The Final Report of the Cass Review was published on 10th April 2024 and the landscape has shifted back to protecting children and gathering evidence. How did we get here? And where are we going now?
Just as it is illegal, I believe, for any person in the U.K. to assist another to travel to Switzerland to utilise the services of Dignitas, it should be equally illegal to assist a child to visit the Webberleys’ overseas clinic.
Thanks Sarah. I'd like to point out, however, that the cause for the sex-based difference that's emerging in use of 'gender services' is bigger and more complex than some sort of amorphous 'social contagion' -- it's misogyny that promotes and supports sexualisation of girls/women, homophobia, objectification and fragmentation (eg, the mind.body split) that is facilitated by digital technologies and fast communication via the internet and able to be viewed and used in privacy away from parental supervision.
but that is the very essence of social contagion isn't it? Traumatised and unhappy girls are being convinced that there is a solution for their problems, and are being encouraged by their friends, even though many of the problems, as you point out, exist far beyond their own bodies.
? social contagion is a sex neutral term. But its overwhelmingly girls that fall victim to it. I am not sure what your point is. Not everything needs to refer directly to patriarchal oppression. That's certainly a reason why many girls wish to abandon their bodies, but it doesn't make the term 'social contagion' inapt. In my view.
You first stated ‘The fact that the majority of the children referred to the Tavistock in recent years were born female and many were also autistic, suggests that social contagion is the more likely explanation. ‘
Yes, but to say ‘social contagion’ is ‘the’ more likely conclusion to a sex based difference uses a gender neutral reason that excludes possible sex based factor(s)
I disagree. As I have explained ‘social contagion’ is an umbrella term that can cover a wide range of factors. I don’t see this as a productive disagreement.
This comes from the top down - WEF, WHO, UNESCO, UN, governments, DofE, NHS, and third party providers indoctrinate teachers and staff who then indoctrinate children from nursery school to university. Plus the bombardment in movies, media, online. FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985 (Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985), and carried a 5 years imprisonment sentence), and yet it is being performed for profit on our girls under the guise of the false term 'gender affirming care'. The majority of males don't seem to go under the knife (is it 85%?)
What is disturbing is the pushback against the Cass Report.
The pathological and abusive adults who are gaslighting, lying and harming children should be held accountable and this practice put to end.
Jonathan Haidt's latest book "The Anxious Generation" about Gen Z -- born 1995 onwards, the oldest aged 12 when the iPhone was launched in 2007 -- points directly to smartphones and social as the agent for massive increases in child and adolescent mental health issues from 2010 onwards, now at an all-time high. We have read for so long about Silicon Valley entrepreneurs denying their own kids access to smartphones: what did they know that we didn't, about algorithms that promoted addiction and anxiety through the use of "likes" -- or absence of them -- for girls obsessing about anorexia or cutting or popularity or whether they are trans? Or for boys, addiction to porn and violent video games?
Haidt as a researcher in social psychology strongly recommends that NO child should have a smartphone before the age of 15 and preferably 18: as devices which cut down on real-life social interaction and risk-taking (further limited by overprotective parents) where kids learn to negotiate using all their senses, and promote instead a disembodied, language-based existence: as an addictive and anxiety-provoking social milieu which prevents children from maturing.
I've heard of the book but not read it. I wonder whether it may be too technologically deterministic for my liking? Does the author blame technology as the core cause? If so, I would not accept his critique. I want explanations that explain how *humans* fund, produce, market and use a technology that effects social change.
Try reading the Kindle sample download of "The Anxious Generation". I've not yet read further than that, but as a social psychologist Haidt's opening observations -- supported by graphs of soaring mental health issues in teens -- amply confirm so much that I've read over the years (with a longterm interest in computer technology since 1985), and my own experience since 2012 of smartphone addiction and use of social media.
I couldn't say (without reading more of the book) whether Haidt answers your questions concerning the funding, production and marketing of communications technology that (like most technology) effects social change. His central remit is how the mental health of children and adolescents has been affected by a range of factors including parental attitudes and, very significantly, the disruptive use of smartphones on emotional maturation previously enabled by traditional patterns of face-to-face socialisation dating back through human evolution.
