You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sex Education.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
1. Why ban sex education for under-9s in this way? At the moment, nearly every school does not teach what this Govt thinks of as "sex education" to under-9s now. And all parents have the right to receive detailed information about any planned sex education, together with the right to ensure their child is not present. So-what is the point?
2. What do people mean by "gender dogma"? For me, that is taking a position where you refuse to allow anything you do not agree with. Just as true to insist no-one is taught about its existence as insisting that it is anything other than a rather rare thing.
Why can we not have sensible rules about what we teach our kids, rather than having "no go" areas. This is exactly the same as the old Section 28 in relation to banning any discussion about being Gay. Do you remember the hateful clause in that no maintained school could-
"promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
In effect, to demonise any child whose current parents are both the same sex. And make them even more likely to have all sorts of mental health problems. Or, effectively, to prevent any teacher admitting they are Gay. And now, presumably, not letting it slip that they once had a different gender.
So-if this (or any other) Govt want to insist that they know how children should be taught better than people whose job it is to teach children, here are some realistic rules:-
A. The teaching of Sex Education should remain exactly as it is now
B. No teacher should be allowed to promote any particular lifestyle as better than others
C. Nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to make any permanent physical or chemical changes to their body in relation to Gender
Although I must admit there was no sex education when I was in school.
These topics seem to generate so many outspoken views, on all sides of the debate.
Some religions also seem to be in conflict with any sex education.
I dont think that opting for naivety over education, can ever be a wise choice.
From my point of view I feel that a well delivered sex education programme is not only the correct way to go, but in a world where **** is so readily accessible, it's vital to ensuring that young people have an understanding of sex.
Religions that would counter this are perhaps part of the problem.
Sometimes they get it from the wrong place.
So much better if all kids got it from the right place.
It is impossible to sweep it under the carpet.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sex-education-schools-uk-gender-rishi-sunak-145513315.html
Which is exactly as it should be. At present, sex education has to be age-appropriate. Explaining the goals that education should set. Together with giving Parents an opt-out. Not telling educators what they cannot do. Which is just wrong.
Many parents, and most elderly readers of the Mail etc just do not appreciate the World has changed.
In my youth, teenage boys had hopes based on hearsay and magazines.
Today's teenagers are fed on a diet of online graphic images that are rather more extreme. Where love, respect, and the more straightforward acts are conspicuously absent. So expectations in relation to sex acts are totally different. And social media means a mistake a young girl or boy might make is there for all to see. For ever.
Teachers should be free to inform children about religion or, for that matter, gender identity.
Teachers should not be free to seek to convert people to either.
While I am whinging about double standards. When a male teacher does this to a 15-yr-old girl, the papers will call him a paedophile. Not a "predator". Not go into detail about their past relationships.
This woman is a paedophile. A paedophile with mental health problems rather than someone who will always seek the under age? Probably. A sad loser who is probably less mature than the schoolkids? Probably.
I wish that newspapers would be consistent. That, on 1 level, such teachers need help. And on another level, must go to prison.
I thought I was going mad.
A view most us already held.
Yes, I had a late tee-time, 5.30pm.
I played with a long-established friend & Sky Poker player, who occassionally posts on the Forum. Think he plays off something like 8, anyway, he had 13 (THIRTEEN) pars, 4 bogeys & 1 double bogey, & his round included 9 (NINE) pars back-to-back. Proper golfer.
I'll not trouble you with my scores, but the total was comfortably into three figures.
A beautiful evening though. The course was empty, bright sunshine, clear blue sky, not a breath of wind, & birdsong galore. (I have a "MERELIN" birdsong app which identifies bird species in an instant).
THE most wonderful evening, except for my abysmal play. I really am vey bad indeed. Golf, though, teaches us humility, & how to cope with adversity. I've certainly had a few of those lessons...
With all due respect to him - he wrote wonderfully - Mr Twain was talking bo**ocks.