A couple in Hull have withdrawn their four year-old daughter from a pre-school after discovering that pupils there were being taught from a book called Grandad’s Pride, which depicts men in leather bondage gear and a trans man with ‘top-surgery’ scars. The Mail has the story.
Will and Maria Taylor, of Hull, East Yorkshire, were horrified when they spotted “two images of men who are partially naked in leather bondage gear” in the pages of Grandad’s Pride.
One image featured trans men with ‘top surgery’ scars, sparking a furious reaction from parents who claims that it encourages body modifications too early.
‘Top-surgery’ involves either the removal or augmentation of the breasts, which if undergone by a trans man means breast tissue is taken out and the chest is contoured to emphasise the pectoral muscles.
Grandad’s Pride is the creation of Waterstones children’s book winning author and illustrator Harry Woodgate – who uses they/them pronouns.
When the couple approached Genesis Pre School in Hull with their concerns over the overtly sexualised images, they were shocked when the school refused to apologise for stocking the book.
The book, which has a four plus reading aged, tells the story of Milly spending the summer in Grandad’s cottage by the sea.
When Milly is playing in the attic one day, she unearths Grandad and Gramps’ old Pride flag. When Grandad explains to Milly what Pride is, he and Milly plan a Pride march in the village.
The BookTrust, which promotes children’s reading, has already warned parents: “The illustrations in Grandad’s Pride include realistic depictions of what a Pride march might look like, including a person dressed in adult leather wear and some images which are culturally sensitive.
“Parents and carers should read the book before sharing.”
The couple accept a staff member had checked with Maria whether she was okay with the contents. But she did not notice the images at first.
One image shows the two men in fetish gear kissing during a Pride march while another marcher holds up a sign saying “All You Need Is Love”.
When another parent alerted them the couple complained to the nursery, expecting an apology. When staff defended the images, the couple decided to remove their four year-old daughter.
Will said: “We identified two images of men who are partially naked in leather bondage gear. One has a leather cod-piece moulded tightly around his crotch along with garters running down his thighs.
“He also has a studded dog collar around his neck and knee-high boots. Both have various leather straps around their bodies and studs/spikes.
“The main and most immediate concern is that children have been exposed to at least two age-inappropriate sexual or erotic images of a man in what can only be reasonably described as ‘bondage/fetish/BDSM’ gear.
“When we went to the nursery to raise concerns about the book, to be honest, we expected staff to instantly apologise and that would be the end of the matter. But the safeguarding lead began to defend the images.
“They argued the children would not understand or perceive erotic or sexual images. Staff claimed the image was just portraying ‘dress-up’ and would not be perceived as erotic by a child as they have no idea what ‘erotic’ is.”
The staff denied the images are erotic, telling the couple: “That’s just your opinion.”
Mr. Taylor continued: “That was no justification in our eyes. Arguing with us over the appropriateness of these sexual images quickly damaged the trust we held for the nursery team. At this stage I was concerned and took our daughter out of the nursery.”
Will argues that a child’s lack of understanding is no justification in exposing children to sexualised imagery.
He said: “It seems those with safeguarding responsibilities are basing their decisions on what is safe and appropriate based on whether the child will recognise the risk for what it is.
“To be clear, the ’perception’ of the child is not the arbiter of what is age-appropriate or safe, regardless of their level of understanding.”
Will says he and Maria have been branded ‘bigots’ for taking their stand. He added: “The staff felt I was being bigoted and I was not having that.”
You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.
There is no noticeable difference, except size, between adults and children. Since the 1980 children have not progressed emotionally and intellectually beyond the age of two.
Dawkins is confronting the consequences of his actions.
He showed his arrogance and at the same time his naivety in his book “The God Delusion” in which he must have thought he was being terribly clever comparing the belief in god to the belief in the flying spaghetti monster.
He failed to consider properly what useful functions religions play in society beyond what he thinks are childish attachments to god figures. Well now he knows. A society untethered from any religion will… produce a religion. And this one wants to stop him from using words he likes and tell him how he wants to think.
