60

There appears to be a line of argument used by a vocal minority that children should not be educated about homosexuality (and, I suppose, non-binary gender identities) because the proposals are to "promote that lifestyle" (or words to that effect).

The people using this line of argument are often overtly religious, usually Christian or Muslim.

It seems fairly uncontroversial to me to inform children of the existence of people who fall in love with other people of the same sex, and that these people are no less deserving of the rights everyone else enjoys.

But this does not sound like "promotion."

Is anyone advocating the promotion of homosexuality or non-binary gender roles in UK schools?

Edit:

This question is not opinion-based because, via contrast with "inform", it implies the definition of promotion for the purposes of this discussion. To clarify: here "promotion" is used in the sell/advocate sense.

52d6c6af
  • 10,391
  • 2
  • 32
  • 75
  • 90
    The problem is with that definition. One person looking at it as "being neutral and simply acknowledging the basic humanity of a group" would be considered "promoting" by those who feel that the way they are is fundamentally evil or morally vile, by not calling them those negative things. Kind of like when groups claim they are being oppressed when they are given equal status/importance as groups they've always held supremacy over. The child who used to hoard the entire candy bar has something taken away when they only get an equal share. – PoloHoleSet Jul 09 '19 at 16:48
  • 1
    Sure, it's a worldwide phenomenon. The world is "overpopulated" and gay couples can't conceive children. – Pedro Lobito Jul 09 '19 at 21:21
  • 5
    @PoloHoleSet Isn't what you are describing "promotion" of individuals from lower to higher status (namely, equal status to the majority)? In other words, you agree with the anti-homosexuality group that this is promotion, just that they are unjustified to complain of it? – Hasse1987 Jul 09 '19 at 22:16
  • 31
    @Hasse1987 "promotion" may mean two things. Either you promote someone to a higher position, or you promote some activity, encouraging more people to partake in it. The expression here is "promotion of homosexuality", not "promotion of homosexuals", so it implies that modern schools are encouraging kids to become gay, which doesn't seem to be grounded in reality. – IMil Jul 09 '19 at 23:38
  • 4
    In a subjective and ideological topic, wouldn't punishing those who express a certain opinion, and even more, the punishing of people who refuse to express a certain other opinion, count as "promotion"? For example, making up new grammar rules, redefining the meaning of existing words, and punishing those who refuse to support those changes (either directly by expelling them from schools and firing from jobs, or indirectly by calling them evil and hateful), can be seen as oppression by some. – vsz Jul 10 '19 at 04:45
  • 2
    The people using this line of argument are often overtly religious, usually Christian or Muslim. Conservative may have been better here. I also fail to see why these ideas should be promoted? Sure, people should be informed about them, but promoting sounds like you want to actively push people away from the norm. – Based Jul 10 '19 at 08:18
  • @vsz do you have any real life examples from UK education? – Lag Jul 10 '19 at 10:06
  • 2
    @Peter The educational programmes being talked about are about informing people. It is ok to be X, not go be X. That's tbe point being made about the meaning of the word promote in the answers below. – Jontia Jul 10 '19 at 10:28
  • @vsz so what word would you use instead of gender to define the social concepts being discussed? – Jontia Jul 10 '19 at 10:30
  • 1
    @Jontia but in the OP, promotion is explicitely contrasted against "to inform children of the existence..." So there is little room for the intended meaning of the word. – Based Jul 10 '19 at 10:46
  • 3
    Possibly related: Back in 2014 French gov't had a stated goal of teaching kids about gender equality, and breaking down gender roles and stereotypes at a young age. Some parents read Facebook posts and started removing their kids from schools because they didn't want them being taught queer. Notably, Pope Francis piled on with them. For more about that controversy, search for "gender theory". – AmiralPatate Jul 10 '19 at 12:01
  • 3
    @PoloHoleSet Largely agree with your comment, but the child with the candy bar isn't having any of it taken away. Instead, every child is being given their own candy bar (or at least more than they had before). The only thing being taken away is the feeling of superiority. – David K Jul 10 '19 at 12:15
  • 3
    Anyone wishing to understand this issue as it concerns the UK needs to familiarise themselves with the history, starting in 1988 with Margaret Thatcher's "Section 28 of the Local Government Act" of that year. This was a hotly controversial piece of legislation which forbade "the teaching, in any government maintained school, of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". Eventually, Section 28 was repealed by the Labour Government in 2003, but not before a great deal of debate and acrimony had occurred. This is important background – WS2 Jul 10 '19 at 15:09
  • 10
    @DavidK - then my analogy would change to "the child who used to hoard all the candy bars." It's not about whether they are truly losing something they are entitled to, but that they've had access to something that should not have been theirs, for so long, that they feel entitled to it. But, that's semantics, I think we are on the same page. – PoloHoleSet Jul 10 '19 at 15:24
