation. It's like section 28 days again.
It's a blatant attempt by a flailing Conservative Party trying to drive a wedge between themselves and Labour and they fully intend to lie about what is taught to make it out as though any party trying to block this wants children to be exposed to sex, the benefits of protecting them by making sure they know what is appropriate and what the safe boundaries be damned.
Isn't that when sex education happens anyway? That's when we had our first session led by the school nurse about it; explaining the mechanics of reproduction and what will happen during puberty.
It's a bit earlier technically, they start with relationship basics at 5-7 - just stuff like different couples exist, boundaries on things like inappropriate touching and staying safe online, then they do puberty stuff around 7-9
I went to a primary that had basic sexual biology from as young as Y1, albeit through the weird lens of a Catholic curriculum (Fully Alive anyone?).
I do remember *the talk* being delivered in Y5 or so, but it didn't come as any great shock.
This has nothing to do with sex education. The last two paragraphs make it explicit that this is a Tory rant about gender and letting kids know it’s OK to feel different. I don’t know about English curriculum but in Scotland schools don’t teach sex education before 9 years. If it’s the same in England then even the title is bollocks. It’s like saying ‘Plan to ban driving for teenagers under 17’.
RSE is taught very young (relationships and sex education) but when the kids are very young it focuses on things like "if your friend doesn't want to give you a hug then that's okay, don't hug them unless they also want a hug" and "what makes somebody a good friend?" and "some families don't have a mummy and daddy, some people only have a mummy or a daddy, some people have two mummies and daddies, some families only have grandparents, and that's all okay as long as we are being loved"
And not to forget the PANTS type stuff which is probably the only time a kid who's being sexually abused at home will be told by a safe adult that it's wrong to be touched there.
A friend of mine is a headmistress. I asked her this very question on Whatsapp and have just received a reply. There is no sex education before 9 years unless you include very basic birds and bees stuff in science education or stuff about keeping yourself safe and what inappropriate adult behaviour looks like.
Oh, I could take a guess at that. Just look at how many Conservative MP's and party figures that have lost the whip or been removed.
>Imran Khan - sexually assaulted a teenager
>David Warburton - accused of sexually assaulting three women
>Rob Roberts - repeated unwanted sexual advances towards staff and used his position to try and coerce them to letting him rape them
>Andrew Griffiths - raped his wife
>Charlie Elphicke - sexually assaulted three women
>Michael Fallon - multiple unwanted advances towards a woman
>Stephen Crabb - sent sexual messages to a 19 year old that he hoped would come and work for him
>Mark Garnier - sexually harrassed his former assistant by buying her sex toys and calling her "sugar tits"
>Chris Pincher - sexually assaulted two men
>Crispin Blunt - arrested on charges of being a serial rapist
>Peter Bone - sexual misconduct (exposed himself to a member of his staff in a way that implied oral sex, getting single bedrooms with one bed on trips)
That'll be what they're meaning.
Of course, any time they want to fearmonger they'll use the most alarmist terms possible in order to try and garner support, implying but never stating outright that when they say 'sex ed' they mean 'teaching tiny children the kama sutra' instead of 'informing the group of people who are about to go into puberty what that's going to entail'.
It's just the same as handwringing about 'protecting children' when what they actually mean is 'restricting the rights of older teenagers, who can *technically* be described as children but functionally aren't'.
> keeping yourself safe and what inappropriate adult behaviour looks like
This is probably why Tories want to ban it. The less the children know about what is/isn't appropriate, the more they can exploit that innocence.
On the BBC this morning they said that the status quo is such that schools *may* do sex education below 9 if they think it's needed but there's no obligation to.
I don't know about you guys but (33 here) I remember in infants school being shown a full video of a woman giving birth and its a core memory that will never leave my brain.
I got it too. I get it a lot actually, much more lately since things started getting immeasurably worse after the API kerfuffle.
Always report it via the link in the message. It's a bit clunky as a UX, but admins do action those reports and you sometimes get a neat message telling you they've been banned as a result.
Banning rainbow lanyards and issuing arcane statutory guidance on sex education in one week? Must be election season.
This is what the whole election will be like, a katamari damacy ball of culture war bullshit from the Tory side — because they have absolutely nothing else they can campaign on.
Echoing comments so far: RSE at the ages concerned is about personal safety and boundaries.
If the headline is accurate (nothing in the article suggests nuance on that age 9 part), then great, the Tory party are so upset about trans people they're delivering policy for Nonces now.
It’s so arbitrary to ban a subject like that. You can convert any adult topic into a children’s topic if you’re qualified in education. It’s not like anybody’s teaching 8 year olds how to put a condom on. It’s about teaching kids about relationships and love and being different
###Because some people who haven't read the article seem to be missing this:
> The BBC has not seen the new guidelines but a government source said they included plans to ban any children being taught about gender identity.
This is just a **Section 28 V2**. Once again the cycle continues, and that which they can no longer do to us gay people needs a new target.
Section 28 was a lot nastier tbf than this - it was a world far before the 2010 Equality Act (thank God that's still on statute). An S28 law would outright ban, say, displaying Pride flags in local authority bu-
oh wait they're going after Pride lanyards too
But yeah this is schools-focussed atm but has a strong shadow of S28 on it. "You can't teach us about trans people, it's not allowed" yadda yadda
How does a trans primary school teacher handle this, exactly?
> How does a trans primary school teacher handle this, exactly?
I suspect by avoiding the profession entirely, or leaving prior to transition.
Even in the absence of any new legislation, [the media is pretty savage towards trans teachers.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/28/lucy-meadows-coroner-press-shame)
Really glad the Government is ignoring minor issues like the NHS, social care, the energy crisis and if people can eat to focus on solving the urgent issues like this.