Religions clearly go through authoritarian phases and they need to be “tamed” – for lack of a better word. Christianity in Britain in the late 20th century was completely tamed and for the most part a harmless institution giving some stability to our society. Dawkins did his bit to destroy what was left of it. He can now deal with what has grown in its place.
Another example of a clever person who is actually a bit stupid.
Western societies have created their own religions, or idols at least: climate alarmism, diversity, identity politics, safetyism, etc.. They call them “the science” but as we know there is little if any science to support them. So they have become systems of beliefs instead and are being enforced in the way cults control their members, through the use of tyranny. We are all paying a terrible price for it too.
And yet the most hated of dictators is happy to state that “mothers are women and fathers are men”. A statement that our own politicians refute or at least shy away from, on the grounds of multiple phobias or isms.
True Spirit of America Party
2 years ago
This is beyond Orwellian, it is literally straight out of The Giver by Lois Lowry.
They called it “Precision of Language”.
Ditto for Brave New World.
Last edited 2 years ago by True Spirit of America Party
Mogwai
2 years ago
Good on Dawkins. What ridiculous, disgusting and insulting terminology though. He is a controversial figure and I don’t agree with him on everything, for instance, did he not famously say that babies with Down’s Syndrome should be aborted? Anyway, with this farcical nonsense we are on the same page.
As an evolutionary biologist, engaging in a debate about religion, the question was put to him whether religion served an evolutionary purpose and he answered yes. Asked then what it was, he said he didn’t know. Which is fair enough.
But it didn’t seem to make him reconsider his militant advocacy for atheism. Seems like quite a few scientists have a proclivity for just going for it and worrying about the consequences later. Mainly those who stray beyond scientific enquiry and into policy making.
Hi Stewart and all on this thread within a thread. I gave up my religion when I was 15 or 16 and was for many years a Dawkins fanboy. I was active on his website in the early days when he used to actually add his comments below the line. I’m still an atheist and I have not found much sense in any of the new forms of religion that many of our friends in our loose sceptic alliance hold dear. But as Stewart says, religion and the CofE in particular have “useful functions … in society” and I have come to regret the loss of an institution that, for a while, on some questions, stood in opposition to government. In the old days, we had the government, the church, the media and the crown all competing with each other. Now the government is in complete charge … and dare I say, Heaven help us.
DomTaylor
2 years ago
Richard Dawkins was the Noah Harari of his day. Rather than claiming to be on the side of Humanity, he would do well to contemplate the dystopian world that he helped create in the name of scientific rationalism and ask himself if he really is so sure there is no God to whom he will be called to give account.
Jumpin' Jehosaphat
2 years ago
The academics calling for this gibberish are most likely all Ph.Ds, a credential that increasingly demonstrates a very specific kind of stupidity.
As a devout atheist and crusader against Judaeo-Christian beliefs, Richard Dawkins finds himself swimming in a cesspool that is partly of his making. Nevertheless, I’m sure he believes that secularism is going very well.
Didn’t know that (your 1st sentence).
in which case, not sure his intervention is helpful here.
one of those people whom one would be glad when/if they realise “Silence is Golden”.
I had to read and write papers on several of Dawkins’ publications for various degrees. His own fanatical scientism and ‘contemptuous ridicule’ of anything not deemed acceptable to The Science™ – often using the same emotive language as the most staunch religionists – shone through it all. Even some of the most committed atheists were embarrassed by The God Delusion. He is a True Believer right enough but it now appears that even he has his limits.
GMO
2 years ago
A rose by any other name is still a rose.Is a woman by any other name still a woman?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Almost all of this woke nonsense is coming from children who’ve been groomed by delusional lefties. Time for the adults to say ‘NO’.
It’s ‘Lord of the Flies’ only with adults not wanting to take charge and just encouraging the children.
There is no noticeable difference, except size, between adults and children. Since the 1980 children have not progressed emotionally and intellectually beyond the age of two.
Dawkins is confronting the consequences of his actions.
He showed his arrogance and at the same time his naivety in his book “The God Delusion” in which he must have thought he was being terribly clever comparing the belief in god to the belief in the flying spaghetti monster.
He failed to consider properly what useful functions religions play in society beyond what he thinks are childish attachments to god figures. Well now he knows. A society untethered from any religion will… produce a religion. And this one wants to stop him from using words he likes and tell him how he wants to think.
