Songs of innocence, and harmful experience

NUT. Never was an acronym more apt. As reported in The Times yesterday, delegates at the National Union of Teachers (NUT) annual conference passed a motion calling for the promotion of LGBT+ issues to children, starting at nursery (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/call-to-teach-toddlers-about-transgender-issues-h2kkdcjlq ). If adopted as policy by government, the practical effect of this could only be to increase the unhealthy and damaging sexualisation of children – already blindingly apparent in and through education.

While lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults may see the cultural and social normalization of their sexual preferences as top priority, to force such consciousness onto children, who by definition lack the emotional maturity to assimilate and process such behavioural ‘norms’, is no more than child abuse. To put it bluntly, it is the ideological prioritization of adult sexual ‘wants’ over children’s needs, and it will inevitably lead to harm from which children may never recover.

To recap the current position – Justine Greening, the education secretary, has recently unveiled plans to make it compulsory to teach primary age children about relationships, and to teach those at secondary school about sex and relationships. But the National Union of Teachers now wants this to go further, so that all such teaching promotes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. And the reason … so that such people ‘are told explicitly in law that their lives are important too’.

Am I alone in thinking we seem to be missing something here?   Up till now we have been told that the primary purpose for increased sex and relationship education has been to keep children safe in an increasingly perilous world. Given ever increasing mental health problems among children, their apparent inability to form and sustain long-term meaningful relationships leading to increased individual and family dysfunction, and epidemic level STIs, many of us have long questioned the truth of this, arguing that such teaching actually exposes children to increased risk. But with this current resolution it appears the genie is now well and truly – even unashamedly – out of the bottle. Silly me! It is not apparently children’s welfare that is at issue here at all, but the normalization and acceptance of what up to now has been minority sexual and transgender diversity.

Such emphasis is too much, too soon, and can only be further damaging to young minds already battling to discover who and what they are.

Childhood should be a time of safety, when, without lasting harm, kids can push the boundaries they choose, in their own time. This has traditionally encompassed such things as staying out late, smoking and/or enjoying a quick fumble behind the bike sheds, underage drinking at a party and coming home drunk – to the parents’ ‘wrath’.   As it is, the innocence and joy, that up to now has been a hallmark of growing up in Western society, is being destroyed by the predatory attempts of adults who have decided that sexual norms need to be reconfigured to match their own risqué preferences and behaviour.   It is an insidious form of brainwashing, and the harms flowing from such covert coercion can only blight children’s normal and natural development, in the process undermining the whole future of society.

Even worse is the fact this loony idea is being promoted by a profession trusted with being in loco parentis and responsible for the nurturing and wellbeing of our children.

Perhaps we should remember that in the garden of Eden the one responsible for the destruction of innocence was labelled the devil, operating through the person of the snake.  Our fall back then led to the subjection of all humanity to death, and it was for this reason – to free us and restore us to life – that Christ died.

Making some adults feel good about themselves is irrelevant.  What really matters is providing children with a safe environment, where they can learn the things that will lead to a happy, fruitful, and fulfilled life.  Which means that we don’t teach them from the age of two that they can reject biology and opt for surgical reconstruction and a lifetime of drug-based ‘endocrinological management’.  And we don’t teach them sexual practices for which the body is not designed and that can cause great and lasting harm.

Share
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.