Brilliant. At least those lunatic doctors are not in the U.K. If only we could delete the word 'gender' from the English language we could 'avoid a lot of trouble', to quote Peter Cook. I really do think a lot of the problems, in the anglophone world, stem from this: the dual use of 'gender' to mean biological sex but also to mean 'what you feel you are' or 'how you express your biological sex' or whatever other explanation people propose. Language is important and should convey meaning, as unambiguously as possible.
We cannot control ordinary language, how people use it and its natural evolution.
However, we can and should insist that law is unambiguous and deals only in matters of objective fact rather than subjective opinion. Gender, being the latter, should never be a feature of any law.
This (clause 9(1)) of the Gender Recognition Act is perhaps the most egregious example of the law contributing to the morass of confusion by its seamless switch in the same sentence from sex to gender:
“Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).”
This Act is an utter abomination, a disgrace to Parliament, and surely must one day be repealed.
Agree. We cannot control language (and it sometimes devolves), but a general culture of unambiguous language, in all fields, would be progress. When people don't understand something (or have an agenda), they seem to relish unclear and confusing language, and their followers just nod along pretending they know what the other person is saying. On the WPATH website they actually advise never using the term 'biological sex' - ironically a term that IS NOT ambiguous. That shows their agenda.
Hi Jon. Please don't argue against the word 'gender' which has been a very useful concept as a social phenomenon in contrast to the unvarying biological concept of binary sex. The problem is that TQ ideologues have latched onto it, like many other progressive concepts such a LGB liberation and human rights, and twisted their meanings and use to further their own narrow interests of getting medical interventions for body modification. See the critique of the Dentons Report, in which a blueprint was laid out for legal tactics that have successfully stormed governments and corporates by stealth. https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document
Would you care to elaborate on what this useful “social phenomenon”, referenced by the term gender, actually is?
Since “identification as” the other sex is meaningless, given that the identifier has no frame of reference on which his or her alleged identification can be based, that can’t be the useful phenomenon.
Whenever gender is used as a term distinct from sex I can’t ever see it as meaning anything other than “the stereotypical behaviours and attributes commonly, but not necessarily, associated with a sex”. And that definitely isn’t useful.
Thanks, Paul. On the contrary, the meaning “the stereotypical behaviours and attributes commonly, but not necessarily, associated with a sex” was a powerful tool for women's liberation 50 or so years ago. It helped many women to stop accepting stereotypical norms in our own and others' behaviour, to gain an understanding that we had other choices. Of course, this tended to upset heterosexual relations and many men (and some women) didn't like 'their' women getting uppity and upsetting tradition. ;-)
Crowdfunder supported and shared to X-Twitter. And all credit to Sajid Javid, father of four, as then Health Secretary for having commissioned the Cass Review, and for other child-protective measures I knew nothing about.
It looks like the game might be finally up for all the myths touted about puberty blockers as being "safe" and "fully reversible" when they are clearly dangerous and irreversible.
But it seems like more legislation is needed to prevent evil outfits like the Webberleys' GenderGP continuing to harm children for profit. And to force the recalcitrant NHS back from its ideological positions on woman-erasing vocabulary, never mind damaging paediatric drugs.
Too late for the Tories to enact this: but is there any hope of Labour doing so?
Thoroughly captured as the party is, apart from brave dissenters like Rosie Duffield, there will have to be a lot of embarrassing backtracking on previous "progressive" stances on gender, for Starmer & co to acknowledge some ugly realities.
RSE SUMMER 2024 Key Learning (letter issued to parents by my child's Middle school in March 2024):
❏ Recognise that there are multiple gender identities and sexual orientations.
❏ Explain how FGM is in contradiction with human rights.
❏ Explain how forced marriage is in contradiction with human rights.
❏ Identify the risks of ‘sexting’ and how to manage requests or pressure to send an image.
❏ Identify basic forms of contraception, e.g. condom and pill.
Prior Learning:
Y7 - Safety and building relationships.
Future Learning:
Y9 - Peer influence, assessing risk and managing influences.