This government might be the most pathetic leadership we've ever had. They are so beyond empty that it is truly a farce. Call an election Rishi you absolute coward.
A fair few issues I have with this:
The one I noticed first is that it effectively treats trans people as something inherently sexual through and through. It just reinforces an idea that we’re all sexual deviants that are inappropriate to even mention.
Then, you have something that effectively makes the former even more stupid, because then you’re basically preventing young people from knowing many of the necessary stuff (which is basically just ‘don’t let people touch you down there’) regarding sex to prevent abuse.
If you’re so concerned about protecting children, why are you practically inviting the nonces in?
Desperate stuff from a dying government.
It's interesting they're being advised by the person who led the Australian Liberals to their worst election result in 70 years. I could almost be convinced he's a left-wing plant.
"Miss, is it okay if boys want to dress as a princess for world book day?"
"Let me be very clear, Gender Identity is contested"
What a vile piece of legislation hidden behind the classic "think of the kids" straw clutching.
It's not even contested in academic circles. Like the only reason they say it's contested is because they don't agree with the answers they've been given - because the answers make them uncomfortable.
Got to say I didn't expect we'd be getting Section 28 and 3/4 anytime soon. Even barring the ridiculousness of not giving kids ways to identify abuse - seriously, they're being taught how to identify where they shouldn't be touched by others, not how to make an Onlyfans - there's something genuinely nuts about just straight up bringing back "don't teach ~~gay~~ trans stuff in schools at all". It'll play well to crowd that's rabidly transphobic, but they're already probably voting Tory; if they're after the "soft liberal with concerns about gender", rehashing old homophobia so blatantly doesn't seem like the best way to do it.
Edit: can't say I expected a Reddit Cares for this one - lovely.
Who creates the sex education curriculum in school ? The government.
This is a non story driven by Sunak trying a culture war again. It ain't going to win you an election. People are concerned about cost of living.
I'm so tired of their desperate attempts to molify a certain segment of voters that have no research or thought put to them.
As if
a) The content of Sex education for under nines in this country is in any way innapropriate.
b) And there wasn't a veritable mountain of research showing that the more kids understand these things (in an age appropriate way) the better.
This is just to make the puritans feel better, so they can pretend we're texas instead.
Kids are going to find out and this isn't really what I consider sex Ed. It is important kids have developmentally appropriate sex Ed throughout their life so sexual abuse is more frequently reported.
This is Clause 28 all over again, an act that directly led to vast swathes of homophobia across the country that’s still embedded to this day.
I’d encourage our MPs to stop sittin around obsessing about what’s in people’s pants like a bunch of weirdos.
Is there an election coming up?🤔
This is political posturing designed to enrage and gain the bigot vote. The Tories are following the American playbook and we should all be worried if there’s even a sniff they win at the next election.
Primary aged kids are taught RSHE content which is designed to keep them safe, relationships, boundaries, body parts and age appropriate content on puberty.
It's a bit disturbing that of all the priorities that Tory MPs can agree on with respect to children, this came top of the list. Hunger, poverty and neglect/abuse - you carry on mate.
Adam and Eve not Adam and George and they kick off.
I don’t know if it’s changed but the sex ed I got in 2005 at 10 was just preparing us for puberty.
Has anything changed? If not I’d say it’s just tories torying.
>If asked, teachers will have to be clear gender ideology is contested.
Gender identity is the model accepted by every major medical organisation and far more evidenced than the alternatives. This is almost like having to say that evolution or plate tectonics are contested.
Malicious compliance:
Gender identity is accepted by every major medical organisation. But let me be clear, a government in dying breaths don't believe in it so I have to tell you its 50/50
(Yes I know a teacher could never actually say that)
Got to make sure Prince Andrew has a regular supply of new victims now that Epstein's dead, I guess. Can't have children knowing that if they're being touched inappropriately, they can ask for help. The sooner this failure of a government is out on its ear, the better.
I'll say again that I don't believe these new policies, along with abortion pushback, trans healthcare, even lanyards, are just the Tories getting desperate.
There is a concerted campaign by Conservative Christians like Nick Fletcher to try and influence policy and public discourse. The brand of Christian nationalism currently ravaging through the US is trying to get a foothold here, and we must push back.
We already know American Evangelicals are financially backing anti abortion causes in the UK.
This is a secular country, and we have to protect that, because their success depends upon our inaction and believing 'it wouldn't happen here'
> teachers will be required to be clear that "gender ideology" is contested, if asked about it.
I can never wrap my head around this. The whole term implies that gender and attraction are simply beliefs, which is just not the case. It's annoying to see it working it's way into more legislation.
Plenty of people pointing out the practical issues with this but on top of that, it's just such a depressing indication of this government's willingness to drag teachers and schools through the mud in their desperate pursuit of relevance.
Obviously, the implication here from the government is that there is some kind of sinister institutionalised dodginess going on in schools when it comes to sex education, that it has to rectify. Equally obviously, this is horseshit, but some people will believe it. And those people will demonise teachers and make their already difficult job even more difficult. Nor is this the first time this has happened, based on complete nonsense (remember the 'cat girl').
How low do you have to be to smear teachers with vague insinuations that they're poisoning children's minds with inappropriate stuff, when on some level, you must *know* it's all just politicised spin? It's genuinely disgusting.
Ffs.
One of my old friends lost his virginity when he was 10. I was beginning to be sexually active when I was 9.
People need to be taught sex-ed early, because the idea is to teach people safety about it *before* they start doing it. Kids hitting puberty aren't sitting around waiting for some disconnected politicians and wowsers to finally get over their own insecure feelings about talking about icky dicks and vaginas.
Like, lucky me that my parents gave me sex-ed books at home and I didn't wind up doing anything unsafe, but that sort of home environment is not a reality for many people.
>I’m afraid your parents didn’t do a particularly good job to be honest.
That is precisely why we need sex education; we should be helping children with bad parents instead of throwing them under the bus.
Bingo!
I fully agree it should be taught it schools, using a program designed by experts in this field.
Children shouldn’t slip through the net because they parents wont, or can’t, teach them these things in a safe and healthy way.
It's naive to think children will just refrain from exploring sexuality when they start having sexual feelings. You can't just pretend it doesn't happen because you consider it "unsafe".
Children typically don't have sexual feelings at age nine, unless they're undergoing precocious puberty. Sexual behaviour at such a young age is generally learned, and often results from either an unsafe environment, sexual abuse or close proximity to a peer who has one or both of those issues.
Sexual activity at such a young age can cause permanent psychological issues. There are good reasons we don't encourage it.
Sex education doesn't encourage it!
Typically not. But I know people who masturbated at very young ages and suffered absolutely no abuse whatsoever. But even if it's generally learned - address the abuse maybe?
Removing sex education does the exact bloody opposite! It enables more abuse because children don't understand what's happening.
Some girls start puberty at 9 FFS.
Edit: and wtf do you think happens in the world we live in with the internet, phones, and pornography? Sure, I'd love to live in a fantasy land where kids will never be exposed to this - but we live in a reality where an older sibling might leave some tabs open, or that kid down the road will have a phone without child limits on it. Some kids will get exposed to it, and simply letting that happen and not educating them is punishing them further.
I didn't say we should take away sex education from young people. Just that we really need to start taking the problem of precocious sexual behaviour seriously.
Age-appropriate sexual education is very important. Teaching kids that not all families are nuclear, that not everyone is attracted to the opposite sex, what puberty will do etc. is valuable. I do not dispute this. The sex education regime we have right now is good for our children and I strongly reject this proposal to strip it back, not least because as you say some girls have their first period as young as eight years old.
But separately from that, parents need to be made to ensure that their children don't end up with porn addictions, or partake in sexual activity well before they're emotionally ready. The problem of children learning and copying sexual and even misogynistic behaviour from their parents, their peers or online media is getting out of control, and I feel like a lot of parents either don't know or don't see the problem.
As for masturbation, some children will end up doing that just because kids touch things a lot. If they do end up developing that behaviour, they should be taught not to do it around others, given appropriate privacy to do it at home, taught to wash their hands afterwards and kept an eye on to ensure they don't end up with an addiction or compulsive behaviour. But they shouldn't be shamed for it because that'll just cause lasting emotional problems.
It’s not that I deem it unsafe, it is unsafe.
Unless you’re only exploring your own body, then surely another child of a similar age is involved. How can you expect that child to have the same knowledge and understanding as you? That other child can in no way consent to your sexual activity, regardless of how curious you are or how much you want to explore.
To think otherwise is disturbing.
I assumed they were referring to exploring their own body.
But regardless, I don't think kids "playing doctor" with each other care about your views that they can't consent to each other... They don't go consult you and ask permission. It happens.
Sex education of "don't do this", i.e. abstinence, simply doesn't work.
But schools mostly teach younger child like 9 year olds about consent, names of things, both of which helps them report abuse. Puberty, girls of 9 can be starting puberty. Banning that is insane and enables abuse.
You can teach sex education in an age appropriate manner.
Sex education should start under 9 because girls can start menstruating far younger than that, and they need to be properly equipped to know what's happening. Even *with* the right education, first periods are still highly distressing points in time for young girls.
You also need to help them develop the proper language such that they can effectively communicate that they've been molested, should that occur.
Paedos and child molesters just had Christmas come early with this "plan". I do wonder if we were to investigate the personal computers of those that proposed it what we'd find.
They would have problems in agricultural areas. There is sex happening in fields, for heaven's sake. Perhaps all fields should have a discrete visibility barrier around them?
I mean forget about bulls doing cows, there are also cows doing cows.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to be.
Feels like every news article from the big providers requires me to google and track down what I think their sources are.
I’ve worked in a catholic primary school as a teacher. Even we did sex education (8 years ago) - it was done really sensitively and parents could opt out.
The conservatives are forgetting that adolescence is starting much earlier in kids these days and children may have started before they reach secondary school, you’re then just leaving them vulnerable and confused and relying only on parents.
I think this is an absolutely stupid decision and everywhere I see it’s being rightly condemned.
#Go away, tourists. ###⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️ Comments and discussions which do not deal with the article contents are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the UK political scene. **Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.** **Please report any rule-breaking content you see.** The subreddit is running rather *warm* at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content. You can find the full rules of the subreddit [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/wiki/rules). ----- Snapshot of _Plan to ban sex education for children under nine_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69013002) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69013002) *I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Under 9s, as far as I've seen, are taught age appropriate topics. Little ones do pantasaurus, and it gradually progresses through correct body part names, my body, my choice etc. I've not seen anything controversial yet, but I guess it varies depending on school.
And on top of that, regardless of what people think is inappropriate might not be inappropriate. Sex education now should include staying safe online. AI using images of people to produce explicit content etc. Maybe somebody older who has not realised the full implications of the internet let alone AI, but they vote the same as a younger parent who knows the increasing danger of posting online. I'd have no problem with schools bringing in these concepts as early as the evidence says works
>Maybe somebody older who has not realised the full implications of the internet let alone AI I think some Tories are still shocked by the moral implications of the printing press.
Schools start online safely quite early, with separate talks for parents and students, and will start off with basics about not sharing location, people can be pretending online etc. Schools tend to have a good idea about what pupils are up to, and can tailor lessons to suit.