  • I don't really understand the question. What exactly is meant by promoting homosexuality? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jul 11 '19 at 21:05
  • There are two subtlety different aspects - 1) normalising LGBTQI+ (these are normal/acceptable, and some of you might feel these ways as well, so here is education), and 2) requiring tolerance/social acceptance towards LGBTQI+ (these are members of society and if you don't agree with them, they still have exactly the same right to peaceful lives here as you do). I suspect the term promotion and disapproval are for many people, primarily directed at the 1st- a belief that children may be tacitly encouraged to self explore and identify in ways breaching their family's/parents values. – Stilez Jul 12 '19 at 01:41
  • @Stilez Do you actually believe that 2 is possible, without 1? There seems to me a compelling case for saying that sexual orientation is a matter of biology rather than a matter of "values". Parents may well hold ideas which are contrary to known science. It is even conceivable that there are some who believe in fairies, creation science, or that the earth is flat. Should schools not seek to point out the errors in such ideas. – WS2 Jul 12 '19 at 06:26
  • 1
    Because the question is essentially asking us to arbitrate the issue @PoloHoleSet points out, this is opinion based. – jpmc26 Jul 12 '19 at 06:56
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet : Would you consider Heavers Farm Primary, where it is compulsory for 10-year olds to take part in Pride Week activities, and if they don't want to take part they get detention, as merely "being neutral and simply acknowledging the basic humanity of a group", or as something more than that? – vsz Jul 12 '19 at 14:00
  • @vsz have you got a link to what "Pride week Activities" are? I imagine you'd get detention if you didn't want to take part in Black History Month activities too. – Jontia Jul 12 '19 at 15:37
  • @Jontia : the question wasn't whether it's a good thing or not. The question was whether it exists. – vsz Jul 12 '19 at 18:40
  • @vsz your comment asks if being given detention for refusing to take part in a school activity is 'more than' being neutral. Without any information on what that activity is. Refusing to take part in a lesson will lead to detention whether it is a lesson acknowledging the basic humanity of a group or if it is a lesson on multiplication. So unless the activity during pride week is in someway objectionable, of which the burden of proof rests on you as the one complaining , then the school appears to have acted properly. – Jontia Jul 12 '19 at 18:58
  • The Proud to be Me parade looks entirely reasonable to me. – Jontia Jul 12 '19 at 19:01
  • @Jontia : Again, the question wasn't whether you find it reasonable or not, whether it aligns with your values or not. If it was a "proud to be Christian" parade, and every child was forced to take part, would you still find it reasonable? And even that doesn't matter, as the question asked whether such activities exist, and not whether you like them or not. And taking part in a parade is more than merely being informed that such people exist and that you should tolerate them. – vsz Jul 12 '19 at 19:11
  • Again it isn't a proud to be LGBT parade. Did you even follow the link? So yes, a proud to be christian parade or a proud to be LGBT parage, would be objectionable if you forced people to pretend to be something they are not. But the parade is neither of those things. – Jontia Jul 12 '19 at 19:13
  • "We are inviting children and parents to wear clothes and accessories that celebrate who they are, what they are proud of about themselves or to show the respect and acceptance they show to everyone." – Jontia Jul 12 '19 at 19:15
  • @Jontia : That's a single sentence taken out of a statement made by the school itself, to make the school look good. If you look at third-party sources, you will find examples of much more than that. But here is when I refuse to take part in further discussions, because it seems your aim is to get the whole comment section deleted for being too long, while PoloHoleSet's original comment which I criticized, will likely remain. I've seen this strategy all to often on this site. – vsz Jul 12 '19 at 19:20
  • I'm assuming you mean this story. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/nov/20/christian-parent-legal-action-heavers-farm-school-pride-parade which I will leave a link to rather than just say it exists. It seems much the same as the issues mentioned in inappropriatecode's answer below. – Jontia Jul 12 '19 at 19:25
  • @vsz - If "Pride Week" is an acknowledgement of the basic humanity and equality of members who identify as part of that community, what's not neutral about that? Are they advocating or requiring that the students engage in "gay" behavior in a mandatory fashion? What's pretty obvious that any compulsory "Pride Week" activities are probably more of an educational nature than celebratory or advocacy. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Since they aren't specifically condemning homosexuality, you seem to be claiming they are actively promoting it. – PoloHoleSet Jul 15 '19 at 15:23
  • 2
    @vsz - from the article offered about the story, please tell me what there is about this activity that is anything but neutral?

