LGBT protest at school

I am giving up my argument here. pinkquarz has persuaded me.

Maybe the children will manage to teach their elders.

They are already trained to teach Fennel. It's not really that new. Many teachers would have been trying to ensure that their students were 'thinking' human beings. It has just been given a proper framework now - and time I hope.

After reading the last few pages - I would hate to have to be a teacher with the responsibility of teaching this subject.
The whole thing is so new, I hope they have thorough training.
Who is going to train them?

oldmum I think that "What schools should be teaching is not that "everyone is right", but that "everyone deserves respect, whether you agree with them or not." Children should be taught how to disagree, respectfully." is what this is all about. That is what the schools are teaching. The problem is that some object to it and are abusing those teaching it rather than trying to change the law.

"everyone deserves respect, whether you agree with them or not." Thu 23-May-19 11:26:01

I think that is exactly what the schools are trying to teach oldmom. Equally, they will be trying to teach that, while everyone is "entitled to their opinion" not everyone's opinion becomes a truth simply because they hold it.

Religion and what comes from it is simply an opinion. Of course, I should respect the person who holds that view but it does not make that opinion a truth. At one time 'reflection' was not really dealt with until young people went to university - too late of course. Now they will, in an age-appropriate way, learn to question why they have formed opinions and what knowledge and fact that is based on. They will explore what other people, accepted by society as knowledgable, think. They will look at the epistemology that created that view. They will learn not to attack because someone doesn't share that view.

They will, overall, I believe, be much more rounded, knowledgable and questioning human beings. I am not sure many religions have felt over the centuries that they could cope with that and nor, perhaps, can some parents. But then children do not "belong" to us, do they.

I have direct experience that has coloured my views to a certain religion mainly because of their attitudes and behaviour to women.
I feel it is very important that they are not allowed to carry on indoctrinating their children with hate filled beliefs.
Which is what they do when you get down to the core of the matter.
Saying it is ok for them to keep their beliefs sacred and unchallenged is not good for the rest of us.
They teach that homosexuality is sinful, those days are over in the UK. Thankfully
there is a reason that the sex gangs were so prolific and it has all to do with the beliefs held about white girls.
This might sound shocking or going too far but it is coming from my direct experience.

We have to make it clear to all citizens that we are aiming for a society that is tolerant and everyone is inclusive.

oldmum I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. I taught a child who was noticably different (played with the girls a lot, made himself bracelets, necklaces and crowns with the construction toys etc). At about 7 or 8 some of the boys started calling him names referring to what they considered his sexuality to be. They had already absorbed prejudice. It children are taught that others are different and can live their lives differently from an early age and that they are to be cared for and respected,they don't develop such feelings. As it was staff dealt with the problem as soon as they spotted it, but at some level damage was already done. That's why we need early education to stop any child being bullied or picked on.

Good post oldmom.

And I agree I don’t like the term queer at all. I wouldn’t dream of using it these days. This thread is a revelation but I still would t use it.

not everyone Is right but everyone deserves respect

I agree with that and it’s a dam shame our politicians seem to have forgotten that. And many voters too.

So if all of this stuff is "modern morality", who gets to define morality, and who gets to enforce it? Do you really want the government have the power to tell you what is right, what is wrong, and what you must believe? Several posters on this thread have talked about morality, "western values", and generally a feeling of "if you don't like it here, leave".

I'm not British, but I'm sure many of the Muslim parents in the UK were born there. They are as British as any of you. They have as many rights as any of you.

I'm actually hearing quite a lot of (perhaps unconscious) prejudice against Muslims. And yet many of you are denouncing what you consider to be prejudice against LBQT etc.

Whatever side you look at, there is some prejudice. The point is, that this issue in itself can not be settled. None of the major religions in the world, that I know of, can fully accept the LBQT message, because that message is not based on morality at all. I'm not talking about someone's gay son who is probably a decent young man, but the ideology behind all the political and social pressure. If you look at the some of the stuff coming out of the US in particular, there are some very peculiar messages being pushed onto kids these days.

The next issue, if you haven't already had it, will be bathrooms in schools, and whether they should all be unisex or whatever (And wouldn't that be fun for a girl getting her periods for the first time?)

Bullying is always wrong, but it is possible to disagree strongly with someone, and not bully them for it. What schools should be teaching is not that "everyone is right", but that "everyone deserves respect, whether you agree with them or not." Children should be taught how to disagree, respectfully.

