The following by Clare Page at @NoSecretLessons on the X platform.
A thread on the continuing ideological capture of RSE at government level; the secrecy continues…
At the Conservative conference the S of S for Science Innovation and Technology @michelledonelan
announced plans to ‘depoliticise science’. Likewise Health Sec @SteveBarclay announced “@conservatives
know what a woman is” and will remove gender neutral language from the NHS.
However, I wonder if @michelledonelan realises she needs to start by ‘depoliticising’ her colleagues in the Government Office for Science, which is led by the Chief Medical Office @uksciencechief and advises
@RishiSunak and @cabinetofficeuk? https://gov.uk/government/organisations/government-office-for-science
Because the Government Office for Science just hosted a roundtable event in August about RSE at which the self-styled “Jessica (TRANS INCLUSIVE INTERSECTIONAL FEMINISM) Ringrose”, contributed to policy development.
Here is Professor Ringrose’s oh-so-scientific announcement of her involvement in the Government Office for Science roundtable meeting.
Finding Prof. Ringrose’s declaration somewhat lacking in the professional political neutrality one might expect of someone who has advised multiple dept’s of government on how to teach all of our children RSE, a parent made an FOI request about the meeting, as follows:
The Government Office for Science replied that although they *do* hold this information they will WITHHOLD it from the public, because it pertains to the development of government policy and is intended for a future publication.
Whilst it’s not unusual that material pertinent to policy is withheld, it is surprising that the Government Office for Science will not even impart what the meeting was about, who attended, nor any schedule for outcomes.
This is frankly a bizarre level of government secrecy concerning the input of a professor of gender theory who specialises in sex education, not national defence!
Even the professor in question was happy to tweet about her involvement on X – putting her attendance in the public realm already. This suggests that this meeting was not advertised to the participants as a secret, but was kept secret when a parent started asking.
The enquiring parent intends to appeal the FOI decision and ask for at least the basic info about the roundtable, inc. its purpose and attendees – because surely the public is entitled to know who’s influencing policy, even if we’re not able to be privy to the policy development?
Just to remind everyone why this inquiry and the secrecy matters, here is some of Professor Jessica Ringrose’s work, about which she feels she has been wrongly critiqued by ‘all-right & parent rights groups, & gaslit by members of parliament”…
She describes herself as an “intra-activist” + encourages use of TQ+ theory as fact, saying:
“Therefore, the penile-vaginal coupling is to be disrupted as we rethink a vast range of body part relations to one another in RSE also therefore revaluing LGBT+ queer desire as we go.”
“This is not a cis-normative valuation of the essential female body, but rather, valuing of all forms of feminine genitalia – vulvic spaces and openings – refusing a nature/culture divide over what “counts” as a vulva or a clitoris”.
“The Play-doh activity is prefaced with a discussion of the non-binary nature of biological sex (as well as gender and attractions), intersex bodies and genital variation”
Her research also invited children of 12+ to draw erect penises and other sexually explicit material that some of them had be sent on social media, which possibly meets the NSPCC definition of non-contact child abuse, by showing children sexually explicit material:
“Amidst a heightened feeling of “wonder” and intensity in breaking taboos in school (McClure, 2013) the girls set about drawing the dick pics they had received.”
Some of this work was spontaneous, and so might well have been conducted without parental permission.
“It is important to note that the first dick pick drawings did not emerge until our third research school and were experienced by the team as a sort of breakthrough in the fieldwork… From here we gained confidence to prompt other groups to draw any “explicit” content.”
Ringrose and her coauthors also explain they plan to influence RSE in what sound like subversive ways:
e.g “The vulva and clitoris-making reorients biology towards citral validity, subverting heteropatriarchal logics in ways that may be able to be snuck into the curriculum”
And her approach “calls for a form of feminist guerrilla warfare and “injecting viruses” into normative power relationship—and we would add, injecting feminist viruses into the RSE curriculum—in ways that can create new openings for feminine desire and pleasure.”
Given the FOI secrecy about this RSE roundtable and who is shaping the science and education policy, it seems that the Government Office for Science is right on board with this ambition to ‘sneak’ things into our children’s curriculum!
@uksciencechief @michelledonelan to speak frankly – what the heck is this woman doing at the Gov Office for Science? This is not science, this is dangerously ideological bunkum, that should be nowhere near policy making on children’s RSE – especially when arranged in secret.
And lastly, please take note of this recent work by Prof. Ringrose: the offensively titled, ‘The State of UK Boys’…
“Families are prime sites for learning about and enacting gender identities and roles – sometimes even framed as gender and heterosexuality ‘factories'”
“While the family is a place of nurturing and support for many children, it can also be where gender and sexuality are regulated and policed”
“Early childhood spaces are generally much more liberal and open-minded spaces where children can experiment with gender in ways that aren’t policed.”
I think we can see where this is going can’t we? Gender identity is being weaponised as a reason for the state to intervene between parents and their children. This is a horrifying idea, and @uksciencechief
should tell us why she has allowed its author through her door?
Let’s see what the FOI appeal yields…