Response to Welsh Gov. Consultation: https://gov.wales/ensuring-access-full-curriculum
“Ensuring Access to the full curriculum” November
2019
As a humanist and feminist, I
endorse RSE reflecting the internationally recognised World Health Organisation
(WHO) standards for sexuality education. This definition seeks to encourage
schools to take a joined up approach to education around relationships and
sexuality.
Including under s.26 understanding gender is wrong as the term ‘gender’
is socially constructed. It's much misused, including by WG. Missing from s.26
is· understanding puberty and the sexual human. The item · the
human body and development fails to express this; it looks to refer
to a biological description rather than hormones, feelings and emotions, which
must be included in RSE.
It's evident as in other places
in the document that the Welsh Government is aiming to get its views of
transgender and "LGBTQI+" (adopted from Stonewall) taken on board in
the RSE curriculum. Telling a child they can choose their sex or they may
be 'born in the wrong body' is not just unscientific but also dangerous.
It encourages children onto the transgender pathway with huge
consequences for their future that they cannot possibly understand.
Welsh people cannot possibly
trust the WG and its many politicians and institutions who've declared
themselves Stonewall allies to decide on a curriculum free from indoctrination.
You shouldn't trust yourselves to do it. Whatever emerges will be controversial,
which you cannot dismiss by promising "handled carefully".
It follows you have to allow people to choose to withdraw their children
when they object to materials - as they objected to certain books in the
Birmingham schools - though their Headteacher and LGBT advisor Andrew Moffatt
insisted on keeping them.
I
concentrate on the EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2019-10/integrated-impact-assessment-ensuring-access-to-the-full-curriculum.pdf
This
ignores the impact on girls as female sex, as in Stonewall's transgenderism, and is thus in breach of basic law.
The sex-based rights of women are
set out in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
against Women adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December
1979 (CEDAW). It obliges the WG to take “appropriate measures,
including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women,
for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights
and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.’’ (Article
3).
Article 5 of the CEDAW states, “States
Parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) To modify the social and
cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the
elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based
on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on
stereotyped roles for men and women.’’
Nowhere do you mention combating gender stereotypes in the RSE syllabus.
Gender refers to “the roles, behaviors, activities, and
attributes that a given society at a given time considers appropriate for men
and women… These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially
constructed and are learned through socialization processes.’’ (Gender
Equality Glossary, UN Women).
The concept of ‘gender identity’
would makes socially constructed stereotypes into an innate condition, thereby
undermining women’s sex-based rights and in effect breaching CEDAW. Rights relating to sexual orientation are
compatible with women’s sex-based rights, and are necessary to enable lesbians,
whose sexual orientation is towards other women, to fully exercise their
sex-based rights.
We have no confidence that the
WG, being allied with Stonewall, is capable of determining a curriculum that
fully accords with CEDAW.
Your heading
Gender Reassignment (the act of
transitioning and Transgender people) is false - the Equality Act 2010 and recent guidance on it defines
the protected characteristic GR as transsexuals. Most 'transgender'
people are hardly 'transitioning' and don't intend to undergo the surgical
operations.
You would "encourage schools
to consider how they provide support and learning to LGBTQI+" This
is a quite different group to transsexuals (=GR) who are not given EqAct 'protection'.
You
state
"Research
put forward in the Stonewall School Report Cymru (2017) shows LGBTQI+
identifying young people are still more likely to suffer poor mental health,
self-harm and depression. The changes to RSE in the curriculum look to combat
this by helping all learners feel emotionally and physically safe and secure so
they are able to achieve their full potential."
That 'research' by an advocacy
group has been much criticised (see Transgendertrend) so cannot be used
to determine changes to the curriculum. Many teenagers have mental issues, the
LGBTQI+ "group" is Stonewall's fiction. Pushing transgenderism
in the curriculum is likely to worsen emotional states. Tavistock statistics
indicate that accepting teenagers onto the trans-pathway may worsen self harm
and suicide ideation (Transgendertrend).
Moreover, it's proving to be emotionally upsetting for many girls to
endure male-bodies in their school washrooms etc.; forcing on them the idea
that they must accept this has emotional consequences and safety risks that you
and Stonewall wrongly ignore.