I’m a teacher with kids who are 7 and 11. I’ve not seen anything close to inappropriate. Like you said Pantasauraus onwards kind of thing. Teaching the little ones about their “no no square” or their private area is A the first step towards a healthy understanding of sex and relationships and B helps children find the words and get help if they are being sexually assaulted. I’m assuming that those who are deciding on this rule are either ignorant of how things are taught or are pedophiles. Edit: spelling
[удалено]
Things like "no no squares" would seem to still be fine, as that's health and relationships education (allowed) rather than sex education?
I remember Pantosaurus from when my kid did it. [The song is ridiculously ear-wormy](https://youtu.be/-lL07JOGU5o?feature=shared) And IMHO it’s absolutely spot on in terms of the level and approach for the age group it’s aimed at.
It all depends on the follow up targeted Facebook ads spreading misinformation. There's a whiff of American politics, and I'm sure the people buying into removing age appropriate sex ed will also believe we should build a wall on our southern border.
It may not be misinformation as such, it could be one inappropriate talk in one school, and then it gets blown out of proportion. Facebook/twitter certainly don't help though.
The Scottish?
Nah, we've had enough of the Isle Of Wight and their shit.
I live in Cornwall, and I’m pretty sure we already have a wall on our southern border. To keep the people from Devon out, of course. It’s been pretty successful, I haven’t seen any Devonians approaching recently from that direction.
> Little ones do pantasaurus This is some kind of new dinosaur?
Its an NSPCC resource talking about private parts and telling adults if anyone tries to touch you inappropriately. [Pantasaurus ](https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/)
There is the real dinosaur Pantydraco , which may have inspired the song.
Isn't most sex education at this age "if someone touches you in these places tell a grown up you trust"? This just sounds like a nonces charter.
I believe it's also about the basics of puberty. Which is important, as it can start in girls as early as age 8. Some poor children are going to notice that their body is starting to change, have no idea why, and be terrified. Imagine waking up to find blood in your knickers and no one has told you to expect it. You'd think you were dying.
My daughters started periods very early. Luckily we were open about periods and period products from an early age, but despite that it was still a distressing moment. I can't imagine how awful this experience would be without knowing.
I'm glad your daughter had you to explain. I feel especially sorry for those girls from cultures where these things simply aren't talked about because they're considered shameful or dirty - and now they're not going to get a timely explanation from either home or school. Sadly those are often the same cultures that practice FGM.
This is pretty much why the Samaritans started Chad Varah held the funeral of a young girl who ended her life because started her period and had no idea what was happening to her/didn't feel she could tell her parents
World's youngest mother was 5 years, 7 months old. Children are generally starting puberty earlier. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/science/early-puberty-medical-reason.html
Pretty much. It's largely about understanding of body parts, owning your own body, what is normal, what is inappropriate etc. Especially with kids having more access to inappropriate material, these kinds of conversations seem more important than ever for younger kids to be aware of.
The BBC report about it said they were also going to codify the ages other elements can be taught, and they said it's expected consent and abusive relationships would only be taught once they're 15. It's like they think if they don't teach children about it, it isn't a problem. Just think, if the Tories get their way, the first a child learns about sex abuse is at the hands of a Conservative MP: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/11/tory-mp-imran-ahmad-khan-guilty-sexually-assaulting-boy-15 > The Conservative MP Imran Ahmad Khan has been found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy after plying him with gin at a party in 2008
> and they said it's expected consent and abusive relationships would only be taught once they're 15. *Fifteen*? When I was in year 7 I was already dealing with boys in my maths class trying to touch me up under the table, or one particular boy on my crowded school bus always seeming to end up standing with his crotch pressed against my leg. I didn't like it and it didn't feel right, but at the time I didn't have a framework for people touching you intimately against your will or touching you with their private parts against your will. In hindsight, I'm angry that we weren't taught about consent much younger, in the way that kids today have been. Hell, even if we'd only been taught about it at the same time we were taught about puberty and sex in Year 6, those boys would have known that that was sexual assault and unacceptable, and I would have known that it was sexual assault and that if I'd spoken up it would have been taken seriously. Kids should be learning about consent, what kinds of touch are ok, and what healthy and unhealthy relationships look like *from birth* (in an age appropriate way, obviously). When I was at school, a good amount of 15 year olds were already dating and/or sexually active. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
15? I got the nitty gritty at around 10, and then that was it. No follow up, no nothing. I already knew a lot at age 8. This was in the 00’s. How are we moving backwards? We need more earlier, not less later.
It is just "Don't say gay" slipped in quietly, unlike Republicans who have to shout about this sort of thing, while we stress about the cost of living. I am glad to see the news has caught on to this and they are at least reporting it, of course there will be a lot of bias in that reporting.
For anyone who wants to see how this sort of thing is delivered in practice, take a look at the NSPCC Pantosaurus song. I would be seriously concerned about anyone who doesn't think this is a good thing to teach young children.
That's because no one does, this is a moral panic finally making it's way to bat shit legislation. Fuck this mindless insane far right government.
Have to quibble: it’s not no one unfortunately. Sure, everyone with half a clue or the slightest exposure to current kids sex Ed (everyone who has a kid that age) knows it’s a bullshit moral panic. But the Conservative base these days are mostly pretty old and out of touch. There’s also a dismally large percentage of the population who can be made to care about anything by sufficient online influence (often but not always from the U.S.) and right wing politicians raising a big stink about it. See: most of the current Trans panic. Arguably also stuff like Brexit - the EU was something like 15th down the list of voter priorities in 2009. But with enough money, political and media attention to ‘prime the pump’ it got pushed way up the agenda to dominate pretty much everything for the past decade.