    "The complaint centres on an event organised by the school in June, in which pupils were encouraged to march with banners highlighting what made them proud to be themselves. {no demands that it be sexuality-themed}

    In a message to parents, the school said: 'At this parade each child will be celebrating what makes them proud of themselves and their family. We encourage you to talk to your children about what they will be celebrating.'" How controlling!

     – PoloHoleSet Jul 15 '19 at 15:25

6 Answers6

74

It seems this issue came to media attention with Parkfield primary school in Birmingham in March 2019. However, similar disputes in Birmingham schools do precede this kerfuffle.

The school's leadership had started a 'No Outsiders' class. The point of this class was to teach children to be tolerant of people from different races, genders, or sexualities. This initiative failed completely when Muslim parents removed 600 children from classes for a day. This comes after 400 predominantly Muslim parents signed a petition in January demanding the lessons be discontinued.

The school's regulator, Ofsted, then stated that Parkfield had an "outstanding" record of "tolerance, acceptance and mutual respect". Direct quotation from the 14th March article in The Guardian:

Andrew Moffat, who was awarded an MBE for his work in equality education, said he was threatened and targeted via a leaflet campaign after the school piloted the No Outsiders programme. Its ethos is to promote LGBT equality and challenge homophobia in primary schools.

Moffat, who has been shortlisted for a world’s best teacher award, resigned from another primary school in Birmingham, Chilwell Croft academy, after a similar dispute. He is also the author of Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools, a teaching document.

At one of the Parkfield protests, parents held signs that read “say no to promoting of homosexuality and LGBT ways of life to our children”, “stop exploiting children’s innocence” and “education not indoctrination”.

The evidence suggests that Parkfield attempted classes which challenged prejudices against race, gender, and the LGBT community. These classes were rejected by Muslim parents on the grounds that this was equivalent to teaching their children to be LGBT. The government's schools regulator however sided with the school's leadership and concluded the school had a good record of trying to deal with prejudice.

Parkfield's Head, Hazel Pulley, has said the following on the issue:

It's really upsetting for our staff, some of them are becoming ill, some of them really don't want to come to school. Some say they've been shaking. Losing weight, not wanting to eat food at all. And the reason why is because they're met, especially the teachers of young children, with parents accusing them of things that are just not happening.

For example, the parents of young children are saying "But you're teaching them certain sexual activity, which we don't agree with." Well we don't, we certainly don't do that. Or we're using clay models or something to show children something of a sexual nature, we most certainly do not do that. There's a real concern about the myths that are out there, that we might be using, in assembly, pictures of our partners or conversations with children and those things are really not happening.

