A women’s rights group has accused Swindon Borough Council of promoting “soft porn” through its sex education materials, including a controversial ‘Genderbread Man’. The Mail has the story.
A council’s sex education teaching materials amount to “soft porn”, a representative for a women’s rights organisation has claimed, after the council were forced to withdraw some of its recommended teaching material.
Documents seen by MailOnline concerning the lessons included the controversial ‘Genderbread man’ – which shows someone’s gender identity, gender expression and anatomical sex to be different things.
The classes, recommended in Swindon Borough Council’s Relationships and Sex Education Programme, explained that sex is “assigned” at birth.
Caroline Ffiske from Conservatives for Women, a right-wing group which opposes the rights of trans people in single-sex spaces, told MailOnline some of the resources were tantamount to “soft porn”.
She said: “In the hands of children who are too young, some of these images effectively become soft porn.
“So that is where we have got to. These images are sexual, and early sexualisation harms children, eroding boundaries and destroying innocence. Now we are normalising ‘trusted adults’ sharing sexual images with children.
The documents also promoted the controversial ‘Genderbread man’ – which shows someone’s gender identity, gender expression and anatomical sex to be different things.
The pack included a map of a ‘Gender Galaxy’ – where gender expression is said to have “infinite possibilities” and Assigned Sex is shown to be separate and divided from Gender Identity.
“That teachers and council workers can’t see this shows how untenable this agenda has become.
“Perhaps it is time to close it down; let parents manage these sensitive and important conversations; and have schools go back to their core remit.”
But now the council has rowed back on their teaching plans – removing the support pack from circulation and waiting for new Government guidance.
A Swindon Borough Council spokesperson said: “Swindon Borough Council has removed the RSE curriculum support pack which was produced and the link for schools is no longer available.
“The Department for Education is currently consulting on new guidance for schools, which the Council will consider once received.”
Alongside a diagram of a Genderbread Person, the pack included a map of a ‘Gender Galaxy’ – where gender expression is said to have “infinite possibilities” and Assigned Sex is shown to be separate and divided from Gender Identity.
The second system is shown to have 10 different planets, but a note at the bottom encourages children to: “create your own planet (comet or moon!)”.
The guidance also gave the schoolchildren advice on how to make a dental dam – which is used for oral sex.
And other parts of the pack gave advice on how to apply condoms used for anal sex in to the rectum.
It is not claimed that guidance around condoms or dental dams is given to young children.
In the pack, schools were supposed to encourage children as young as 11 to make models of their genitals, sexual organs and bodily fluids from supermarket goods in gender-questioning classes savaged by parents.
In class plans seen by MailOnline, teachers were urged to divide children into two teams and give them items including bananas, pears, walnuts and hand lotion.
The youngsters – all in Year Seven – were then expected to fashion a penis, a uterus, testicles and ‘prostate fluid’ from the ingredients.
The guidance included detailed diagrams of sexual anatomy.
The document from the council suggests children as young as 11 should hear ‘chest tissue’ rather than ‘breasts’ from their teachers.
This part of the lesson play for 11 year-olds featured a model making element from food goods.
Lessons also encouraged the children to “imagine they were a different gender” and what they would look forward to if they were that person.
And in perhaps the most concerning part of the programme teachers were urged not to use the term ‘breasts’.
The document insisted “The term chest tissue can be used interchangeably because this language recognises that trans or non-binary people may feel negatively towards their breasts”.
Peter Williams, Director of the Family Education Trust, said some sex education classes being taught in schools were becoming dangerous.
He told MailOnline: “The increasing evidence of this kind of material related to sexuality and ‘gender’ being exposed to children in schools through RSE teaching is profoundly disturbing and appalling.
“The explicit content reported by very understandably outraged and concerned parents normalises sexual behaviour amongst children, breaking down their natural innocence and reticence to such activity and potentially leaving them open to peer abuse and even grooming by adults.
“Just as worrying is the presence of gender ideology in this same teaching, which also seeks to present the identity dysphoria connected with ‘transgenderism’ as ordinary, and encouraging children at a vulnerable stage of their development into a self-understanding which later may have life-changing and even life-ruining consequences.
“All this shows how widespread ideology under the guide of RSE is trumping a proper concern for safeguarding, and betraying schools’ duty of care for children in the process. There needs to be total transparency and far fuller engagement with parents and guardians before such material is shown to their children, a related right for them to veto any inappropriate material or withdraw their children from all RSE, and an enabling of parents to fulfil their role as primary educators and carers.”
Worth reading in full.
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.
Why would it blow up in the Government’s face? If opposition exists at all, it is in disarray.
That’s a really good question because when Tories simply adopt everything Labour would want to implement as well, voting becomes an obvious farce. “Don’t want to be buried alive? Sorry, that’s not on the ballot paper. But you may chose your own undertaker!”
Is there something except mask mandates, covaxx coercion and Christmas lockdowns Rishi hasn’t yet back-pedalled on? If not, when can we expect these last three crowning achievements of his career as Mr Open Hands, “Want to see policies implemented? Remember to include the cheque in the envelope, otherwise, they won’t be considered!”
Kid:
Mum, Dad ‘Surrogate Parents – I want to talk to you, I don’t know if I’m a boy or a girl’SP – Sorry, person, it would be illegal for us to advise you. Just note that currently, caucasian boys are accused of inherent white privilege and all boys are emblematic of patriarchal control, while the whole concept of girls is being systematically erased from the English language. Unless they’re 4th gen Disney-esque girlbosses who don’t need love, children or a sense of community to get them through the day, that is. In the meantime, the concept of transgender is based on biologyphobic ideology and primary colour hair dye, combined with sterilising drugs and mutiliating surgery. Take your pick.’