You admit "there has been contention around these
proposals and that could, if not handled carefully, have a negative impact on
learners either in general or in the specific context of an individual school."
Are you alleging they were not handled carefully in Birmingham?
It's likely that some schools/governors in Wales will likewise be unable
to handle parent protests "carefully", so Wales should keep the
parents' right of withdrawal.
Religion, belief and
non-belief
You accept "for RE, a decision to not to include a right
to withdraw in the new curriculum will have a negative impact on some religious
groups. Based on the evidence we have been able to gather, it will be a
particular issue for Jehovah’s Witnesses and humanists".
This appears to be the only
reference to humanists in the document. Cardiff humanists are an active
public group, so why did you talk only to Jehovah Witnesses and not to us
humanists?
Your excuse that some religious
groups “may have option to send their
children to a faith school” is unacceptable. You need some alternative for
all.
You admit "There is no
current equivalent option for parents of other faiths to send their child to a
school where RSE (or RE) will be taught in a way which reflects the tenets of
their faith, while being pluralistic, within the maintained school system in
Wales. [Such schools could be established following a school organisation
proposal]" There is no practical proposal for this - maintain
the right-to-withdraw until there are options for the large majority, including
anti-trans humanists.
You use the protected
characteristic Sex / Gender and write
of "disadvantage based on gender"
That’s a travesty! The Equality Act 2010 defines the p.c. as Sex.
This Equality Assessment has to follow that definition. Under-18s cannot change their gender (Gender
Recognition Act); this section has to be concerned solely with disadvantage
based on Sex.
Boys who claim a female ’gender
identity’ are being enabled to access opportunities and protections set aside
for girls.. This constitutes a form of discrimination against females, and
endangers women’s fundamental rights to safety, dignity and equality.
This assessment has to admit this 'impact' on girls.
The WG is in breach of CEDAW
(above) by adopting Stonewall’s conflation of their notion of gender with sex; sex
is defined by the UN “the physical and biological characteristics that
distinguish males from females.’’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN
Women).
You have apparently engaged with
Jehovah Witnesses, but not with Women’s groups concerned about protecting the
rights of women and girls, Fair Play for Women etc. Your bias
against girls/women in ignoring our rights is outrageous. I refer you to
the Declaration on Women’s sex-based rights, that's been well
publicised and supported since launched in March. Your whole section has to be
withdrawn and reconsidered.
Sexual orientation (Lesbian, Gay
and Bisexual)
I strongly object to the
inclusion of “TQI+ learners” under sexual orientation. This is a
Stonewall fiction. LGB does not include sexual fetishes. The Welsh
provision for Trans caters only for over-18s, like the GRAct, so not school
"learners".
It's factually wrong that the
rights of LGBTQI+ people to be treated with equality are protected in
law. I take issue with Stonewall-influenced training which shows in
this false statement by you. It detracts from the real need of the
LGB group for recognition of their Protected Characteristic, uncontaminated by
TQI+. Further, your misrepresentation of the law (according to Stonewall)
looks deliberate - did you never check this basic point?
You have engaged with Jehovah
Witnesses, but not with LGB groups (eg. LGB Alliance, Lesbian Rights Alliance);
these do not accept that Stonewall any longer represents LGB or L alone.
Why did you not try to engage with them?
Human Rights and UN Conventions
Your insertion of transgenderism into the curriculum. as also traditional RE,
breaches Article 9 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Cults propagating such views have to be excluded
from our schools, though their beliefs may be discussed like beliefs in astrology and an
after-life. Welsh RSE can cover serious religions, but give priority to
humanism as a belief system rooted in a scientific approach.
Not including a Right to Withdraw
and the pluralism requirement:
You say "The Welsh
Government considers the proposals for RE and RSE are compliant with the
Convention Rights". But you haven't considered the rights of girls
impacted by your promotion of transgender ideas and even fellow 'learners', and
you haven't considered that this is indoctrination, breaching Article 9 as
interpreted by the ECHR.
Therefore, the parents’
right-to-withdraw must be preserved and strengthened.
Anne Greagsby (completed posthumously)
No comments:
Post a Comment