...I think it's very clear, from school that we would never ever discuss sexual activity with very young children.

We don't know whether this is evidence of a deliberate smear campaign by parents, or just a case of mass hysteria due to ignorance or prejudice. Given Ofsted approval, it seems unlikely that such allegations about explicit sexual content are true.

The Parkfield Parent's Community Group published a statement on the 23rd February 2019. Their main concerns were that these lessons began without parental consultation, and that they were in effect teaching children sex; a claim which appears incorrect.

The policy of the school is disproportionate, morally unacceptable and violates the democratic rights of parents to have children educated in consistency with their own beliefs and philosophical convictions.

One 4-year-old Parkfield child came home and said that her teacher had said “We can be a boy or a girl” and “wear boy’s clothes or girl’s clothes”. Another one told her mother that she learnt “boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls.”

These are statements of legal fact. The parent's group statement affirms the right of individuals under the Equality Act to self-expression and protection from discrimination, however the distinction between education of the legal fact and "promotion" i.e. advocacy is blurred.

There are claims of specific incidents which are regarded as crossing a red line. Specifically, the claim that someone can be a Muslim and gay, and that children were asked to write "being gay is OK".

The statement does have a specific definition of promotion:

Introduction to the book: “What we now need to be teaching is that homophobia once existed but we don’t have it in our school today, and that to be a person who is gay or lesbian or transgender or bi-sexual is normal, acceptable and OK. Children need to be learning that they may identify or may not identify as LGBT as they grow up, and that whoever they grow into as an adult is also perfectly normal and acceptable.” (No outsiders in our school – page 2) (italics added, this is a promotion of a homosexual lifestyle).

In this case there seems to be ambiguity on the question of promotion, as the parent's group themselves affirm the rights of individuals under the Equality Act. So this definition seems to leave more questions than answers.

EDIT: To clarify a broader cultural and legal context on the topic of toleration, as it appears this is not understood.

In the United Kingdom it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

British society's toleration is rooted in the bloody turmoil of the reformation, in which Catholics and Protestants butchered each other because they sincerely believed the other side were evil agents of the anti-Christ, and failure to do so would put their immortal souls in peril.

In 1673 the Test Act was introduced, requiring that anyone in the civil service must take communion in the Church of England. The first progressive legislation was the Toleration Act 1688, allowing Nonconformist Protestants the right to assemble and worship. However, nonconformists had to wait until the Sacramental Test Act 1828 before they could legally take public office. Discrimination against Catholics was repealed in 1829 with the Roman Catholic Relief Act.

Toleration was gradually extended to other groups. In 1967 the Sexual Offences Act decriminalised consenting relationships between adult men, the Race Relations Act 1968 ended discrimination in employment and housing, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 forbade discrimination by sex or marital status.

In 1988 the Local Government Act's Section 28 forbade local government from promoting homosexuality. This was repealed by 2003's Local Government Act, and later sexual orientation became part of the Equality Act 2010.

Toleration however is not afforded to groups believing in the elimination of sections of society. Groups espousing Nazi or Islamist ideology are banned and their members jailed, and similarly groups dedicated to political violence are forbidden (Northern Irish terrorism: IRA, UVF, etc).

Schools are within their rights to educate children on the cultural and legal reality of their country. This is especially important given the unfortunate reality of widespread prejudice. Official records show on average 100,000 racist hate crimes a year in England and Wales. Hate crimes against gay and lesbian people have doubled during 2013-2018 to around 12,000 incidents, while hate crimes against transgender people have trebled.

27

The verb "promote" is something of a complicated word. To quote the OED, one meaning is

To publicize or advertise (a product, organization, venture, etc.) so as to increase sales or public awareness.