“the whole concept of girls is being systematically erased from the English language”
Also very confusing. Isn’t that misgendering 99.9% of girls?
Is that going to be a crime too?
Or not?
Likewise, isn’t affirmative genitital mutilation an attempt to change someone’s sex and gender? And what about Stonewall adepts proselytizing in schools?
I saw this on a BTL somewhere a while ago –
i find the logic confusing. if gender is a social construct, how is transgender in and of itself not also a social construct? what I mean is, would I have to be trans to be trans? how can trans be any more legitimate than either the male and female that they’re grown from? can you claim to have a gender when gender isn’t real? if woman has no definition how can you even know you’re trans? aren’t you really just a topographically redesigned person?
Topographically redesigned. Love it.
Topography
Definition 1 of three for this word.
“daddy, I know I’m your eldest son and I know you insisted I’m not supposed to, but I *really* like my friend”
“You bigot! She’s female and you’re male. I guess you didn’t ask “insert-ideological-term-of-compliance-here” (her/him/they/fk-off-not-your-business) for consent before you enjoyed your lurid dreams and your thought-crimes.
Yes, I’m told she has a bonus hole and perhaps a few other interesting contours, but I reject your obsession, but now I have to spew.
Igor, heat-up the irons to red-hot, this supposed (soon-to-be-ex) son of mine needs an object lesson in humility and agony.
No – it doesn’t count because the DEI score says so…
I have no idea what that means.
All I do know is that denying childrens’ gender identity is misgendering and Great Ormond Street Hospital has in effect banned the use of words like ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ and issued guidance threatening staff with disciplinary action.
But that is still misgendering 99.9% of the patients.
So it is OK to misgender children who are boys and girls but it is not OK to misgender children who are boys and girls who don’t want to be boys and girls.
I am really very confused by all of this.
Just what the public want and need – more laws telling them new things they can’t do.
My life still feels too free, there are still areas of my day to day existence that I get to decide for myself. Can parliament please step it up a bit and hurry up making some more laws. I want every little nook and cranny of my life to be legislated and regulated. So I don’t have to think at all.
Or, actually, better still, just shoot me in the back of the head now and get the same result quicker.
Why do they always look like they stink of fish and old meat?
This is unbelievably confusing and precisely because all of the woke trans ideology has turned our world upsides down.
What exactly is the controversy about?
Is it to be criminal to help a child decide to transition or not to transition? Which is it? Or is it both or none of the above.
The answer is this is another crap feelgood law with no intelligible meaning which lawyers and judges can interpret in whichever way they want to interpret it.
So, you’re liable for up to a 7 year prison sentence for counselling in support of FGM under the 2003 FGM Act.
But, you’ll be liable for a prison sentence if you counsel someone to not move towards genital mutilation if it’s for trans reasons?
Mmmm, someone smarter than me needs to explain that one to me.
(not aimed at NickR, healthy sarcasm involved)
Comrade, you nailed the double-think, you must either have MANY extra vodka rations (as your only salary) or be punished for your precocity because, while your your vote-for-me is absolutely mandatory, your positive-opinion of me is also mandatory, whether expressed in public or private..
Did I just hear a peep of dissent from you? I’m told Siberia is lovely in June, but I couldn’t care less as my Dacha is in Odessa. It’s only my winter-house. Saying that, there’s a wonderful job opportunity coming-up but it’s far, far, far to the east of us.
Comrade Orwell tried to warn us before, but it was only in a novel and so very easily disregarded (what a-wheezy-‘karen’ non-entity he turned out to be, lol)
I get that you’re just holding-up the hypocrisy for scrutiny, I’d truly wonder if you really believed this stuff. Mr Orwell would be proud of you.
The ambiguity will get me caught soon – just one unguarded opinion and I’ll be on the trains…
</sarc>
We are being taken into Hell.
Dark untold truth of transgenderism
Once again our enemies have hijacked the language and sadly even the headline here sort of falls for it. “Conversion therapy” is actually the opposite of what it appears to mean. The people who are attempting to “convert” the confused are the “trans” activists. You are either conceived as a man or a woman, and that’s it. You cannot be “converted” to what you already are – that is nonsense.
Perhaps one-day gassing will be referred to as a ‘zyklon-b-hug’
They are utterly insane and EVIL.
Guy Fawkes had a very good point me thinks.
But sadly he was betrayed by the conscience of a still unidentified supporter who wrote an anonymous letter in late October 1605 to Lord Monteagle, a Catholic.
Monteagle intended to attend the opening of Parliament a few days later, on November 5.
The unsigned letter stated: “My lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation, therefore I would advise you as you tender your life to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance at this parliament . . . for though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow.”
Monteagle he forwarded the letter to Robert Cecil, chief minister of King James I and the rest, as they say, is history.
I write ‘sadly’ but do not condone the purpose of the plotters who would have succeeded in an act of terrorism with terrible consequences had it not been for the conscience of the writer of that anonymous letter.
It was a remarkable plan which anticipated and predates modern terrorism by four centuries.
Notice these words from that letter “out of the love I bear to some of your friends“.
So the writer was known not to Monteagle but to ‘some of his friends’. And of course must have been known to Fawkes or someone close to him or his plotters.
That means potentially Cecil could have identified the writer but presumably Cecil got the information he wanted of the identities of Fawkes’ co-conspirators from torture inflicted on Fawkes.
Of course, Monteagle was given little choice but to pass on the letter.
Had he not done so and excused himself from attending Parliament on 5th November that would cast suspicion upon him.
And so we can also see how this 400 year old precursor to modern counter-terrorism worked then but based on luck and intelligence from an unwitting informant instead of by design.
Sadly, those who love freedom in the UK these days are very few. And virtually non-existent in Parliament.