Thank you for an informative post, Sarah.
Unbelievably shocking how so many are being indoctrinated and fast tracked down an irreversible medical path.
You ask: "Where is it coming from?" I believe that it has been orchestrated for decades to weaken/sterilise/weaponise/dehumanise/depopulate many countries across the world (+58 countries - Europe, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. Please note which countries do not have this curriculum), so that if/when the uprising occurs 'they're won't blink at annihilation if called to do so (as anyone who 'identifies' is inhumane in 'their' eyes).
Our children are being gaslight from the age of 4 in schools under the guise of sexuality education by teachers who have been indoctrinated at universities - and repeatedly told lies about a contentious ideology until they believe it with a religious zealous ferocity. Children questioning this ideology are silenced, punished or threatened with expulsion; and told not to be offensive.
I believe that our children and young people are being psychologically abused at schools and universities by this Curriculum which schools accepted in 2014 and made compulsory in 2020; plus influenced by the media. I believe that our sons and daughters are gaslight, coersed, manipulated, sexualised and weaponised by the third sector agencies (follow the money to see who is sponsoring them, besides the tax payer), teachers, headteachers and school boards. I believe that it is more than social contagion and has been planned, coordinated and executed over decades.
What is the agenda? Why dehumanise, sterilise and medicalise our children? This is in 58 countries and counting...
As a trainee teacher, we were encouraged to 'teach across the Curriculum' - critical race theory, radicalisation and identity in Art, English, Maths, Science, ITC, Music, Technology, History, Geography and Drama classes. This practice was confirmed by my son's safeguarding lead in March 2024 that RSE PCHE is taught across the curriculum.
At a recent meeting with the local middle school, I asked the following questions:
- Are you the designated Safeguarding lead?
- Have you read 'Keeping Children Safe in Education'? Have all the members of staff at the school read KCSIE?
- WHO wrote this Curriculum?
- What is the academic theory that underpins this curriculum?
- WHO has informed teachers /headteacher's to teach RSE PCHE?
- Have you read the World Health Organisation Sexuality Education directives?
- Do you know that this curriculum is in 58 countries (and counting)?
In response to "this is above my remit," I also stated: "As the the Safeguarding lead, you know that it is EVERYONE'S responsibility to keep our children safe. I expect you to stand guard and protect our children from harm. Our children's lives are in your hands." "Our children are in such danger." "Do your research!"
Predictably, I was not shown any RSE PCHE material that our children are due to be exposed to this Summer term, despite receiving a letter from the school stating that parents could discuss the lessons, dates and times and view the material. He reassured me that the school would like to be transparent with parents and he was compiling the material over the Easter holidays. (This has been taught at the school for years and I have requested to view the material and lesson plans for 3 years in a row - I haven't been shown anything!)
In the letter from the school, it states:-
Key Learning:
❏ Recognise that there are multiple gender identities and sexual orientations.
❏ Explain how FGM is in contradiction with human rights.
❏ Explain how forced marriage is in contradiction with human rights.
❏ Identify the risks of ‘sexting’ and how to manage requests or pressure to send an image.
❏ Identify basic forms of contraception, e.g. condom and pill.
Prior Learning:
Y7 - Safety and building relationships.
Future Learning:
Y9 - Peer influence, assessing risk and managing influences.
I expressed by concern that an IDEOLOGY was being taught as FACT.
Rather shockingly, the Safeguarding lead reported me to social services for hate speech. Hate speech for expressing my concern for the safety and wellbeing of our children in school and for asking questions?
WHAT IS GOING ON?
In my opinion, it is far more sinister than gender ideology - that is being utilised as a distraction, and to sexualise and dehumanise our children (from infancy), drive the EUNAGENIC AGENDA and radicalisation in preparation for world war (hopefully I am mistaken). Similar tactics were implemented as pre-WWII - radicalised the youth, create a culture of reporting on parents and neighbours (SNP 1/4/24!!!), separate children from parents, indoctrinate into youth camps and then the army. Today's 'army' looks different but the level of intolerance for any 'other' or 'critical thinking' is culpable. The conservative monoculture will not tolerate transgenderism, homosexuality, human rights or women's rights and freedoms and will most likely outlaw progressive practices, flags, ideology (as has already been done in some regions in Europe and some councils in the States and Canada). Dangerous times.