Several relatively mainstream organisations are interested in increasing public awareness of LGBT issues in schools and elsewhere, in order to normalise the discussion.

origimbo
  • 21,139
  • 2
  • 54
  • 78
  • 4
    Is it worth noting here that all the things that the schools are trying to raise awareness of are legal in the UK and the chances are someone in the class already is or has parents who fall into these categories? Progammes like No Outsiders main message is people are people. – Jontia Jul 09 '19 at 10:37
  • 1
    You are correct that the interpretation of the OED definition is strictly ambiguous, but I think the meaning is clear: promotion is a form of advocacy: ie. espousing a value judgement ("Mercedes autos are highly desirable!", "being gay is great guys!"). I don't think this definitional nit really answers the question. – 52d6c6af Jul 09 '19 at 10:38
  • 4
    @Ben As you'll note from Jontia's comment above, the average message is at least "being gay is normal", which is now mainstream (it's certainly mine), but from viewpoints where homosexuality is negative is morally equivalent to "being gay is great". If you're trying to place a point on the moral compass as the only valid one, then this is going to become a) opinion based and b) nasty fairly fast. – origimbo Jul 09 '19 at 10:47
  • OK so are you saying that this isn't promotion, but that from the perspective of someone who has a deeply negative view of homosexuality then it can be seen to be promotion because of the sheer size of the worldview gap? There could be another angle here in that people know it isn't promotion but worry about a slippery slope, or that they are simply overplaying the argument in order to win mindshare ("they want to teach our kids to be gay!") – 52d6c6af Jul 09 '19 at 11:08
  • @origimbo While I value this answer, unfortunately I do not feel it currently answers the question to my satisfaction. The selected answer describes the the curriculum with a case study and implies that the word "promotion" is a loaded overstatement. – 52d6c6af Jul 09 '19 at 12:44
  • 10
    @origimbo What percentage of the population needs to have a certain characteristic before it becomes "normal"? Wikipedia has less than 5% of the US population identifying as LGBTQ. This also backed up by LGBTmap. Using those stats, its also normal to be suicidal or anorexic. – doneal24 Jul 09 '19 at 16:56
  • 13
    @doneal24 Yes, and you'll note that there are events such as mental health awareness week trying to inform people of that fact. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/campaigns/mental-health-awareness-week – origimbo Jul 09 '19 at 17:03
  • 8
    Sorry to jump in, but I made the same point about normalcy in a now-deleted comment. I realised this line of argument descended into a definitional war of attrition, similar to that opened by this answer about "promotion." The case for "normal" can be argued both ways using either the pejorative meaning of the word ("ewww, that's not normal!") or the more benign meaning of "naturalness", arguing that people are born into a sex/gender/orientation. Unfortunately this approach of playing with semantics (IMO) doesn't really advance things. – 52d6c6af Jul 09 '19 at 17:11
  • 3
    This is the correct answer. Discussing the issue is making one aware of it. Making own aware of an issue is promoting it. And it is good for these Muslim families that the school was "promoting" tolerance in the first place. In many other places, including in the UK, their religion is not "tolerated". – dotancohen Jul 10 '19 at 10:08
  • This question is not about “promoting tolerance.” It is explicitly about promoting homosexuality/non-binary gender identities. “Promote” has at least two meanings: one closer to “make aware of” and another closer to the less neutral “sell/advocate.” In this case, having spoken to religious people with these views, it is clear to me that they mean the latter. So, despite the semantic discussion, the question remains: is anyone advocating the promotion (latter sense) of homosexuality/non-binary gender identity in schools? – 52d6c6af Jul 10 '19 at 12:26
  • With this definition schools promote any kind of knowledge. That's probably not what the people meant. Or maybe it is exactly what they meant. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jul 11 '19 at 21:00
  • @Ben "are you saying that this isn't promotion". The answer states precisely the opposite: that the linked organizations are publicizing, i.e. promoting, homosexuality. If that (by the book definition) doesn't fit your definition of promotion, perhaps you should more clearly include your definition in your question. – Paul Draper Jul 12 '19 at 00:10
  • @dotancohen: I'm not sure I undertand your point. I try to be as tolerant as possible. In this case, it's hard to be tolerant towards families which are completely intolerant, though. – Eric Duminil Jul 12 '19 at 09:50
23

It depends on definition of promotion.

