RSE

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Dec 1, 2021, 12:00:07 AM12/1/21
to
I have today received a copy of a report on a consultation in Wales
regarding a new policy on Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE). I
have not read it in detail, but browsing through brought up some points
that I think are of interest to this group.

The first is the attempt to dismiss the quite substantial dissenting voice:

"In terms of understanding the balance of opinion, there is strong
empirical evidence to suggest responses to the consultation *are not
necessarily representative* of the views and perspectives of the broader
public."

The words between * and * are printed in bold in the report. It is true,
as they point out, that reponses were "self-selecting", as no attempt
was made to contact a representative sample of the population; it is
also true that some responses were undoubtedly from campaigning
organisations. Nevertheless, had the disagreements been in the other
direction I suspect the response would have been that lack of response
indicates lack of interest or concern.

Then the report referred to two areas of concern:

"Another area of concern with the proposals centred on the balance
between child rights and the rights to religious expression. This
centred on the idea that some content within RSE was incompatible with
specific beliefs or faiths. This included the understanding that RSE
held a moral dimension, and that the primacy of family and religious
beliefs should be upheld within the proposals but are currently not

"Respondents also objected to the removal of the right to withdraw from
RSE provision. Implicitly, these perspectives disagreed with the
interpretation of Child Rights offered within the Guidance. These
perspectives centred on the important role parents and carers hold in
educating learners around sexual health and relationships. They also
encompass more contemporary debates relating to problematisation of
gender, sexual orientation, and identity. Again, from these
perspectives, the primacy of the family should be upheld, which these
respondents felt was lacking in the proposals."

Note particularly the point in the second paragraph. If you don't like
queer ideology being rammed down the throat of your 7-year old, tough.
You cannot legally remove him or her from the RSE classes.

One of the parents who responded to the initial proposal said this:

"The content is inconsistent and deliberately ambiguous. The Guidance is
very unclear on the differences between sex, sexual intercourse and
gender. The glossary of terms at the back, which contains unorthodox
definitions, requires constant referencing to understand the new key
concepts imposed. The opportunity provided by this Guidance for the
replacement of ‘sex’ with ‘gender’ is fundamentally sexist. Women and
girls stand to suffer the most from the disregard, if not political
erasure, of sex. (Parent)"

Notice the Orwellian use of language - non-standard definitions being
used to slip abhorrent ideas past those who might object if they truly
understood what was going on.

In the summary at the end of the report is this response to dissent.

"More critical perspectives offered within the consultation tended not
to engage with the Guidance and Code itself, but objected to the
approach as a whole. Many offered instead a range of concerns. Whilst
diverse in substantive origin and orientation, negative perspectives
tended to link back to two overarching areas of concern:

" That the proposed approach is inappropriate for learners, especially
for younger children. From these perspectives, respondents often raised
the disconnect between the values held by parents and carers and the
perceived understanding of RSE content and focus, especially surrounding
sexual orientation.

" Further, a key theme was the perceived focus on gender and identity
within the curriculum, which was considered problematic. Apparent within
these perspectives was the perceived shift away from biological and
‘fact-based’ teachings of gender, towards relativist interpretations
that openly accept and by default encourage difference."

These proposals only affect Wales, but you can be sure that similar
proposals either have been put forward in England and Scotland or will
be put forward. They should be of concern to all Christians.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages