Hrm. I hope none of you who read this take it the wrong way...

[lizziec]

The BBC are running a story on "gay history month" and are asking schools to take part in teaching the children about LGBT history. I've thought about it and I'm not sure I agree. I believe that children should be educated about LGBT stuff so that they don't grow up to be homophobes and I agree that violence and homophobic taunts are rife in schools, but I'm not convinced that focusing on history of a specific group like that is healthy. I believe if it's going to be included that it should be included in the course of normal history lessons as it comes up and shouldn't be something that is gone out of the way for.

Hrm. I'm not explaining myself very well. I hope I don't offend anyone. It's just that I don't feel that it is constructive to make such a huge thing about it all. Surely the best way of helping children realise it's all perfectly normal is acting* like it is rather than holding month long events to focus on it specifically.

To anyone I may have offended, I'm sorry :|

*In this sense of the word "acting" I mean "the act of doing something" not "the act of pretending something" Hope this clarifies my point there :)

Comments

[morti.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean, by teaching about it so separately they might actually be encouraging segregation. It's like that episode of South Park with Conjoined Twin Myslexia Week. ;)

[no1typo.livejournal.com]

I agree personally, it is part of history and it is an important part of
> history, would Turing have been Turing if he wasn't gay, BUT if we deal with
> women's history and black history then we should really deal with Gay and
> lesbian history in the same way, and that would seem to be the way chosen
> here.
>
> The fact is that people's sexuality becomes a prurient aside for most
> people. But teaching about Alan Turing and his place in the history of
> computing would make it important to say that had Turing been straight and
> had a happy home life he might not have been so obsessive and achieved so
> much, and he certainly would not have killed himself. It may be that the
> best way to deal with such things is to have a module on the history of
> morality, and cover the changes with regard to men women sex outside
> marriage abortion homosexuality etc, that way you would be dealing with it
> as part of life without making it nay more extraordinary than many other
> things.

[bethanthepurple.livejournal.com]

thing is we *don't* learn about gay people as gay people in history. Unfortunately there is a general assumption that someone is straight unless proven otherwise, and when you're young and gay this can be awfully alienating. I remember each time I learnt a famous person I respected was gay, I would feel a big swell of pride. Mentioning the unmentionable at least breaks the ice and gets things out into the open.

People unfortunately don't seperate people from their sexualities - just look at the media furore when someone comes out or is suspected of being gay. If the state of not knowing was the same as no presumed sexuality then this wouldn't happen. Until we can discuss these things openly and accept that someone's sexuality (and gender, and colour...) *does* change the way they have to interact with the world and so develop, i think teaching such things seperately is the only way forward.

Ask if you want me to clarify ;)

[kimble.livejournal.com]

"LGBT history" is a bit vague... like "black history" or "women's history". I dunno, there are pleanty of important historical figures who were in some way queer, but then if they're important historical figures then it's probably because of something other than their queerness. Define important.

Then there's the LGBT rights movement. I don't see how learning about the Stonewall riots etc is any different from learning about Martin Luther King or the Suffragette movement. It has direct relevance to today's society, and is therefore Worth Knowing About(TM).

As you say, it's probably the approach rather than the material that's going to be the real issue. The black history we covered at school came up naturally as part of our English syllabus, the Suffragette movement was part of the history course. Of course there's no reason that LGBT stuff couldn't be worked in in the same way, except that this is schools we're talking about. They're going to have special "gayness is good, mmkay" lessons, with all the credibility usually reserved for RE and sex ed.

Still, like sex education, I'm firmly of the belief that even cringeworthily bad, handwavy lessons of great political dubiousity are better than nothing. So the kids will walk out with a skewed idea of LGBTness, but the message that it's real (and not just $television_queen_of_the_month and a word to bully people with) might get through and do a lot of good for a small number of people.

It's a starting point.

[dharvsied.livejournal.com]

they should be educated as part of a main curriculum.

They arent. Therefore for the time being (until its encorporated properly) Crash course educations like this month are neccassary to combat homophobia.

[barakta]

In my school we didn't do any of the stuff about women, black people or LGBT history. In fact the only recognition or acknowledgement of homophobia's existence and the fact that it is prejudice like any other was one random PSE lesson in yr 11 from a teacher I suspect was himself gay.

I would have really appreciated covering LGBT stuff in an offical context because my school was rife with homophobia amongst a very high level of generic bullying. I was on the receiving end of an AWFUL lot of bullying mostly for being a 'spastic' but also for generic 'you lesbian' etc etc. My best friend was hacking her arms up and drinking herself unconscious daily by the time we were 15, when she came out 3 years later she stopped hacking herself up, stopped destroying herself from the inside. We spent five years running the daily gauntlet of abuse and damage to our self esteem for something we barely realised within ourselves.

A great deal of this abuse was made worse by teachers being homophobic and turning a blind eye to homophobic bullying as they had blithely misinterpreted the malicious Section 28 and judged that stopping/preventing homophobic bullying was forbidden, and what did they care about faggots anyway.

No one on my school would have been expected to tolerate the level of abuse for skin colour that we did for real and perceived 'homosexual tendancies'. I will however note that sexist abuse although not condoned by teaching staff as a rule was present and I got a lot of that too.

Special LGBT/Black/Womens sessions are not an ideal solution, in that I agree with you, but we do not have an ideal world/life. Even with Section 28 dead (If Kent brings it back I hope some courageous person takes them to the European Court of Human Rights!) many LGBT students and teachers are unable to be themselves for fear of their sexuality becoming public knowledge and that being used as a weapon against them. IFF there are special LGBT awareness/history sessions then the school HAS to stand by any students/staff who are outed by choice or otherwise and make more of an effort (most make a token effort at best) to combat homo/transphobia in the school environment.

I have seen these specialist historical awareness slots work very effectively within Stockport Youth Service who's lesbian/bi womens group I attended on and off for 4 years and as a sessional youth worker with random young people's groups. The LGBT sessions weren't unusual because they were one of many 'projects' which the youth service did over time. The causes and roots of prejudice were aired and the young people encouraged to discuss why racism/sexism/homophobia/prejudice happen. By enforcing an atmosphere of zero tolerance for abuse of any kind I know many young people were able to come out in youth groups where they might previously or otherwise have been forced to stay in the closet due to peer pressure. Also by people these young people know coming out as LGB (T less likely and another kettle of worms) meant that being 'queer' wasn't necessarily strange or bad. Young people realised LGBness doesn't define a person and being prejudiced isn't very nice...

I know I have rambled on a bit but I felt quite strongly that this was something positive. A small but pretty good start to change something which has needed changing for a long time and hasn't gone very far in modern school environments. I know I remembered the three incidents at school where teachers acknowledged gay people existed and that it wasn't evil. I will never forget those teachers for giving me a validation which I desperately needed back then. One of those teachers saved my friend's life and I will never forget that.

Natalya

[evad-ukc.livejournal.com]

You speak the truth ;)

I don't give a (rude word) about LGBT history or what it means to be L, G, B or T being explained in schools, we just want exactly what you described.