For example: a few weeks ago on internet went viral a quarrel between a UK student and teacher concerning number of genders. First the student got expelled from class for effectively expressing politically undesired views (merely 2 genders), later got expelled from school for video recording the teacher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unft5pHI2lw

Does it count as promoting? Because I understand that for left wing it may look as:

  • simply a misbehaving student got disciplined,

however when looked from right wing it looks more like:

  • teacher was expressing political views that are not necessary in line with biology (well, technically speaking our specie has generally two sexes)

  • student challenged him on this politically charged topic

  • student got removed out of class

  • as teacher claims seemed a bit far fetched and one would not trust a random student claiming it was actually said ("This is my opinion which is acceptable in the school"), he recorded it to have evidence

  • he got punished for actually revealing whole contentious discuss.

EDIT: If expressing opposing views on this socio-political issue could get one in to serious troubles, then it may imply that some worldview is being actively promoted.

Shadow1024
  • 5,907
  • 1
  • 20
  • 31
  • 7
    The linked video is someone talking about the recorded video and associated social media storm. It's not really helping this as an answer. In particular it doesn't support any of the points at the bottom. Gender is a social not biological term, the biological term is "sex". There no primary information in the link about the nature of the challenge or why the student was removed. And nothing in the link gives any information on how or if the teacher's claims or the classroom material were surreal or crude. – Jontia Jul 09 '19 at 12:56
  • 3
    @Jontia Primary information, the original recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcmxFw1LAbo – Shadow1024 Jul 09 '19 at 13:20
  • 2
    Thanks for the video I notice that this doesn't cover the content of the class, only presumably the last stage of a conflict between the student and teacher, so it's impossible to know what the content of the class is. At no point does the teacher state his own opinion though, he simple confirms that the content of the lesson reflected school policy. – Jontia Jul 09 '19 at 13:35
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jul 11 '19 at 04:35
  • 5
    @Shadow1024: “technically speaking our specie has generally two sexes” — just for the record, like so many things in reality, it's a little more complicated than that. – Paul D. Waite Jul 11 '19 at 09:26
  • 4
    @Jontia Not as simple as that. For hundreds of years gender and sex meant exactly the same thing. Then, as the word sex became a "dirty word" the word gender then became the accepted word. If you look back at forms from the 70s you will see the option Gender: Male/Female. It was the women's movement in the 70s that pushed for switching the meaning so as to create a different meaning. – theblitz Jul 11 '19 at 11:58
  • 4
    @theblitz Wikipedia disagrees. Before 1955 it was uncommon to use gender to refer to anything other than grammatical constructs. John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role. In the 70s, the word was adopted by the feminist movement, still referring to social roles. In the 80s and 90s is started being used to avoid the word sex, as you've suggested. – Jontia Jul 11 '19 at 16:12
  • 1
    Language changes all the time, if gender and sex do mean the same thing, then a new word is needed to describe the social roles which is what the question and the lessons referred to are actually about. The word meanings of sex and gender here are an irrelevant distraction that is being latched onto to shut down discussion of the actual concept. – Jontia Jul 11 '19 at 16:14
  • 1
    @PaulD.Waite I always thought that "it's a little more complicated than that" is precisely what generally means. – sgf Jul 12 '19 at 12:13
16

A trans-gender Canadian children's book author named S. Bear Bergman wrote a huffpost article titled I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children Into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I’m Not a Bit Sorry), in which she was quoted as saying:

I am here to tell you: All that time I said I wasn’t indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie.

I want to make them like us. That is absolutely my goal. I want to make your children like people like me and my family, even if that goes against the way you have interpreted the teachings of your religion. I want to be present in their emotional landscapes as a perfectly nice dad and writer who is married to another guy. Who used to be a girl (kind of). Who is friendly and cheerful and not scary at all, no matter what anyone says.

