Okay, so now #mailonsunday. TBH I struggle a little with members of the LGBT+ community now quoting anti-trans or anti-Stonewall pieces from this newspaper, forgetting the vitriol they have previously had for us. Change of editorial policy or way to divide us? I think we...(1/10) 
need to be more aware.
I’m splitting today's media check into 3 to make it easier. Firstly is this piece on pupils being brainwashed. So, this is a great example of making a very small thing seem like a tsunami about to drown us in wokeness. It follows a standard template: (2/10)
I’m splitting today's media check into 3 to make it easier. Firstly is this piece on pupils being brainwashed. So, this is a great example of making a very small thing seem like a tsunami about to drown us in wokeness. It follows a standard template: (2/10)
1.“Won’t someone think of the children??” Make alleged risk to children the issue – who would be anti that? Thing is, it’s not true and for those with selective memories, it was this newspaper (that didn’t want gay men as teachers. There is no risk here – there is no...(3/10)
outrage if maths examples occasionally show a same sex couple. Why should all the questions only be heteronormative? That’s really not reflective of our diverse society.
2.Make it look like an international conspiracy – so mention Facebook as your first word, even though (4/10)
2.Make it look like an international conspiracy – so mention Facebook as your first word, even though (4/10)
even though they are just sponsors of the excellent charity Just Like Us. And these maths problems simply point out to children in an age-appropriate way, that some people may have different gender identities. Again, this is the same argument that stopped schools talking..(5/10)
about same sex parents in the 1980s, damaging untold LGBT children along the way.
3.Bury in the text the actual point of the story – that this has been backed by the Department of Education and isn’t some guerrilla-type invasion. The headline ...(6/10)
3.Bury in the text the actual point of the story – that this has been backed by the Department of Education and isn’t some guerrilla-type invasion. The headline ...(6/10)
‘Department of Education-backed maths course mentions LGBT issues’ doesn’t provoke the anger that Glen Owen wants here.
That’s it really – my view is that you want to teach children about diversity and inclusion because it’s the right thing to do. This article smacks of (7/10)
That’s it really – my view is that you want to teach children about diversity and inclusion because it’s the right thing to do. This article smacks of (7/10)
censoring this. On a (totally) unrelated point, this paper was a great supporter of Section 28. Perhaps it’s missing the ‘good old days’? (8/10)
Full disclosure - I have volunteered for Just Like Us as a mentor to one of the students that the charity sends into schools to talk to pupils about difference, respect and, yes, LGBT (9/10)
They do a great job with volunteers and a small budget. They are NOT part of some secret conspiracy designed to forcibly bend our wills to a new world order. Unlike, say, newspaper proprietors. (10/10)
Okay I've got my thread count wrong again, but good reason to do it. Here's a link where you can donate to @JustLikeUsUK . They do great work on genuinely diverse education:
justlikeus.org/donatenow
justlikeus.org/donatenow
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
