LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[Spymaster]

It might be worth pointing out at this point that many/most state funded faith schools are in practice open to children of different or even no faith.

Yeah, I thought this might be the case but wasn't sure. I went to a ,nominally, CofE primary school and there were a couple of Catholics, and two Jewish brothers that I knew of.

 

[Serge Forward]

I’m not a teacher and will never become one, so I’m going to leave the question of what teachers should say to the teachers. But as a non-teacher, if a child asks me, “is it okay for [something]?” (like “is it ok for a man to love a man?” Or “is it ok for a woman to become a man?”), my default response is going to be, “why do you think it might not be?” I’m not interested in imposing my answers about social issues on kids, I want to encourage them to interrogate these ideas for themselves.

The question, “why do you think it might not be?” is loaded and assumes the child thinks it might not be. How about starting with "what do you think?"

 

[Santino]

I disagree with a lot of laws, but I would be reluctant to broadcast those views in a classroom or on socials if I worked in a school and was stupid enough to to air those views where colleagues might see them.
I’m not going to answer the second question cos it’s supreme whataboutery.

It was just an example to show that the law may not always be your friend when discussing important issues. You raised the legality of various views, I'm not sure what you meant to achieve by doing so.

 

[andysays]

Yeah, I thought this might be the case but wasn't sure. I went to a ,nominally, CofE primary school and there were a couple of Catholics, and two Jewish brothers that I knew of.

There's a Catholic girls secondary school on my way home from work.

A few of the girls I see waiting at the bus stop are wearing hijab.

There are certainly arguments which can be made against faith schools, but the idea that they exclude pupils who aren't members of that faith is just factually wrong.

 

[andysays]

Religious tolerance does not require state funding of schools that exclude children on the basis of the supernatural beliefs, (or lack), of the parents. The rest of your post is arrant nonsense.

Can you point to some evidence that state funded faith schools actually do routinely exclude potential pupils on the basis of the religious beliefs of them or their parents?

I really think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

 

[andysays]

Please.. this actually is not the case anymore. I'm a Christian. And no way would I ever think or say that.

To be fair, some extreme Christians do still think/say that, but I'd suggest that they are now a tiny minority.

I can't remember the details, but I think I recall that the Pope recently announced that it was OK for priests to bless gay partnerships.

 

[kabbes]

The question, “why do you think it might not be?” is loaded and assumes the child thinks it might not be. How about starting with "what do you think?"

This is true in principle, but in practice the question “is it ok for…” does contain within it the implication that it might not be ok. If it is not even possible that something is not ok, you do not need to ask the question. In fact, the question is effectively meaningless; a category error. Like, “Is it ok for a person to breathe water?” makes no sense, because that question is not a matter of “ok” or “not ok”. So the fact that the child asks the question at all is presenting the possibility that it is not ok, and it’s fine to ask them why they entertain that possibility.

 

[Serge Forward]

This is true in principle, but in practice the question “is it ok for…” does contain within it the implication that it might not be ok. If it is not even possible that something is not ok, you do not need to ask the question. In fact, the question is effectively meaningless; a category error. Like, “Is it ok for a person to breathe water?” makes no sense, because that question is not a matter of “ok” or “not ok”. So the fact that the child asks the question at all is presenting the possibility that it is not ok, and it’s fine to ask them why they entertain that possibility.

Promblem is, your question assumes the child definitely 'knows' they are hetero. You couldn't possibly know whether the (in this case, male) child asking that question is because he thinks it's not okay for a boy to have a boyfriend, or because he thinks it might in some way not be considered okay, even though he would quite like to some day have a boyfriend and is looking for the teacher's affirmation.

 

[smokedout]

The question, “why do you think it might not be?” is loaded and assumes the child thinks it might not be. How about starting with "what do you think?"

If a child or young person is asking a trusted adult questions like that then it is very likely there is a reason and they are looking for some reassurance and support. Which is why the answer should be yes, it's okay. If they then pursue the issue then that is a time for a more nuanced discussion which should be approached with compassion and support. Not everything has to be a teachable moment or turned into a logic-bro debating contest.

 

[Serge Forward]

If a child or young person is asking a trusted adult questions like that then it is very likely there is a reason and they are looking for some reassurance and support. Which is why the answer should be yes, it's okay. If they then pursue the issue then that is a time for a more nuanced discussion which should be approached with compassion and support. Not everything has to be a teachable moment or turned into a logic-bro debating contest.

Aye, see my last posting.

