Last week, a publisher issued an apology for the stereotypical portrayal of an Irish family in a textbook. The volume, which was withdrawn following public outrage, was produced for the new Junior Cycle course on Social, Personal, and Health Education (SPHE) introduced last year by the Department of Education.
A
closer examination of these SPHE textbooks reveals even more serious
concerns. One such example is “My Wellbeing Journey”, a text from a
major publisher, authored by prominent SPHE teachers.
One
of the authors is Eoghan Cleary, Assistant Principal at Templecarrig
Secondary School, Co. Wicklow, who is often invited to comment on sex
education on radio and television.
The
second volume of “My Wellbeing Journey”, aimed at students aged 13–14,
includes a lesson dedicated entirely to masturbation. In one of the
exercises, labelled a "pairs activity", students are presented with
images of eleven animals and asked to guess, together with their
classmates, how many of these animals engage in masturbation. This
activity is undeniably shocking, yet the book is freely available online
for anyone to verify: https://online.flippingbook.com/view/814709122/128/#zoom=true
Is animal behaviour really a good guide to human behaviour? Humans have reason and a moral sense. Animals do not.
Young
students are also told that “Even babies and young children know it
feels good to touch their own genitals.” This appears to be presenting
babies and toddlers as sexual beings.
Another author of “My Wellbeing Journey” is Pam O’Leary, an SPHE teacher at Cork Educate Together secondary school.
In
an interview about sex education some years back, Pam O’Leary stated:
“I’m interested in teaching students about safety and health. Morality
shouldn’t come into Relationship and Sex Education. It’s not about what
students should do in any moral sense”. Would most parents agree with
this view?
Accordingly, the “My Wellbeing Journey” textbook makes no direct reference to moral values, focusing instead on the concepts of ‘healthy boundaries’ and ‘safe spaces’. It suggests that choices and behaviours are acceptable as long as they are deemed "healthy and safe". However, it is impossible to teach human relationships and sexuality without referencing ethical principles. Human beings inherently base their decisions on values and principles.
Even more perplexing is the attempt to use animal behaviour as evidence that certain actions are normal or natural. Animals are driven by biological imperatives and instinct, whereas humans are free to act according to what they believe is right and just. Forced copulation or aggressive mating, for example, is not uncommon in the animal kingdom but the authors, obviously, do not mention this in their chapter about consent because we are more than animals, we are moral beings. So why do they cover masturbation among animals in a textbook for young teenagers?
The textbook also makes no mention of marriage, which is perhaps unsurprising given that the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, with the blessing of the Department of Education, removed references to marriage and parenting from the SPHE curriculum.
Textbooks
and teachers are granted a certain degree of flexibility in covering
topics outlined in the NCCA curriculum, nonetheless, there is no
promotion of commitment or long-term relationships. These concepts are
never presented as preferable to casual or short-term relationships.
Instead, the message remains: it is all acceptable if it is "healthy and
safe". Again, what do parents think?
Unsurprisingly,
the curriculum includes lessons on "gender identity", which is
presented as fact rather than as a contested ideology that separates
being male or female from biological reality. The volume is so steeped
in gender ideology that some of the expressions used sound ridiculous.
For
example, in the section on puberty in Volume 3, the authors say: “Most
typically, people with female-typical anatomy generally begin puberty at
11 years of age, and those with male-typical anatomy begin at 12 years
of age”.
Girls are thus referred to as “people with female-typical anatomy”, and boys, of course, as “those with male-typical anatomy”. These convoluted expressions are used in the name of ‘inclusivity’, as, according to gender ideology, not all individuals with female-typical anatomy are women.
They are whatever ‘gender’ they identify as and remember, nobody knows how many genders exist.
Many
parents likely disagree with this gender ideology. Are they aware that
it is now the dominant philosophy framework taught in SPHE classes?
Are they aware of what else is in these SPHE textbooks, and also the key aspects of life that are missing?