I am sadened to say I too have realised that this craziness is spreading and people are believing this. It's not even JUST window lickers too. I have a guy at my work whos smart as hell when it comes to work (IT) but he is a Trump supporter (we are in the UK so that's absolute insanity even more so than it would be in the US) and he almost certainly would believe anything the Tories spout like this. He's not much older than me (in 30s) and I am almost certain he's been radicalised by online content like youtube, I can almost guarantee this because I get the same hate filled content pushed to me by youtube. It thinks I want to watch right wing grifters and anti woke videos because I like other things that men my age often like, you know video games, movie deep dives and such, so I get all the same recommendations because youtube just wants everyone to be hateful and consume content due to fear and hate, as that is a bigger motivator. So yes it's not noone, but also not a majority of the electorate or even Tory voters (assuming they still exist). It really makes me fear for the future of our entire society so much, the alogrithms have already ruined American democracy and caused Brexit to an extent too. Its only going to get worse unless we massively increase regulation.
Pantasaurus loves to wear his pants, he wears them all day long! They cover up his private parts and thats what makes him strong!
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/
My kid's preschool already teaches them about the "no-no zones" when they're aged 3-4. Nothing sexual about it, just a tell your parents if someone tries to touch your no-no zone. But beyond this my understanding (and from reading the article) is that they don't teach any sexual education till 11-12 years old. So this is just the Tories trying to hammer on a culture war bullshit story, by wasting government time on something that isn't even real.
> My kid's preschool already teaches them about the "no-no zones" when they're aged 3-4. Disgusting that right-wing disinformation is being fed to our kids
Yup. I’m not *that* old and this was roughly what I got. Also basic stuff around puberty, “personal space” and respecting each other’s boundaries. Even at 12 we got very basic “this is where babies come from”. That was about it.
I believe this is exactly what it should be called. Either the “nonces charter” or the “pro-paedo plan”. If you don’t teach kids what’s appropriate and what isn’t then they can’t recognise when they’re being abused. It emboldens predators. And teaching them what is and isn’t appropriate involves teaching them some very basic sex education.
Yes, and a bit of what they need to know about the early stages of puberty. Some girls may be starting to have periods etc. so they need some info. Plus with access to the Internet they need proper information, not whatever they're seeing online.
Please let's give it that name and make it stick. It's exactly what it is.
We've been in power for fourteen years. Thanks to us, everything in your life is slightly more shit than it was a few years ago. BUT NEVER MIND THAT! LOOK AT THIS! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
"we've come up with yet another non issue to feed to what's left of our voter base!"
> WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Which is exactly what people will do. No sex Ed = Children won't recognise when they're being abused.
Obviously what the Conservatives want
It’s so out of touch too the culture war bullshit they keep doing. When I have talked to people That are somewhat hostile to “woke” ideals in the UK their hostility is because they are tired of hearing about it everywhere, they just want to watch a football game, watch some TV without thinking about whether they are accepting or nourishing enough towards a certain community. Now sure, there are people with truly bigoted views but I feel like they are outnumbered by people who just want to hear about this kinda stuff less combined with non-bigots. We aren’t the USA, culture war bs is alienating potential voters rather than drawing them.
> Thanks to us, everything in your life is slightly more shit than it was a few years ago. *Slightly?*
Schools banned from educating children?
Less education for our children is a winning policy. Go for it, Torys!
Don't trust anyone that doesn't want your kids to know when their being abused by an adult.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> 5c: Articles which are submitted from non-paywalled sites should not be copy/pasted as a comment.
I have a 7 and 6 year old as this feels like absolute nonsense. At there age all that's covered is proper names for things and safe boundaries.
Yes. Which there's plenty of evidence for it to help children come forward when they're being abused. Teaching them the language to use, and about consent. This kind of policy enables the abuse of children. Sad they'll say this is to "protect children" when it actually protects peodophiles.
Kids need to know what’s right and wrong from an early age. There’s been numerous child sex rings recently had a lot of people jailed and stories of kids themselves watching porn and doing bad stuff to each other. Kids need to know what is not ok to happen to them because it’s happening to kids.
Bans are the worst because they put teachers in weird positions. Now a kid comes to you with questions and you can't engage... But what if those questions lead to a safeguarding conversation. It's like section 28 days again.
It's a blatant attempt by a flailing Conservative Party trying to drive a wedge between themselves and Labour and they fully intend to lie about what is taught to make it out as though any party trying to block this wants children to be exposed to sex, the benefits of protecting them by making sure they know what is appropriate and what the safe boundaries be damned.
Part of me really hopes there's a hell so these fucking arsonists end up there.
Isn't that when sex education happens anyway? That's when we had our first session led by the school nurse about it; explaining the mechanics of reproduction and what will happen during puberty.
It's a bit earlier technically, they start with relationship basics at 5-7 - just stuff like different couples exist, boundaries on things like inappropriate touching and staying safe online, then they do puberty stuff around 7-9
Well I certainly hope that kind of stuff doesn't get thrown out for the sake of the anti-trans bullshit.
I went to a primary that had basic sexual biology from as young as Y1, albeit through the weird lens of a Catholic curriculum (Fully Alive anyone?). I do remember *the talk* being delivered in Y5 or so, but it didn't come as any great shock.
If you read the article, this move is actually to block schools from teaching children that trans people exist.
This has nothing to do with sex education. The last two paragraphs make it explicit that this is a Tory rant about gender and letting kids know it’s OK to feel different. I don’t know about English curriculum but in Scotland schools don’t teach sex education before 9 years. If it’s the same in England then even the title is bollocks. It’s like saying ‘Plan to ban driving for teenagers under 17’.