A gay activist named Daniel Villarreal, in an article titled Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?, was quoted as saying:

The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? In response against the bill, FCKH8 hired some little girls to drop F-bombs in their online PSAs and gave out hundreds of “Don’t B H8N on the Homos” t-shirts, wristbands, pins and stickers to school children in front of TV cameras. Recruiting children? You bet we are.

I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Admittedly these two examples did not occur in the UK. However, given how similar our respective cultures in the Anglosphere are, I think it's fair to suggest that this sentiment doesn't stop at the Atlantic.

So to answer your question, yes, there are people intent on promoting LGBT lifestyles in schools, and who have no qualms with making their intent known.

Community
  • 1
EnjoyingPotatoes
  • 201
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
    Are you sure LGBT rights are that similar in the UK and the US? – JJJ Jul 10 '19 at 03:17
  • 17
    Arguably, this is not about "promoting LGBT lifestyles", but teaching acceptance of the lifestyle - so the answer hinges on the exact definition of "promoting". – sleske Jul 10 '19 at 07:29
  • 5
    @sleske OP explicitely contrasts giving information to promotion so it's pretty clear what the intended meaning is. – Based Jul 10 '19 at 08:22
  • 29
    I think this answer misrepresents the statements by these LGBT activists. They are not indoctrinating children to take up an LGBT lifestyle themselves, they are indoctrinating them to tolerate such a lifestyle in others. This is a relevant distinction, because many people who oppose such activists claim they are doing the first, while they are actually trying to do the latter. – Philipp Jul 10 '19 at 09:27
  • 5
    @Philipp If in position of authority I tell you it's absolutely OK to violate some taboo, am I mildly encouraging you to do so or telling you to tolerate people who do so? Or both as, as regardless of intentions, those two activities are simultaneous. BTW: would you apply your logic to slogan: "It's OK to be white"? ;) – Shadow1024 Jul 10 '19 at 11:49
  • This discussion is nuanced. If you say “it’s OK to be gay” then no, that is not encouragement. Rather, it is a value judgement, implying everyone is equally valued regardless of sexual orientation. If you say “it’s absolutely <wink, wink> OK to be gay <smile, nod, nod>”, that’s encouragement. At face value “it’s OK to be white” can be similarly described. As always, context is important: a neutral statement can be delivered in a loaded fashion to encourage, and this needs to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. A description of the teaching at Parkfield Primary: https://bbc.in/2WFhF1U. – 52d6c6af Jul 10 '19 at 13:21
  • 5
    @Shadow1024 Sounds like you're telling me that in the organisation in which you have authority, violating the taboo is allowed, so 1) I am expected to tolerate people who do so, and 2) I should be tolerated if I do so. I don't see any encouragement or coercion whatsoever. – Richard Jul 10 '19 at 14:51
  • 1
    None of the lifestyles in the question are taboo in Britain. That being the actual point of the programme in question. – Jontia Jul 10 '19 at 21:03
  • 1
    @Jontia I don't think that is correct. They are legal, but some people in Britain do consider them taboo. – DrMcCleod Jul 11 '19 at 10:57
  • @Philipp Your claim is fairly easy to check. Consider the following real life case: a 7 year old boy starts claiming he wants to be a girl, then soon after that starts saying to be addressed with female pronouns, starts to exclusively play with girlish toys and dress in a feminine fashion. The parents are worried, don't want to accept it, and bring the child to a psychotherapist "to cure him". The child doesn't want it, finds a female name and demands to be called only by that name. The parents refuse, and continue treating the child as a boy and trying to find a solution to end this "phase". – vsz Jul 11 '19 at 14:05
  • (cont) Now consider a teacher of this child, who is an LGBT activist. Will such a teacher merely state that "some people identify as women or men or something else, regardless how they were born, and that's not a thing to be ashamed of", and then lets it slide without getting involved any further? Or would this teacher try to actively put pressure on the parents to persuade them to accept that their child is a girl and must be treated as such, would demand to stop the psychiatrist's sessions, and would recommend hormone treatments (because if starting too late it might not be as successful)? – vsz Jul 11 '19 at 14:05
  • I'm not asking whether it's a good or a bad thing. I'm merely asking how would a teacher who is an LGBT activist, typically react in this situation. (just mentioning the above viewpoint and not going further? Or trying to persuade the parents to handle their child as a girl? Maybe, if persuasion is not successful, even threatening legal action and the involvement of child protection to investigate a possible case of child abuse?) – vsz Jul 11 '19 at 14:05
  • 3
    @Shadow1024 "mildly encouraging you to do so" is not actually happening. You believe it's (wrong, sinful, immoral, etc) to be gay? Happy for you, don't be gay. But don't hate on others just because they're gay, otherwise you're imposing your beliefs on them. That's all these lessons are saying... it really boils down to "live and let live". – Doktor J Jul 11 '19 at 19:41
8