 

[likesfish]

If you expect people to respect your right to wear a hijab /practice being a Muslim or be an annoying God botherer leave glbt+ people alone, they have only started on the trans ideology route because they just can't pick on the gays anymore

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Given the tendency to reject aspects of science that don’t fit the narrative I think gender theory and Christianity have more in common with each other than either would dare to admit.

 

[smokedout]

Given the tendency to reject aspects of science that don’t fit the narrative I think gender theory and Christianity have more in common with each other than either would dare to admit.

What is gender theory and which aspects of science are being rejected?

 

[Jimmy Don't]

Can you point to some evidence that state funded faith schools actually do routinely exclude potential pupils on the basis of the religious beliefs of them or their parents?

My old secondary school admissions criteria says most places will go to Catholics and ask for proof of baptism. As it's a very popular school, it essentially excludes most non-Catholics. I find it astonishing it's legal, in this day and age.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

What is gender theory and which aspects of science are being rejected?

I don’t think I have much more to add to the debate tbh. I’m just expressing a feeling that I have.

 

[kabbes]

Promblem is, your question assumes the child definitely 'knows' they are hetero. You couldn't possibly know whether the (in this case, male) child asking that question is because he thinks it's not okay for a boy to have a boyfriend, or because he thinks it might in some way not be considered okay, even though he would quite like to some day have a boyfriend and is looking for the teacher's affirmation.

It doesn’t do anything of the kind. It seeks to draw out from the child what their uncertainties are, rather than assume you know them. It’s you that is making assumptions by just responding without exploring the reasons for the question. I’m the one taking nothing for granted by responding to the question by probing the context it is being asked in.

 

[smokedout]

I don’t think I have much more to add to the debate tbh. I’m just expressing a feeling that I have.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Facts don't care about your feelings.

I can’t believe you walked into that.

 

[smokedout]

I can’t believe you walked into that.

I can't believe you came crashing into another thread to stir up shit about trans people without having anything remotely interesting to say or anything coherent to back up your opinion.

 

[brogdale]

My old secondary school admissions criteria says most places will go to Catholics and ask for proof of baptism. As it's a very popular school, it essentially excludes most non-Catholics. I find it astonishing it's legal, in this day and age.

Yes, same with a Catholic school close to me, they still ask for letters from local priest etc.; shocking in this day & age, as you say.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I can't believe you came crashing into another thread to stir up shit about trans people without having anything remotely interesting to say or anything coherent to back up your opinion.

I don’t think I am ‘stirring up shit’ for trans people at all. In fact I haven’t even mentioned trans people.

 

[Jimmy Don't]

Yes, same with a Catholic school close to me, they still ask for letters from local priest etc.; shocking in this day & age, as you say.

Properly shocking - children discriminated against as actual policy!

 

[skyscraper101]

Of all the things to kick off about within the education system, this really isn't one of them. IMO there's way more concerning stuff like government underfunding, dodgy concrete, lack of resources for things like music and arts, and actual discrimination over uniform and hair being used to cynically exclude underperforming kids and bump up the OFSTED ratings. This whole 'trans ideology' nonsense is just bullshit culture wars stuff that belongs in the bin along with Section 28.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

People losing their livelihoods absolutely is something to be concerned about.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Employment top trumps. Wtf?

 

[Spymaster]

Of all the things to kick off about within the education system, this really isn't one of them. IMO there's way more concerning stuff like government underfunding, dodgy concrete, lack of resources for things like music and arts, and actual discrimination over uniform and hair being used to cynically exclude underperforming kids and bump up the OFSTED ratings. This whole 'trans ideology' nonsense is just bullshit culture wars stuff that belongs in the bin along with Section 28.

The bullshit culture war is more in the suggestion that people with certain religious beliefs shouldn't have kids, than the suggestion that children shouldn't be taught that people with a penis a testicles can be women because they say so.

 

[Raheem]

Who's actually risking losing their livelihood? Maybe a very few teachers who can't teach a trans kid without making an issue of it. They were in the wrong profession.

Also, this is nothing new.

 

[skyscraper101]

people with certain religious beliefs shouldn't have kids

To be absolutely crystal, again. This is not what I said.

 

[ouirdeaux]

It's easier to fight a strawman.

 

[Spymaster]

To be absolutely crystal, again. This is not what I said.

Sorry mate but you posted this in response to the story about the Christian woman being fired for voicing concerns over sex education in her son's Christian school:

Why do people even have kids and then kick off when schools start doing the whole sex ed thing. Everyone knows the drill, schools are going to cover this stuff and it's going to be inclusive so just suck it up, or home school them, or better still just don't have kids.

The inference is very clear.