Scotland and other countries are revealing some of the plan: make all children wards of the State; bring in blasphemy laws (non-crime hate crime), affirmative action ('white, white, white racist speech in parliament) , erase human and women's rights, blackouts, cost of living, etc. So are others criminalising and impoverishing common people, 15 minute zones, more taxes on motorists, digital currency, cancel culture, farming, etc..
SOS What can we do? Now? I have remained silent as I believe that I cannot fight the system or protect my children while they are in government institutions! But after the meeting at the school I was shocked to receive confirmation that most of what I've read and viewed is practiced in our schools.
The Secretary of State for Education, GILLIAN KEEGAN is due to release new guidance for relationship and sex education stating (hopefully) that teachers should avoid the subject, and stress that it is a contested belief. But allegedly teachers unions are telling teachers to ignore the DofE guidance.
I find it ironic that the government has introduced this dangerous ideology and made it mandatory in state schools and universities, and now (very late) is offering 'guidance'.
●Judith Butler Notable Works: “Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ ” “Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity” “Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France” “The Force of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind”
●Kinsey, A. C. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kinsey, A. C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
●John Money
●Gayle Rubin (b.1949), American anthropologist, coined the phrase compulsory heterosexuality in 1975 to refer to the taboo on homosexuality as being more basic than that on incest.
●American poet Adrienne Rich (1929–2012) in 1986 to argue that heterosexuality is a social construct sustained by social sanctions.
●E REYNOLDS:-
Barter, C., Renold, E., Cawson, P. and Berridge, D. 2004. Peer violence in children's residential care. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Williams, M. L., Mason, B. and Renold, E. 2004. Using computers in qualitative research: a review of software packages. Building Research Capacity 7, pp. 4-7.
2003
PILL, R., WOOD, F., Renold, E., Robling, M., EDWARDS, A. and WILKINSON, C. 2003. Welsh women's comments about breast problems and the care given: a qualitative study in the community. European Journal of Cancer Care 12(3), pp. 240-248. (10.1046/j.1365-2354.2003.00407.x)
Pill, R., Wood, F. C., Renold, E., Robling, M. R., Edwards, A. G. and Wilkinson, C. E. 2003. Welsh women’s comments about breast problems and the care given: a qualitative study in the community. European Journal of Cancer Care 12(3), pp. 240-248.
Renold, E. 2003. 'If You Don't Kiss Me, You're Dumped': Boys, boyfriends and heterosexualised masculinities in the primary school. Educational Review 55(2), pp. 179-194. (10.1080/0013191032000072218)
2002
Renold, E. 2002. Presumed Innocence: (Hetero)Sexual, Homophobic and Heterosexist Harassment amongst Primary School Girls and Boys. Childhood 9(4), pp. 415-434. (10.1177/0907568202009004004)
Gorard, S., Crozier, R. and Renold, E. 2002. What can we learn from educational research? The implications of work from the Cardiff University School of Social Sciences: the 5* educational research centre with a wider social science perspective. Working paper. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
2000
Renold, E. 2000. 'Coming out': Gender, (hetero)sexuality and the primary school. Gender and Education 12(3), pp. 309-326. (10.1080/713668299)
But why not? Every time someone uses the word 'gender' I have to ask what they actually mean. People and organisations (questionnares etc.) routinely use it for biological sex but also for the 'gender expression' or 'gender role' ideas, or 'what you know you are' etc. It would be as if we used the word 'cat' to mean either cat or dog or mouse depending on who says it and what their beliefs are. THAT is the confusion.
Just as it is illegal, I believe, for any person in the U.K. to assist another to travel to Switzerland to utilise the services of Dignitas, it should be equally illegal to assist a child to visit the Webberleys’ overseas clinic.
I agree. They should both be in prison.
