Thread by @genderisharmful

Thread – to raise awareness of the relationships & sex education (RSE) being taught in schools

Education should be liberating, & about curiosity, where stimulating questions are answered or lead to further questions; it shouldn’t be confusing, bewildering & alienating.

As a teacher – my job is to make learning accessible to the learner; to help young people make sense of the world around them; to raise their awareness and understanding of any number of issues and matters.

So here is a (definitely not exhaustive) collection of images and visuals involving materials which are being used in schools across the (western) world with regards to RSE.

I will comment as briefly as possible on each one, to show why it is problematic.

Here is a learning sheet which asks the question:

“What are the three categories of biological sex?”

Presumably the answer is supposed to be “intersex”.

Intersex is not a separate sex & has just been tagged onto the LGBT to falsely add weight to the acronym.

This is truly insidious. It puts forward this statement/question, as if to plant the idea in a child’s head that sex isn’t a ‘given’, but to be worked out.

Placing the phrase “I am me” after “are you a boy or a girl?” makes it seem, being a boy/girl, is of no consequence.

This is an erosion of sex, masquerading as ‘equality’.

If girls aren’t able to see they are discriminated against because of their sex - because they are girls, then how can they fight it? Especially when sexism is obfuscated with statements like, “boys have periods too”.

Here, a group of primary school aged kids are being taught the made-up word, ‘cis’.

How do you explain ‘cis’ without talking about stereotypes? You can’t.

Teaching kids this will reinforce such stereotypes, not challenge them.

How amazing, that after millennia of humans and health experts knowing how to identify a new-born baby’s sex, we have this book telling children that the adults didn’t know this basic thing about them and in fact, just “made a guess”.

Genitalia are also known as ‘primary sexual’ characteristics – not gender-based, but “sex-based”.

Therefore, how confusing to say, “how a baby’s body looks like can be a clue to what the baby’s *gender* will be, but not always.”

In fact…

…not only is this confusing, it’s utterly bizarre.

With regards to the body:

Firstly – it’s not a “clue”, it’s an objective, observable fact”.

Secondly – “gender” is nothing to do with the body.

Thirdly – “not always”? Is that a half-arsed reference to 'intersex'?

Here, we can see all the things which are lumped together in order to describe ‘identity’, including:

Gender expression
Skin colour
DNA
Intelligence
Character traits
Hair colour
…and so on.

And therein lies the problem with (gender) identity…

Linking such things to identity is one thing, but when you conflate gender – a changeable, flexible notion, tied up with socially constructed norms – to sex – an immutable, solid thing, which characterises every cell in our body – it makes a mockery of the terms male/female.

I hope any good teacher would be prepared to sift through the many answers given by kids and written up on the board, in order to make the distinction between societal constructs and biological realities, regarding the broad notion of ‘identity’.

This is a child, presumably tasked with presenting this random assortment of words, which are supposed to mean something regarding gender.

I mean, I’m an adult whose career involves making things easy to learn for kids & adults and I find this unworkable.

To be fair, the child in the image may have put this together, so I don’t want to be too harsh, but…

Breaking gender into 3 different aspects:

Societal role
Identity
Expression

Isn’t exactly simple and with the overlap between the three is massively befuddling.

To begin with – it doesn’t mention ‘sex’, which is important because I imagine it is ‘sex’ which is being referred to by the mention of “assigned” rather than gender.

But – if it really was thinking about gender, not sex…that first sentence is spot on.

“Identity – inner sense of self as man, woman….both, neither, other etc”

*This is where we are at;

Teaching incredibly nebulous & vague definitions/concepts which are not only unscientific, but also serve to confuse & destabilise children’s understanding of their sex.

A final note on this one…

Notice how it claims, “some people’s gender identity corresponds to their assigned sex but many do not”.

“Many do not”????

Also – is it both ‘gender’ *and* ‘sex’ which are assigned?

Or just one of them? If so, which one is it?

Another assembling of words, put together in a way that suggests something, but in fact means nothing.

Again…confusion to the max.

Either

sex = male/female

or

gender = male/female.