Religions clearly go through authoritarian phases and they need to be “tamed” – for lack of a better word. Christianity in Britain in the late 20th century was completely tamed and for the most part a harmless institution giving some stability to our society. Dawkins did his bit to destroy what was left of it. He can now deal with what has grown in its place.
Another example of a clever person who is actually a bit stupid.
There are hundreds of gods, but don’t worry! – yours is the best!
There are hundreds of theological and atheistic beliefs, Marcus, but don’t worry – yours is the best!
Atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of belief.
Atheism is a faith that there is no G(g)od(s).
“Dawkins is confronting the consequences of his actions”
The idea that he is in any way responsible for the collapse of Christianity in the UK is ridiculous.
Western societies have created their own religions, or idols at least: climate alarmism, diversity, identity politics, safetyism, etc.. They call them “the science” but as we know there is little if any science to support them. So they have become systems of beliefs instead and are being enforced in the way cults control their members, through the use of tyranny. We are all paying a terrible price for it too.
And yet the most hated of dictators is happy to state that “mothers are women and fathers are men”. A statement that our own politicians refute or at least shy away from, on the grounds of multiple phobias or isms.
This is beyond Orwellian, it is literally straight out of The Giver by Lois Lowry.
They called it “Precision of Language”.
Ditto for Brave New World.
Good on Dawkins. What ridiculous, disgusting and insulting terminology though. He is a controversial figure and I don’t agree with him on everything, for instance, did he not famously say that babies with Down’s Syndrome should be aborted? Anyway, with this farcical nonsense we are on the same page.
As an evolutionary biologist, engaging in a debate about religion, the question was put to him whether religion served an evolutionary purpose and he answered yes. Asked then what it was, he said he didn’t know. Which is fair enough.
But it didn’t seem to make him reconsider his militant advocacy for atheism. Seems like quite a few scientists have a proclivity for just going for it and worrying about the consequences later. Mainly those who stray beyond scientific enquiry and into policy making.
The collapse of the C of E is down to the leadership of the C of E, not to people like Dawkins.
I have a very un PC and non woke response to Orwellian garbage such as this:
F#ck Off!
Let’s just ban communication. Lot easier.
Could this be a wind up?
Hi Stewart and all on this thread within a thread. I gave up my religion when I was 15 or 16 and was for many years a Dawkins fanboy. I was active on his website in the early days when he used to actually add his comments below the line. I’m still an atheist and I have not found much sense in any of the new forms of religion that many of our friends in our loose sceptic alliance hold dear. But as Stewart says, religion and the CofE in particular have “useful functions … in society” and I have come to regret the loss of an institution that, for a while, on some questions, stood in opposition to government. In the old days, we had the government, the church, the media and the crown all competing with each other. Now the government is in complete charge … and dare I say, Heaven help us.
Richard Dawkins was the Noah Harari of his day. Rather than claiming to be on the side of Humanity, he would do well to contemplate the dystopian world that he helped create in the name of scientific rationalism and ask himself if he really is so sure there is no God to whom he will be called to give account.
The academics calling for this gibberish are most likely all Ph.Ds, a credential that increasingly demonstrates a very specific kind of stupidity.
As a devout atheist and crusader against Judaeo-Christian beliefs, Richard Dawkins finds himself swimming in a cesspool that is partly of his making. Nevertheless, I’m sure he believes that secularism is going very well.
Dawkins was also a lockdown fanatic and Force-vax ’em all enthusiast. This came on top of him already being an unpleasant person with a god delusion.
Didn’t know that (your 1st sentence).
in which case, not sure his intervention is helpful here.
one of those people whom one would be glad when/if they realise “Silence is Golden”.
I had to read and write papers on several of Dawkins’ publications for various degrees. His own fanatical scientism and ‘contemptuous ridicule’ of anything not deemed acceptable to The Science™ – often using the same emotive language as the most staunch religionists – shone through it all. Even some of the most committed atheists were embarrassed by The God Delusion. He is a True Believer right enough but it now appears that even he has his limits.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.Is a woman by any other name still a woman?