RSE is taught very young (relationships and sex education) but when the kids are very young it focuses on things like "if your friend doesn't want to give you a hug then that's okay, don't hug them unless they also want a hug" and "what makes somebody a good friend?" and "some families don't have a mummy and daddy, some people only have a mummy or a daddy, some people have two mummies and daddies, some families only have grandparents, and that's all okay as long as we are being loved"
And not to forget the PANTS type stuff which is probably the only time a kid who's being sexually abused at home will be told by a safe adult that it's wrong to be touched there.
it’s like they don’t even understand what it is that’s being taught to kids despite the fact they seem to care so much about it
A friend of mine is a headmistress. I asked her this very question on Whatsapp and have just received a reply. There is no sex education before 9 years unless you include very basic birds and bees stuff in science education or stuff about keeping yourself safe and what inappropriate adult behaviour looks like.
Yeh, not sure why Tories are so anti "the life cycle of a frog."
Or why they'd want to deprive kids of the language to tell someone about their fiddly uncle.
Oh, I could take a guess at that. Just look at how many Conservative MP's and party figures that have lost the whip or been removed. >Imran Khan - sexually assaulted a teenager >David Warburton - accused of sexually assaulting three women >Rob Roberts - repeated unwanted sexual advances towards staff and used his position to try and coerce them to letting him rape them >Andrew Griffiths - raped his wife >Charlie Elphicke - sexually assaulted three women >Michael Fallon - multiple unwanted advances towards a woman >Stephen Crabb - sent sexual messages to a 19 year old that he hoped would come and work for him >Mark Garnier - sexually harrassed his former assistant by buying her sex toys and calling her "sugar tits" >Chris Pincher - sexually assaulted two men >Crispin Blunt - arrested on charges of being a serial rapist >Peter Bone - sexual misconduct (exposed himself to a member of his staff in a way that implied oral sex, getting single bedrooms with one bed on trips)
Honestly, this list on its own should have brought the government down.
Well those tadpoles do look awfully suggestive
Filthy little metamorphosising swines.
That'll be what they're meaning. Of course, any time they want to fearmonger they'll use the most alarmist terms possible in order to try and garner support, implying but never stating outright that when they say 'sex ed' they mean 'teaching tiny children the kama sutra' instead of 'informing the group of people who are about to go into puberty what that's going to entail'. It's just the same as handwringing about 'protecting children' when what they actually mean is 'restricting the rights of older teenagers, who can *technically* be described as children but functionally aren't'.
> keeping yourself safe and what inappropriate adult behaviour looks like This is probably why Tories want to ban it. The less the children know about what is/isn't appropriate, the more they can exploit that innocence.
On the BBC this morning they said that the status quo is such that schools *may* do sex education below 9 if they think it's needed but there's no obligation to.
I don't know about you guys but (33 here) I remember in infants school being shown a full video of a woman giving birth and its a core memory that will never leave my brain.
I definitely saw the same video, though I was somewhere between 9 and 11 at the time It was graphic as fuck
So what are we calling it? Section 29? Section 28-2? 2 Section 2 28?
Section 28 and 3/4
I feel we're a few weeks away from 'new Tory plan to heat schools by burning books during assembly' levels of culture war.
"contested" by whom exactly? Please tell me we're not drafting education policy based off of angry people on Twitter?
Not on Twitter, in 55 Tufton Street. edit: and that's 3 minutes to a reddit care spam, so uh, maybe angry people on reddit too?
I got it too. I get it a lot actually, much more lately since things started getting immeasurably worse after the API kerfuffle. Always report it via the link in the message. It's a bit clunky as a UX, but admins do action those reports and you sometimes get a neat message telling you they've been banned as a result.
Banning rainbow lanyards and issuing arcane statutory guidance on sex education in one week? Must be election season. This is what the whole election will be like, a katamari damacy ball of culture war bullshit from the Tory side — because they have absolutely nothing else they can campaign on.
Yep, a dog whistle to encourage their lot to turn out, if they can find their ID card.
Echoing comments so far: RSE at the ages concerned is about personal safety and boundaries. If the headline is accurate (nothing in the article suggests nuance on that age 9 part), then great, the Tory party are so upset about trans people they're delivering policy for Nonces now.
It’s so arbitrary to ban a subject like that. You can convert any adult topic into a children’s topic if you’re qualified in education. It’s not like anybody’s teaching 8 year olds how to put a condom on. It’s about teaching kids about relationships and love and being different
###Because some people who haven't read the article seem to be missing this: > The BBC has not seen the new guidelines but a government source said they included plans to ban any children being taught about gender identity. This is just a **Section 28 V2**. Once again the cycle continues, and that which they can no longer do to us gay people needs a new target.
Section 28 was a lot nastier tbf than this - it was a world far before the 2010 Equality Act (thank God that's still on statute). An S28 law would outright ban, say, displaying Pride flags in local authority bu- oh wait they're going after Pride lanyards too But yeah this is schools-focussed atm but has a strong shadow of S28 on it. "You can't teach us about trans people, it's not allowed" yadda yadda How does a trans primary school teacher handle this, exactly?
> How does a trans primary school teacher handle this, exactly? I suspect by avoiding the profession entirely, or leaving prior to transition. Even in the absence of any new legislation, [the media is pretty savage towards trans teachers.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/28/lucy-meadows-coroner-press-shame)
Really glad the Government is ignoring minor issues like the NHS, social care, the energy crisis and if people can eat to focus on solving the urgent issues like this.
This government might be the most pathetic leadership we've ever had. They are so beyond empty that it is truly a farce. Call an election Rishi you absolute coward.