One thing for sure, is it can’t be both!

It’s noteworthy that in the “sex assigned at birth” section, one of the assignations happens to be, “intersex”.

Considering the phrase “assigned at birth” was appropriated from the intersex community in the first place, how offensive is that? Very.

Once again, this seems designed to confuse young people and break down their personal boundaries with the weird splitting of attraction into ‘physical’ and ‘emotional’.

Why? Why complicate something which comes naturally to kids in due time?

Ahhh, their beloved ‘Genderbread Person’.

Where to start…

I have heard kids feedback about this and they have said it is hugely confusing and barely makes sense.

But then again – maybe that’s the point.

With labels like ‘woman-ness’ and ‘man-ness’, I can’t see that this can do anything else but bewilder the child.

On a serious not however, this is really sinister, because a child who doesn’t know how they are supposed to feel, is going to be very vulnerable, sexually.

Note the old classic – pink and blue brain – again, unscientific nonsense.

Also, the erosion of male and female, in favour of the vague and weird terms, “male-ness’ and “female-ness”.

Overall…way too many variables & overlap, based on the tiniest numbers.

I feel like I could say a hell of a lot more about this visual but frankly, I’m fatigued just looking at it.

I think this particular ‘learning tool’ deserves an entire thread to itself, which I will attempt to do one day in the near future.

This SS, by the way, is just a bonus tweet, to demonstrate where such confusing nonsense can lead people.

This profile, claiming to be a “young non-offending pedophile” proudly displays the genderbread person visual in their profile picture.

Nothing else to say about that.

Just an example to demonstrate that this nonsense really is being taught in schools and kids really are being expected to believe that girl and boy brains are somehow ‘different’, despite the science saying otherwise.

Meanwhile, in Canada – here is an indicator as to how young they are prepared to start teaching about being ‘trans’ to kids who are very suggestible and trusting of adults.

Also, using a ‘celebrity’ like Jazz, effectively glamourises the process.

Again…catch ‘em while they’re young!

This is of course, the same ‘Educate&Celebrate’, whose CEO, Elly Barnes, openly encouraged Irish teachers not to consult parents about the RSE content they want to do in schools.

Another Educate&Celebrate special…

Targetting primary & nursery school aged children by encouraging them to think sexually, well before their time.

If schools are focussing on reducing bullying of LGBT kids, this should not be necessary, unless….

Another classic – the ‘gender spectrum’ – seen in Mermaids’ training sessions.

Of course, Mermaids now want us to believe this was just a bit of fun – a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing – but seriously…

…you can’t polish a turd.

Who could forget this special game, which was brought to us by the ‘Proud Trust’ as part of their ‘Sexuality aGender v2’ toolkit?

Here, children are taught about sticking objects up their arse while using lubricants. Sex games for kids!

The Proud Trust again…

Apparently, according to this poster, trans-identifying kids “have the right to use whichever toilet you feel most comfortable using”.

Another example of how girls’ boundaries are being broken.

'Gegi' - a word which had been in the urban dictionary, as slang, meaning ‘vagina’, has now mysteriously disappeared.

This is also a profile who wants to teach the youngest children all about their “identity”.

“Excited to meet” (kids)? Hmm.

In front of the child with the pink top, rests a piece of paper with the phrase, “sex assigned at birth”.

There are so many issues with this and it’s not just because it’s been appropriated from the intersex community. Let me explain…

…this phrase assumes the position that no child should be ‘sexed’ at birth, but in fact, should be “genderless” (there they go again, with that conflation of sex/gender).

But placing this into lessons – is to plant that seed of doubt in a child’s impressionable mind.

Why? Just, why?

Why should children be bombarded with a bewildering array of symbols?

So many different ways to think about ‘sex’ and ‘sexuality’ – it’s almost like kids are being taught to be preoccupied with other people’s sexual choices.

Apologies for the poor quality of this zoomed in image.

But you get the point.

While in usual circumstances this would be fine...the issue here is, genital differences are being used as a prop to support the fallacy of there being more ‘sexes’.