Thanks Sarah. I'd like to point out, however, that the cause for the sex-based difference that's emerging in use of 'gender services' is bigger and more complex than some sort of amorphous 'social contagion' -- it's misogyny that promotes and supports sexualisation of girls/women, homophobia, objectification and fragmentation (eg, the mind.body split) that is facilitated by digital technologies and fast communication via the internet and able to be viewed and used in privacy away from parental supervision.
but that is the very essence of social contagion isn't it? Traumatised and unhappy girls are being convinced that there is a solution for their problems, and are being encouraged by their friends, even though many of the problems, as you point out, exist far beyond their own bodies.
Thanks for responding. My point is the use of language that strips out male power relations, like the term "domestic violence".
? social contagion is a sex neutral term. But its overwhelmingly girls that fall victim to it. I am not sure what your point is. Not everything needs to refer directly to patriarchal oppression. That's certainly a reason why many girls wish to abandon their bodies, but it doesn't make the term 'social contagion' inapt. In my view.
You first stated ‘The fact that the majority of the children referred to the Tavistock in recent years were born female and many were also autistic, suggests that social contagion is the more likely explanation. ‘
Yes, but to say ‘social contagion’ is ‘the’ more likely conclusion to a sex based difference uses a gender neutral reason that excludes possible sex based factor(s)
I disagree. As I have explained ‘social contagion’ is an umbrella term that can cover a wide range of factors. I don’t see this as a productive disagreement.
OK. I won’t belabour the point. Thanks for engaging.
This comes from the top down - WEF, WHO, UNESCO, UN, governments, DofE, NHS, and third party providers indoctrinate teachers and staff who then indoctrinate children from nursery school to university. Plus the bombardment in movies, media, online. FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985 (Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985), and carried a 5 years imprisonment sentence), and yet it is being performed for profit on our girls under the guise of the false term 'gender affirming care'. The majority of males don't seem to go under the knife (is it 85%?)
What is disturbing is the pushback against the Cass Report.
The pathological and abusive adults who are gaslighting, lying and harming children should be held accountable and this practice put to end.
Jonathan Haidt's latest book "The Anxious Generation" about Gen Z -- born 1995 onwards, the oldest aged 12 when the iPhone was launched in 2007 -- points directly to smartphones and social as the agent for massive increases in child and adolescent mental health issues from 2010 onwards, now at an all-time high. We have read for so long about Silicon Valley entrepreneurs denying their own kids access to smartphones: what did they know that we didn't, about algorithms that promoted addiction and anxiety through the use of "likes" -- or absence of them -- for girls obsessing about anorexia or cutting or popularity or whether they are trans? Or for boys, addiction to porn and violent video games?
Haidt as a researcher in social psychology strongly recommends that NO child should have a smartphone before the age of 15 and preferably 18: as devices which cut down on real-life social interaction and risk-taking (further limited by overprotective parents) where kids learn to negotiate using all their senses, and promote instead a disembodied, language-based existence: as an addictive and anxiety-provoking social milieu which prevents children from maturing.
I've heard of the book but not read it. I wonder whether it may be too technologically deterministic for my liking? Does the author blame technology as the core cause? If so, I would not accept his critique. I want explanations that explain how *humans* fund, produce, market and use a technology that effects social change.
Try reading the Kindle sample download of "The Anxious Generation". I've not yet read further than that, but as a social psychologist Haidt's opening observations -- supported by graphs of soaring mental health issues in teens -- amply confirm so much that I've read over the years (with a longterm interest in computer technology since 1985), and my own experience since 2012 of smartphone addiction and use of social media.
I couldn't say (without reading more of the book) whether Haidt answers your questions concerning the funding, production and marketing of communications technology that (like most technology) effects social change. His central remit is how the mental health of children and adolescents has been affected by a range of factors including parental attitudes and, very significantly, the disruptive use of smartphones on emotional maturation previously enabled by traditional patterns of face-to-face socialisation dating back through human evolution.
Amazon link to "The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness" by Jonathan Haidt
https://amzn.eu/d/ev7A96Y
Thank you. Much to think about.