I was raised in a home some of the posters here would denounce as "fundamentalist". I went to government schools. I didn't go around abusing my school mates for being gay, any more than I laughed at them for believing in Father Christmas. I am now raising my 6 year old son, again in just such a home. I home school him. And yes, I teach him about "social construction". I teach him that colour is gendered - and that if he likes purple better than blue, then good for him. Toys are not gendered, and if he likes dolls as well as cars, then no problem. But because he likes purple, fairies and mermaids, there are people out there who would tell me he is gay or trans, or queer, or just confused. Nope, he's a healthy normal boy who just likes what he likes.

A child of 6, or even 8, does not need to be confused with all of this stuff. As some PP said, teach them kindness and respect. They don't need all the rest at this point. If my son went to this school, I'd be pulling him out too.

To say Muslim parents cannot teach their children what they believe is right and wrong deprives them of their human rights. What they may not do is teach their children to take away the rights of others. But that applies just as much to any other family, from any other background.

Fair enough people are entitled to put personal status and money making ahead of safeguarding children.

People who aren't LGBTQ+ or Muslim and see the behavior of others will make their own judgements now and as time goes by as more becomes public knowledge.

I really can't post anymore today. (Thu 23-May-19 10:34:33)

This is simply becoming homophobic. It is not about the schools but about one person's rather warped views. The school's programme is about inclusion as per the laws of this land and I think this reply to another poster is disgusting, although it really does clarify why you have almost taken over the thread at times.

maddyone Thu 23-May-19 09:30:51

I believe it was the LGBTQ+ community that wanted to "reappropriate" the term and make it something positive rather than negative.

I wouldn't use it but that's because when I grew up it was negative and I wouldn't have liked to have inflicted that sort of pain. Being older, it takes my brain longer I find, to catch up with the change. However, if people choose to use it about themselves and find that empowering then they are perfectly entitled to do so and I am happy it makes them feel good.

Gonegirl That has been law for years, it enables under 16 year olds to go to their GP without a parent in tow. In practice it does not apply to lifesaving interventions but it does generally mean that under 16 year olds can have access to, for example, contraception providing the doctor is certain they are able to understand the consequences of their actions amongst other requirements and they would advise them to talk to their parents. In my opinion it is a good thing, gone are the days when we didn’t allow young teenagers to have any input into their own health and welfare.
If you look at the NSPCC website with regard to this you will find factual and possibly less emotive information.

Eglantine21 Wed 22-May-19 20:32:15

I believe Simon Callow did a one man show about 'queer' although I may have the wrong man. However, it people find the word offensive it is only polite not to use it.

I reiterate that if it is the law people should campaign to change the law not the people who carry out the laws.

Regarding parents disagreeing with teachers I think it is quite easy to do because I did it. In a general knowledge lesson my 7 year old was told his answer was wrong. He insisted he was right but the teacher would not have it. He came home and told me and we found a book which proved who killed the Minotaur and he took it into school. I have to say the teacher was not pleased!

Neither parent nor teacher has to say the other is wrong though, just say that they have different opinions.

Safeguarding children does not mean leaving them ignorant!

What on Earth do you mean DAK?

Fair enough people are entitled to put personal status and money making ahead of safeguarding children.

People who aren't LGBTQ+ or Muslim and see the behavior of others will make their own judgements now and as time goes by as more becomes public knowledge.

I really can't post anymore today.

Thank you Maryeliza, your support is appreciated, because for myself, and doubtlessly other Gransnetters, this can be quite an emotive subject. We have no wish to see our beloved children described in such a way.

DAK, I can assure you that my son will not be doing any of the Googling you suggest, because he has a demanding job, and a young child to care for. He hasn’t got the time to waste. But this is why young children need to know about differences. They need to be introduced to the fact that not every person, or every family, is the same. I used to teach young children, and I taught children from single parent families, both men and women, I taught children from heterosexual couples, children who lived with grandparents, with foster parents, and from two mum families. All families are valid, all parents are trying to bring up their children the best way they can, and all children need to know that families vary, and people vary. These topics are introduced in a child friendly manner, and treated in a matter of fact way. Obviously with older children, discussion will be more robust.
This is the world we live in, children must be prepared for it.

If you are now talking to me DAK, no, I haven't read all of the links. my previous post was a simple, straightforward question, which you don't have to answer. It was put more to posters generally.

Google David TC Davies MP and the GPs Webberley mentioned repeatedly by me and those in my links, in his constituency.

I have linked to lesbian feminists who disagree with Stonewall didn't you look or did you dismiss my links?

I have just read, or started to read, the link DoesAnyoneKnow put up there. I was stopped in my tracks by this:

" Gillick competence

A term used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge."

Please tell me that never happens!

The reason those Muslim families are turning against your son is because Andrew Moffat has them believing men like your son support their daughters being told they are a boy inside a girls body, it's his political lobbyists pushing all of this in his name.