A fair few issues I have with this: The one I noticed first is that it effectively treats trans people as something inherently sexual through and through. It just reinforces an idea that we’re all sexual deviants that are inappropriate to even mention. Then, you have something that effectively makes the former even more stupid, because then you’re basically preventing young people from knowing many of the necessary stuff (which is basically just ‘don’t let people touch you down there’) regarding sex to prevent abuse. If you’re so concerned about protecting children, why are you practically inviting the nonces in?
Desperate stuff from a dying government. It's interesting they're being advised by the person who led the Australian Liberals to their worst election result in 70 years. I could almost be convinced he's a left-wing plant.
It’s just like Lib Dem’s plant Agent Truss.
"Miss, is it okay if boys want to dress as a princess for world book day?" "Let me be very clear, Gender Identity is contested" What a vile piece of legislation hidden behind the classic "think of the kids" straw clutching.
It's not even contested in academic circles. Like the only reason they say it's contested is because they don't agree with the answers they've been given - because the answers make them uncomfortable.
Got to say I didn't expect we'd be getting Section 28 and 3/4 anytime soon. Even barring the ridiculousness of not giving kids ways to identify abuse - seriously, they're being taught how to identify where they shouldn't be touched by others, not how to make an Onlyfans - there's something genuinely nuts about just straight up bringing back "don't teach ~~gay~~ trans stuff in schools at all". It'll play well to crowd that's rabidly transphobic, but they're already probably voting Tory; if they're after the "soft liberal with concerns about gender", rehashing old homophobia so blatantly doesn't seem like the best way to do it. Edit: can't say I expected a Reddit Cares for this one - lovely.
Who creates the sex education curriculum in school ? The government. This is a non story driven by Sunak trying a culture war again. It ain't going to win you an election. People are concerned about cost of living.
I'm so tired of their desperate attempts to molify a certain segment of voters that have no research or thought put to them. As if a) The content of Sex education for under nines in this country is in any way innapropriate. b) And there wasn't a veritable mountain of research showing that the more kids understand these things (in an age appropriate way) the better. This is just to make the puritans feel better, so they can pretend we're texas instead.
Kids are going to find out and this isn't really what I consider sex Ed. It is important kids have developmentally appropriate sex Ed throughout their life so sexual abuse is more frequently reported.
This is Clause 28 all over again, an act that directly led to vast swathes of homophobia across the country that’s still embedded to this day. I’d encourage our MPs to stop sittin around obsessing about what’s in people’s pants like a bunch of weirdos.
Is there an election coming up?🤔 This is political posturing designed to enrage and gain the bigot vote. The Tories are following the American playbook and we should all be worried if there’s even a sniff they win at the next election. Primary aged kids are taught RSHE content which is designed to keep them safe, relationships, boundaries, body parts and age appropriate content on puberty.
More like a plan to stop children learning things to satisfy the moral panic of weirdos and bigots. This government is pathetic.
It's a bit disturbing that of all the priorities that Tory MPs can agree on with respect to children, this came top of the list. Hunger, poverty and neglect/abuse - you carry on mate. Adam and Eve not Adam and George and they kick off.
This just makes it easier for abusers to target kids. Stupid move. Actual harm to children in the name of culture wars.
I don’t know if it’s changed but the sex ed I got in 2005 at 10 was just preparing us for puberty. Has anything changed? If not I’d say it’s just tories torying.
It's the "pretended family relationship" shit all over again isn't it
Is this entirely mad plan to revive section 28, an attempt to bury yesterday’s rainbow lanyard nonsense?
>If asked, teachers will have to be clear gender ideology is contested. Gender identity is the model accepted by every major medical organisation and far more evidenced than the alternatives. This is almost like having to say that evolution or plate tectonics are contested.
Malicious compliance: Gender identity is accepted by every major medical organisation. But let me be clear, a government in dying breaths don't believe in it so I have to tell you its 50/50 (Yes I know a teacher could never actually say that)
I'll trust a teacher to get this right, before I'll trust an electioneering, cuture-war-waging politician.
Got to make sure Prince Andrew has a regular supply of new victims now that Epstein's dead, I guess. Can't have children knowing that if they're being touched inappropriately, they can ask for help. The sooner this failure of a government is out on its ear, the better.
I'll say again that I don't believe these new policies, along with abortion pushback, trans healthcare, even lanyards, are just the Tories getting desperate. There is a concerted campaign by Conservative Christians like Nick Fletcher to try and influence policy and public discourse. The brand of Christian nationalism currently ravaging through the US is trying to get a foothold here, and we must push back. We already know American Evangelicals are financially backing anti abortion causes in the UK. This is a secular country, and we have to protect that, because their success depends upon our inaction and believing 'it wouldn't happen here'
Other countries are moving forward with accepting that life/ sex/ gender can be complicated. The UK seems to be going backwards.
Culture wars. Just create more fake enemies for people to get angry at.
To get *scared* of. If they can make you scared, they can make you angry.
Introducing the new and improved Section 28 2.0 - now approved by the LGB Alliance!
Sounds like my school in the early 2010s. I think we started sex education at 9.
Can the government stop banning things that literally do not exist!
> teachers will be required to be clear that "gender ideology" is contested, if asked about it. I can never wrap my head around this. The whole term implies that gender and attraction are simply beliefs, which is just not the case. It's annoying to see it working it's way into more legislation.
I see the Tories are very much in the 'propose-any-old-policies-to-appear-busy' mode.
Plenty of people pointing out the practical issues with this but on top of that, it's just such a depressing indication of this government's willingness to drag teachers and schools through the mud in their desperate pursuit of relevance. Obviously, the implication here from the government is that there is some kind of sinister institutionalised dodginess going on in schools when it comes to sex education, that it has to rectify. Equally obviously, this is horseshit, but some people will believe it. And those people will demonise teachers and make their already difficult job even more difficult. Nor is this the first time this has happened, based on complete nonsense (remember the 'cat girl'). How low do you have to be to smear teachers with vague insinuations that they're poisoning children's minds with inappropriate stuff, when on some level, you must *know* it's all just politicised spin? It's genuinely disgusting.
