Obviously they think it’s better to fill the newspapers with arguments about gender than about the cost of living crisis, Trussonimics, housing, the state of the NHS etc etc etc.
We had some sex education in primary school at age 9.
It told the girls that they’re going to have periods. At age 9 some of them will be so I think this is a good idea. Parents were able to opt their kids out if they wished.
It told the group as a whole that puberty is a thing, and we might start it soon. Some changes might happen like body shape changes, voices getting deeper, hair growth etc.
None of it was about how to have sex, or how children are made. It was simple stuff that kids that age would benefit from knowing.
I don’t understand why anyone would even be on the fence about their kids knowing this stuff.
This sounds reasonable but really the lesson is more about the stages of puberty than sex ed. Puberty is part of sexual health and development but it isn’t what everyone thinks of when hearing the term sex ed, a lot of people tend to think of sexual intercourse, protection/sexual health, and gender identity when thinking of sex ed.
I’m more so trying to state that sex ed is a broad spectrum and without specification of the exact teachings people will assume different things. Theres a big difference in teaching kids about puberty and teaching kids about how and when to use protection or the process of child birth. Specifying when kids will be taught what could clear a lot of debate about when sex ed is acceptable
Obviously they think it’s better to fill the newspapers with arguments about gender than about the cost of living crisis, Trussonimics, housing, the state of the NHS etc etc etc.
I was thinking the same thing. I don’t think anyone is teaching primary schoolchildren about sex. It’s just a means to pander to gullible Tory voters
We had some sex education in primary school at age 9.
It told the girls that they’re going to have periods. At age 9 some of them will be so I think this is a good idea. Parents were able to opt their kids out if they wished.
It told the group as a whole that puberty is a thing, and we might start it soon. Some changes might happen like body shape changes, voices getting deeper, hair growth etc.
None of it was about how to have sex, or how children are made. It was simple stuff that kids that age would benefit from knowing.
I don’t understand why anyone would even be on the fence about their kids knowing this stuff.
Isn’t that just biology?
This sounds reasonable but really the lesson is more about the stages of puberty than sex ed. Puberty is part of sexual health and development but it isn’t what everyone thinks of when hearing the term sex ed, a lot of people tend to think of sexual intercourse, protection/sexual health, and gender identity when thinking of sex ed.
This is the second comment of yours I’ve seen on this thread being like “well yeah sure but that’s not sex ed” what exactly do you think sex ed is?
I’m more so trying to state that sex ed is a broad spectrum and without specification of the exact teachings people will assume different things. Theres a big difference in teaching kids about puberty and teaching kids about how and when to use protection or the process of child birth. Specifying when kids will be taught what could clear a lot of debate about when sex ed is acceptable
I guess they didn’t cause gender, but the rest are awkward subjects for them