Brilliant. At least those lunatic doctors are not in the U.K. If only we could delete the word 'gender' from the English language we could 'avoid a lot of trouble', to quote Peter Cook. I really do think a lot of the problems, in the anglophone world, stem from this: the dual use of 'gender' to mean biological sex but also to mean 'what you feel you are' or 'how you express your biological sex' or whatever other explanation people propose. Language is important and should convey meaning, as unambiguously as possible.
I am afraid GenderGP is registered in Singapore to avoid UK regulation but it operates quite happily here.
Damn. O.k., thanks.
We cannot control ordinary language, how people use it and its natural evolution.
However, we can and should insist that law is unambiguous and deals only in matters of objective fact rather than subjective opinion. Gender, being the latter, should never be a feature of any law.
This (clause 9(1)) of the Gender Recognition Act is perhaps the most egregious example of the law contributing to the morass of confusion by its seamless switch in the same sentence from sex to gender:
“Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).”
This Act is an utter abomination, a disgrace to Parliament, and surely must one day be repealed.
Agree. We cannot control language (and it sometimes devolves), but a general culture of unambiguous language, in all fields, would be progress. When people don't understand something (or have an agenda), they seem to relish unclear and confusing language, and their followers just nod along pretending they know what the other person is saying. On the WPATH website they actually advise never using the term 'biological sex' - ironically a term that IS NOT ambiguous. That shows their agenda.
Hi Jon. Please don't argue against the word 'gender' which has been a very useful concept as a social phenomenon in contrast to the unvarying biological concept of binary sex. The problem is that TQ ideologues have latched onto it, like many other progressive concepts such a LGB liberation and human rights, and twisted their meanings and use to further their own narrow interests of getting medical interventions for body modification. See the critique of the Dentons Report, in which a blueprint was laid out for legal tactics that have successfully stormed governments and corporates by stealth. https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document
Would you care to elaborate on what this useful “social phenomenon”, referenced by the term gender, actually is?
Since “identification as” the other sex is meaningless, given that the identifier has no frame of reference on which his or her alleged identification can be based, that can’t be the useful phenomenon.
Whenever gender is used as a term distinct from sex I can’t ever see it as meaning anything other than “the stereotypical behaviours and attributes commonly, but not necessarily, associated with a sex”. And that definitely isn’t useful.
Thanks, Paul. On the contrary, the meaning “the stereotypical behaviours and attributes commonly, but not necessarily, associated with a sex” was a powerful tool for women's liberation 50 or so years ago. It helped many women to stop accepting stereotypical norms in our own and others' behaviour, to gain an understanding that we had other choices. Of course, this tended to upset heterosexual relations and many men (and some women) didn't like 'their' women getting uppity and upsetting tradition. ;-)
Crowdfunder supported and shared to X-Twitter. And all credit to Sajid Javid, father of four, as then Health Secretary for having commissioned the Cass Review, and for other child-protective measures I knew nothing about.
It looks like the game might be finally up for all the myths touted about puberty blockers as being "safe" and "fully reversible" when they are clearly dangerous and irreversible.
But it seems like more legislation is needed to prevent evil outfits like the Webberleys' GenderGP continuing to harm children for profit. And to force the recalcitrant NHS back from its ideological positions on woman-erasing vocabulary, never mind damaging paediatric drugs.
Too late for the Tories to enact this: but is there any hope of Labour doing so?
Thoroughly captured as the party is, apart from brave dissenters like Rosie Duffield, there will have to be a lot of embarrassing backtracking on previous "progressive" stances on gender, for Starmer & co to acknowledge some ugly realities.
RSE SUMMER 2024 Key Learning (letter issued to parents by my child's Middle school in March 2024):
❏ Recognise that there are multiple gender identities and sexual orientations.
❏ Explain how FGM is in contradiction with human rights.
❏ Explain how forced marriage is in contradiction with human rights.
❏ Identify the risks of ‘sexting’ and how to manage requests or pressure to send an image.
❏ Identify basic forms of contraception, e.g. condom and pill.
Prior Learning:
Y7 - Safety and building relationships.
Future Learning:
Y9 - Peer influence, assessing risk and managing influences.
Thank you for an informative post, Sarah.