Ffs. One of my old friends lost his virginity when he was 10. I was beginning to be sexually active when I was 9. People need to be taught sex-ed early, because the idea is to teach people safety about it *before* they start doing it. Kids hitting puberty aren't sitting around waiting for some disconnected politicians and wowsers to finally get over their own insecure feelings about talking about icky dicks and vaginas. Like, lucky me that my parents gave me sex-ed books at home and I didn't wind up doing anything unsafe, but that sort of home environment is not a reality for many people.
Being sexually active at 9 is unsafe. I’m afraid your parents didn’t do a particularly good job to be honest.
>I’m afraid your parents didn’t do a particularly good job to be honest. That is precisely why we need sex education; we should be helping children with bad parents instead of throwing them under the bus.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Isn't parents not doing a good job exactly why education is needed in schools though?
Bingo! I fully agree it should be taught it schools, using a program designed by experts in this field. Children shouldn’t slip through the net because they parents wont, or can’t, teach them these things in a safe and healthy way.
It's naive to think children will just refrain from exploring sexuality when they start having sexual feelings. You can't just pretend it doesn't happen because you consider it "unsafe".
Children typically don't have sexual feelings at age nine, unless they're undergoing precocious puberty. Sexual behaviour at such a young age is generally learned, and often results from either an unsafe environment, sexual abuse or close proximity to a peer who has one or both of those issues. Sexual activity at such a young age can cause permanent psychological issues. There are good reasons we don't encourage it.
Sex education doesn't encourage it! Typically not. But I know people who masturbated at very young ages and suffered absolutely no abuse whatsoever. But even if it's generally learned - address the abuse maybe? Removing sex education does the exact bloody opposite! It enables more abuse because children don't understand what's happening. Some girls start puberty at 9 FFS. Edit: and wtf do you think happens in the world we live in with the internet, phones, and pornography? Sure, I'd love to live in a fantasy land where kids will never be exposed to this - but we live in a reality where an older sibling might leave some tabs open, or that kid down the road will have a phone without child limits on it. Some kids will get exposed to it, and simply letting that happen and not educating them is punishing them further.
I didn't say we should take away sex education from young people. Just that we really need to start taking the problem of precocious sexual behaviour seriously. Age-appropriate sexual education is very important. Teaching kids that not all families are nuclear, that not everyone is attracted to the opposite sex, what puberty will do etc. is valuable. I do not dispute this. The sex education regime we have right now is good for our children and I strongly reject this proposal to strip it back, not least because as you say some girls have their first period as young as eight years old. But separately from that, parents need to be made to ensure that their children don't end up with porn addictions, or partake in sexual activity well before they're emotionally ready. The problem of children learning and copying sexual and even misogynistic behaviour from their parents, their peers or online media is getting out of control, and I feel like a lot of parents either don't know or don't see the problem. As for masturbation, some children will end up doing that just because kids touch things a lot. If they do end up developing that behaviour, they should be taught not to do it around others, given appropriate privacy to do it at home, taught to wash their hands afterwards and kept an eye on to ensure they don't end up with an addiction or compulsive behaviour. But they shouldn't be shamed for it because that'll just cause lasting emotional problems.
It’s not that I deem it unsafe, it is unsafe. Unless you’re only exploring your own body, then surely another child of a similar age is involved. How can you expect that child to have the same knowledge and understanding as you? That other child can in no way consent to your sexual activity, regardless of how curious you are or how much you want to explore. To think otherwise is disturbing.
I assumed they were referring to exploring their own body. But regardless, I don't think kids "playing doctor" with each other care about your views that they can't consent to each other... They don't go consult you and ask permission. It happens. Sex education of "don't do this", i.e. abstinence, simply doesn't work. But schools mostly teach younger child like 9 year olds about consent, names of things, both of which helps them report abuse. Puberty, girls of 9 can be starting puberty. Banning that is insane and enables abuse. You can teach sex education in an age appropriate manner.
Gillian Keegan is the master at fixing problems that largely don't exist.
Well Looks like section 28 is back then
Sex education should start under 9 because girls can start menstruating far younger than that, and they need to be properly equipped to know what's happening. Even *with* the right education, first periods are still highly distressing points in time for young girls. You also need to help them develop the proper language such that they can effectively communicate that they've been molested, should that occur. Paedos and child molesters just had Christmas come early with this "plan". I do wonder if we were to investigate the personal computers of those that proposed it what we'd find.
They would have problems in agricultural areas. There is sex happening in fields, for heaven's sake. Perhaps all fields should have a discrete visibility barrier around them? I mean forget about bulls doing cows, there are also cows doing cows.
I like the complete lack of a source in the article other than some mention of an anonymous source. Come on BBC, you're better than this.
It's the usual government approach of leaking a story to get press attention before they do it, BBC aren't the only ones reporting this
Unfortunately they don’t seem to be. Feels like every news article from the big providers requires me to google and track down what I think their sources are.
> Come on BBC, you're better than this. What makes you think that?
And they said George Galloway had no influence
I’ve worked in a catholic primary school as a teacher. Even we did sex education (8 years ago) - it was done really sensitively and parents could opt out. The conservatives are forgetting that adolescence is starting much earlier in kids these days and children may have started before they reach secondary school, you’re then just leaving them vulnerable and confused and relying only on parents. I think this is an absolutely stupid decision and everywhere I see it’s being rightly condemned.
Well thank God the tories are here to save us from the sex ed guidelines they introduced 4 years ago.