Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Education news' started by Vince_Ulam, Jul 3, 2018.
See post #99.
Perhaps you need reminding of two things.
Newspapers do not like publishing corrections and clarifications.
IPSO is predicated on resolving issues by mediation. Complaints are received and the complaint is forwarded to the press organisation so that they can review and go through their procedures. The complainant and the press organisation are encouraged to talk to one another in order to resolve the issues without the need for IPSO to make a judgment on a breach of the IPSO code. Should the mediation fail then IPSO would start an investigation.
In this case once IPSO started an investigation "The Times" decided to offer a clarification to the article both in the paper and online as mediation. The offer was to clarify that
1) No court order had been placed on Mermaids contacting the family merely that the judge had asked for there to be no further contact with the family* Indeed Mermaids had never been a party at the proceedings.
Of course, Mermaids, being responsible, agreed to have no further contact at this point.
ie The story in the Mirror and the Times was factually incorrect on this point.
Both the Times and the Mirror reported that Mermaids offered "same day cross sex hormone treatment". Mermaids complained about this reporting as it was factually incorrect and as the article itself pointed out this would be against NHS Guidelines had it done so.
On this second point, both the Mirror and the Times were factually incorrect.
The Times agreed to publish a clarification making corrections to the original article that there had been a court order and that Mermaids had offered same day "Cross Sex" hormone treatment.
The fact that IPSO never determined whether there was a breach or not as a guide to whether a breach was made is to misunderstand IPSO's role in mediating disputes. Almost all complaints are resolved at mediation, that does not mean that a breach did or did not occur.
Out of interest
What relevance is there to the Dr, who could under certain conditions prescribe hormone blockers as per NHS guidelines, being foreign?
*This could have been for many reasons. One, of course, not making any family disputes etc potentially more difficult to resolve in the future. The actual reason we are unlikely to ever find out.
May I suggest that you are looking at a table and projecting your own prejudices onto it. The report does not reach the conclusions that you seem desperate to project onto that table.
Please expand and explain what it is that you mean by this.
What an appalling comment. ‘Imposed’? Is that what you feel about all people who are LGBT? We are educating for goodness sakes, not imposing. If educating people on minorities is imposing views, what is your viewpoint on black literature or the rights of minority ethnicities? You come across as outrageously homophobic. I can’t quite believe you have the audacity to post such a hateful comment.
perhaps I was lucky to grow up at a time when all of this sexual orientation stuff was a private matter between you and your pillow. I've never felt the need to march with placards declaring my private feelings. And no, I don't think that it should ever have been a matter for the courts if carried out in private by consenting persons of the agreed legal age.
The reason people had to march with placards was that it was treated as a matter for the courts (and still was until 2003 if your tastes happened to run to all-male group sex). And when you can't be at your beloved's bedside as they lie dying because you're not legally next of kin because you can't marry then damn right you're going to shout for change. Do you really need this spelling out to you?
Your sexual orientation and your gender are separate things.
Trying to keep your gender between yourself and the pillow is only going to lead to a life of unhappiness and MH issues.
Not that long ago if you, assigned male at birth, walked around in womens clothing you stood the very real risk of being arrested for solicitation. The theory was, why else would you be doing it?
Do we want to go back to those times?
Everyone has the right to learn about maintaining their sexual health and understand what safe sex is. Parents shouldn't be able to remove their children from those lessons, they can't in any other subject so why this one? The fact is with teenage pregnancy on the rise, the sooner we teach our children about safe sex and it's benefits, the better. Many teenagers need to understand that those with differing life styles exist and it is our job to normalise that, regardless of our own political ideas about another person's lifestyle. Every child and young adult deserves to feel validated, respected, and understood. Teaching children about these helps demystify, normalise, and breeds respect and understanding and in doing so eliminates prejudice, discrimination, and bullying.
Learning about gay sex or the LGBTQIA+ community does not make a child gay nor does it indoctrinate them, to suggest anything other is evidence of personal prejudice - which has no place in education.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at their lowest since records began.
I think the point is to humanise everyone regardless of their differences.
However, do young children understand adult sexuality? Is KS1 too early?
Sexuality is a bit of a loaded term, because it implies talking about penises and vaginas and how they might interact in detail. At KS1 it's dealing with the fact that kids already talk about having boyfriends and girlfriends, and saying that if you're a boy who only wants boyfriends then that's ok; or if everyone says you're a girl but you think you're a boy then that's ok too. It accomplishes two things: giving children a vocabulary to use if someone is doing things to them they're not comfortable with, and giving them reassurance that they ways they might be different are ok and they don't need to worry about them.