Unbelievably shocking how so many are being indoctrinated and fast tracked down an irreversible medical path.
You ask: "Where is it coming from?" I believe that it has been orchestrated for decades to weaken/sterilise/weaponise/dehumanise/depopulate many countries across the world (+58 countries - Europe, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. Please note which countries do not have this curriculum), so that if/when the uprising occurs 'they're won't blink at annihilation if called to do so (as anyone who 'identifies' is inhumane in 'their' eyes).
Our children are being gaslight from the age of 4 in schools under the guise of sexuality education by teachers who have been indoctrinated at universities - and repeatedly told lies about a contentious ideology until they believe it with a religious zealous ferocity. Children questioning this ideology are silenced, punished or threatened with expulsion; and told not to be offensive.
I believe that our children and young people are being psychologically abused at schools and universities by this Curriculum which schools accepted in 2014 and made compulsory in 2020; plus influenced by the media. I believe that our sons and daughters are gaslight, coersed, manipulated, sexualised and weaponised by the third sector agencies (follow the money to see who is sponsoring them, besides the tax payer), teachers, headteachers and school boards. I believe that it is more than social contagion and has been planned, coordinated and executed over decades.
What is the agenda? Why dehumanise, sterilise and medicalise our children? This is in 58 countries and counting...
As a trainee teacher, we were encouraged to 'teach across the Curriculum' - critical race theory, radicalisation and identity in Art, English, Maths, Science, ITC, Music, Technology, History, Geography and Drama classes. This practice was confirmed by my son's safeguarding lead in March 2024 that RSE PCHE is taught across the curriculum.
At a recent meeting with the local middle school, I asked the following questions:
- Are you the designated Safeguarding lead?
- Have you read 'Keeping Children Safe in Education'? Have all the members of staff at the school read KCSIE?
- WHO wrote this Curriculum?
- What is the academic theory that underpins this curriculum?
- WHO has informed teachers /headteacher's to teach RSE PCHE?
- Have you read the World Health Organisation Sexuality Education directives?
- Do you know that this curriculum is in 58 countries (and counting)?
In response to "this is above my remit," I also stated: "As the the Safeguarding lead, you know that it is EVERYONE'S responsibility to keep our children safe. I expect you to stand guard and protect our children from harm. Our children's lives are in your hands." "Our children are in such danger." "Do your research!"
Predictably, I was not shown any RSE PCHE material that our children are due to be exposed to this Summer term, despite receiving a letter from the school stating that parents could discuss the lessons, dates and times and view the material. He reassured me that the school would like to be transparent with parents and he was compiling the material over the Easter holidays. (This has been taught at the school for years and I have requested to view the material and lesson plans for 3 years in a row - I haven't been shown anything!)
In the letter from the school, it states:-
Key Learning:
❏ Recognise that there are multiple gender identities and sexual orientations.
❏ Explain how FGM is in contradiction with human rights.
❏ Explain how forced marriage is in contradiction with human rights.
❏ Identify the risks of ‘sexting’ and how to manage requests or pressure to send an image.
❏ Identify basic forms of contraception, e.g. condom and pill.
Prior Learning:
Y7 - Safety and building relationships.
Future Learning:
Y9 - Peer influence, assessing risk and managing influences.
I expressed by concern that an IDEOLOGY was being taught as FACT.
Rather shockingly, the Safeguarding lead reported me to social services for hate speech. Hate speech for expressing my concern for the safety and wellbeing of our children in school and for asking questions?
WHAT IS GOING ON?
In my opinion, it is far more sinister than gender ideology - that is being utilised as a distraction, and to sexualise and dehumanise our children (from infancy), drive the EUNAGENIC AGENDA and radicalisation in preparation for world war (hopefully I am mistaken). Similar tactics were implemented as pre-WWII - radicalised the youth, create a culture of reporting on parents and neighbours (SNP 1/4/24!!!), separate children from parents, indoctrinate into youth camps and then the army. Today's 'army' looks different but the level of intolerance for any 'other' or 'critical thinking' is culpable. The conservative monoculture will not tolerate transgenderism, homosexuality, human rights or women's rights and freedoms and will most likely outlaw progressive practices, flags, ideology (as has already been done in some regions in Europe and some councils in the States and Canada). Dangerous times.
