Strong agree, up to...
I can imagine a similar approach being appropriate when younger children encounter trans people. At that age, it may be as simple as explaining that some people live differently, some people use different names or pronouns, and that we should treat people kindly.
As a kid, I was taught, if I got lost, to go to a policeman/woman, into a shop, or to find a lady, ideally with children. We all know why that was: statistically speaking, she'd be 98+% less likely than a man to be a threat to me.
Just think about that for a second.
98%.
The lesson you describe dissolves that safeguarding boundary totally. I mean, it's a pity we had to think that way, but it wasn't a moral condemnation of all males - rather, it served the absolutely invaluable function of keeping children safe. It will, quite simply, have saved lives. No doubt.
Yet suddenly, anyone can be a "he" or a "she, a "man" or a "woman". After all, we should treat people kindly! And it's kind to remember that a man in conventionally feminine dress could well to be a "she". And that a man presenting as a man who nonetheless says he's a woman deserves our kindness. That old recognition with which we all grew up, that a male entering the ladies was something of which to be wary? It's not very kind to think like that in these more enlightened times, children, now, is it?
And all the while we're teaching this, you and I still know, as adults, that (based on the fairly substantial current data we have), the statistical risk I cite above hasn't changed. It's in no way influenced by gender identity.
So who are we really being kind to? And who are we being unkind to?
Kindness is always going to be an offering or concession made by someone. Are we right to demand it of children to this stark a degree? Without their fully understanding what they're conceding? Is it worth it? Has anyone even thought to ask?!
Whatever you think about this, the reality - that what I'm typing is unsayable in some (many? all?!) schools should, I think, be a source of serious concern to us all. And, that to me, is a further indication of something being very wrong with this ideology. The people as a group? No. (See above re. umbrellas and complexity etc.) The ideology? Heck, yes.
I don’t have all of the answers for this, but for me, perhaps involving skilled people from all sides of the debate to create a balanced curriculum would be optimal. That way all sides of the debate are covered and taught. No one single ‘agenda’ is pushed. This takes time and resources. So perhaps the whole thing should be placed on pause until the appropriate training can take place.
Back in agree-mode, especially re. the above.
I think the issue is simpler for younger children, as the language and intent is simpler.
Ah, disagree. We can teach it in a simple way, but that doesn't mean it's simple. I outline the potential issues I see with your "some people live in different ways and use different pronouns" (paraphrase!) above.
And that, on reflection, perhaps the more complex questions shouldn’t be addressed until we are able to do so safely, in a trauma informed way, so as to mitigate risk.
Disagree again, for similar reasons.
Basically, if we're not addressing the complex questions, that means we're addressing the simple ones. But I hope I've convinced you above that the simple ones aren't in fact simple, but rather simplified. Big difference. Not least as any process of simplification requires a degree of certainty - "This is what this means!" Indeed, often to the point of misrepresentation (a bone of contention between me and GCSE chemistry - I thought I was rubbish at it because I simply didn't get it - in fact, I was seeing through bewilderingly illogical over-simplifications that others simply accepted as gospel). So certainty requires a degree of bias, one way of the other... which takes us back to your "some people use different pronouns", which favours a particular approach - validation - that conflicts with the caution that I think many here would urge in younger year groups in contrast. The caution, in fact, that many here would say is teaching "safely, in a trauma informed way, so as to mitigate risk". AKA, arguing for the exact same outcome as you... but using the opposite approach.
And while one of these approaches has taken hold nationally, the other is simply anathema - a sign of bigotry, for that matter.
I mean... dangerous over-simplification much? 😉
I hope that makes sense - having to type furiously fast and won’t have the opportunity to edit as I’m needed!
Thank you. It was really interesting. Hope you're having a lovely holiday.