1. Intersex is *not* a sex category – intersex people are still male or female.

2. notice how this includes ‘gender non-conforming’ in the Gender Identity section?

Just because a child doesn’t dress as most people would expect them to, does not mean they must be “trans”.

More confusing stuff.

Conflating sex/gender. Referring to “SEXual orientation”, then going on to talk about attraction to “gender”.

This really does, dilute the concept of sexuality & makes it so unnecessarily complex, that children won’t know whether they’re coming or going.

The following images, are definitions from Canada.

These definitions, I found here on a SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) recommended site, where they are recommended for use as best practice.

qmunity.ca/wp-content/upl…

So many days!

A day to “out” kids.

A day to highlight how “out” kids might be *murdered*.

A day to publicise that they *will* be bullied.

Another day for the bullied….and another…and another…

Got the narrative yet?

Let’s just all get rid of sex altogether – because sex is soooo outdated.

It’s all about gender now.

Sex = exclusive

Gender = inclusive

We get the message.

Redefining homosexuality as being a ‘negative’ thing.

Here, you can see that it won’t be long before ‘homosexual’ as a term, disappears altogether, because it doesn’t fit with that all ‘inclusive’ narrative.

#homophobia

“Chosen to assign”

Makes sex sound like it’s really arbitrary and random.

Again…I suspect it won’t be long before ‘sex’ disappears completely, to make way for the preferred ‘gender’.

“Traditional”?

As opposed to ‘modern’ (sexism)?

Also…sexism has nothing to do with ‘gender identities’ and far more to do with the way females are discriminated against for their female bodies & ability to give birth etc

Here is another SOGI recommended resource – in the form of a lesson plan.

This one is about the ‘Crayon’ book.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with this book, see here:

commonsensemedia.org/book-reviews/r…

My complaint is not about the book, but about this lesson.

“Moving from emotional to physical”…

Is this meant to convey some kind of magical transformation?

Insides not matching the outside?

Don’t know about anyone else but this sounds like body-shaming to me.

Questions iv, v & vi are good, but in a lesson about ‘gender identity’…what’s being suggested here?

And they’re strategically placed just after iii, where it talks about what a boy/girl feels like inside.

Is it suggesting boys who play with barbie dolls could be girls?

This is all so unnecessary.

Why should kids have to explore such deep issues?

Can they not just play with toys because they like them, without having to navel gaze and possibly develop an existential crisis?

Or, is that the point?

And finally, one last SOGI lesson plan.

Here is a lesson which claims to explore the difference between “a person’s biological sex and their gender identity”…

…and in doing so, massively conflates the two, leaving the child, none-the-wiser – probably far more confused.

First it suggests to use the Gender Unicorn or the Genderbread Person…

Oh dear.

Second, it suggests to use pictures of babies in diapers or animals. Okaaaay.

Then, ‘gendered children’ eg boy in a suit, girl in a dress.

Hmmm…

Next, it explains, “a gender role is the way a person behaves”, or “should behave”.

So far, so…okay.

Then it asks kids to think about how cultures tell kids what they (boys/girls) should do…and asks, “are these true for you?”

Now, it says, “biological sex is pretty much fixed”.

“Pretty much”?

It accepts that gender ‘identity’ and ‘expression’ (which I thought were meant to be separate things, but here they appear to be conflated) are all about behaviour.

This finishes by talking about ‘gender diversity’ beyond the concepts of male and female.

Are male and female “concepts”?

Also, it doesn’t neatly clarify if gender identity involves ‘male and female’.

In fact, it doesn’t really tackle the issue of terminology, of ‘man/woman’, ‘male/female’ and how they fit with sex and gender.

And, it doesn’t fully explain if say, a boy who wears a dress, somehow magically transforms into a girl…or not.

More confusion.

In conclusion…

Note, your children are being fed a cocktail of nonsensical and confusing, pseudo-scientific rubbish.

It feels to me, to be designed to destabilise them and increase their vulnerability to predatorial adults (males).

So, do yourself (and your child) a favour…

…check in on the school and ask to see what materials they are using for RSE lessons.

I think at this point in time, it would be a very sensible thing to do.