Scotland and other countries are revealing some of the plan: make all children wards of the State; bring in blasphemy laws (non-crime hate crime), affirmative action ('white, white, white racist speech in parliament) , erase human and women's rights, blackouts, cost of living, etc. So are others criminalising and impoverishing common people, 15 minute zones, more taxes on motorists, digital currency, cancel culture, farming, etc..
SOS What can we do? Now? I have remained silent as I believe that I cannot fight the system or protect my children while they are in government institutions! But after the meeting at the school I was shocked to receive confirmation that most of what I've read and viewed is practiced in our schools.
The Secretary of State for Education, GILLIAN KEEGAN is due to release new guidance for relationship and sex education stating (hopefully) that teachers should avoid the subject, and stress that it is a contested belief. But allegedly teachers unions are telling teachers to ignore the DofE guidance.
I find it ironic that the government has introduced this dangerous ideology and made it mandatory in state schools and universities, and now (very late) is offering 'guidance'.
FURTHER READING:
● World Health Organisation Regionsl Offices for Europe and BzgA - Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/WHOStandards-for-Sexuality-Ed-in-Europe.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiC182Mn7eFAxVxwAIHHVWmBvsQFnoECCoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1MazzpYUD05-QxWC58hyNJ)
●Michel Foucault
●Judith Butler Notable Works: “Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ ” “Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity” “Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France” “The Force of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind”
●Kinsey, A. C. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kinsey, A. C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
●John Money
●Gayle Rubin (b.1949), American anthropologist, coined the phrase compulsory heterosexuality in 1975 to refer to the taboo on homosexuality as being more basic than that on incest.
●American poet Adrienne Rich (1929–2012) in 1986 to argue that heterosexuality is a social construct sustained by social sanctions.
●E REYNOLDS:-
Barter, C., Renold, E., Cawson, P. and Berridge, D. 2004. Peer violence in children's residential care. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Williams, M. L., Mason, B. and Renold, E. 2004. Using computers in qualitative research: a review of software packages. Building Research Capacity 7, pp. 4-7.
2003
PILL, R., WOOD, F., Renold, E., Robling, M., EDWARDS, A. and WILKINSON, C. 2003. Welsh women's comments about breast problems and the care given: a qualitative study in the community. European Journal of Cancer Care 12(3), pp. 240-248. (10.1046/j.1365-2354.2003.00407.x)
Pill, R., Wood, F. C., Renold, E., Robling, M. R., Edwards, A. G. and Wilkinson, C. E. 2003. Welsh women’s comments about breast problems and the care given: a qualitative study in the community. European Journal of Cancer Care 12(3), pp. 240-248.
Renold, E. 2003. 'If You Don't Kiss Me, You're Dumped': Boys, boyfriends and heterosexualised masculinities in the primary school. Educational Review 55(2), pp. 179-194. (10.1080/0013191032000072218)
2002
Renold, E. 2002. Presumed Innocence: (Hetero)Sexual, Homophobic and Heterosexist Harassment amongst Primary School Girls and Boys. Childhood 9(4), pp. 415-434. (10.1177/0907568202009004004)
Gorard, S., Crozier, R. and Renold, E. 2002. What can we learn from educational research? The implications of work from the Cardiff University School of Social Sciences: the 5* educational research centre with a wider social science perspective. Working paper. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
2000
Renold, E. 2000. 'Coming out': Gender, (hetero)sexuality and the primary school. Gender and Education 12(3), pp. 309-326. (10.1080/713668299)
But why not? Every time someone uses the word 'gender' I have to ask what they actually mean. People and organisations (questionnares etc.) routinely use it for biological sex but also for the 'gender expression' or 'gender role' ideas, or 'what you know you are' etc. It would be as if we used the word 'cat' to mean either cat or dog or mouse depending on who says it and what their beliefs are. THAT is the confusion.
The confusion has arisen since ‘gender identitarians appropriated and tried to make it equivalent to sex.