PoloHoleSet has the right idea in his comment:

The problem is with that definition. One person looking at it as "being neutral and simply acknowledging the basic humanity of a group" would be considered "promoting" by those who feel that the way they are is fundamentally evil or morally vile, by not calling them those negative things.

At least from a conservative Christian perspective, homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. So educators saying that it is "OK" (or to translate, morally acceptable) is in direct conflict with what the parent's want their children to be taught.

That being said, of course all humans should be treated with dignity, regardless of their choices.

In other words, the problem is really with the definition of tolerance. Christians mean:

I respect your right to choose that and will treat you with dignity, even though it is morally wrong.

When what is generally taught about tolerance/inclusion is:

I have no right to say that is morally wrong

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
BradleyDotNET
  • 189
  • 2
  • I don't think all UK parents are conservative Christians. Some may think it's morally wrong, but I'd be interested to know what percentage of parents think that (and some other religions may have that moral viewpoint as well). – JJJ Jul 10 '19 at 21:10
  • 2
    Is telling someone who and what they are is morally wrong treating them with dignity? – Jontia Jul 10 '19 at 21:10
  • 3
    @Jontia It certainly depends on the manner in which you do so, but if one is willing to accept absolute truth (granted, an issue for many people...) then telling people they are wrong has to happen. So yes, you can do so respectfully (in Christian parlance "tell the truth with love") – BradleyDotNET Jul 10 '19 at 21:27
  • @JJJ Certainly not all parents. But the OP mentions that it seems to come from conservative religious individuals. I'm presenting the "why" for those people (or at least part of it) – BradleyDotNET Jul 10 '19 at 21:29
  • 3
    @Jontia I now realize you added "who and what they are", which is off-topic. Suffice it to say that regardless of any pre-existing inclination, Christians believe that homosexual behavior is a choice. – BradleyDotNET Jul 10 '19 at 21:36
  • 3
    As InappropriateCode details, there is an ongoing protest by Muslim parents at a UK school – Caleth Jul 11 '19 at 07:37
  • 2
    I think you can safely drop "Christian" - homosexuality is considered equally wrong by conservative people of all major religions or even with no religious views whatsoever. – Dmitry Grigoryev Jul 12 '19 at 12:40
  • @DmitryGrigoryev Sure, just don't want to speak for groups I'm not nearly as familiar with :) – BradleyDotNET Jul 12 '19 at 14:20
2

The problem seems to be that Ofsted have moved on from teaching tolerance to promoting the lifestyle. Furthermore, they are insisting it be given in primary schools. You need to take into account that most religious schools do not even talk about sex until the kids are much older - and certainly not in primary schools.

The problem also arises for Jewish schools as can be seen from this article in the Jewish Chronicle:

Although the school was committed to teaching respect and tolerance for all people, its diversity policy excluded some of the protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act.

Protected characteristics include same-sex orientation and gender reassignment, which Charedi rabbis have insisted should not be brought up in the classroom.

Talking about gender-reassignment with primary school kids who have no understanding whatsoever about sex seems to be pushing a lifestyle rather than pushing tolerance.

Alexei
  • 52,716
  • 43
  • 186
  • 345
theblitz
  • 203
  • 1
  • 3