Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News1 min ago
L G B T – B B C Woman’S Hour Asks The Wrong Question
Woman’s Hour posed the question ‘Do you think LGBT rights should be taught in schools?’ amid the continuing row in Birmingham. Twitter users and listeners slammed the organisation for its poorly-worded question, saying it opened up the platform to bigotry.
Responses included this:
//‘Why even frame this as a question? Doing so clearly legitimises ‘no’ as an answer, which is hugely damaging.’//
That is dangerous territory.
Why shouldn’t ‘No’ be a legitimate answer and is it acceptable to frame questions in such a way as to offer only limited responses that suit any particular agenda?
https:/
Responses included this:
//‘Why even frame this as a question? Doing so clearly legitimises ‘no’ as an answer, which is hugely damaging.’//
That is dangerous territory.
Why shouldn’t ‘No’ be a legitimate answer and is it acceptable to frame questions in such a way as to offer only limited responses that suit any particular agenda?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I didn't say that it wasn't ok to say no....in fact I said that stifling opinions we don't like is dangerous. I do think though that if you seek to open a discussion and not just to get closed answers, then the question needs to be worded better than that one....surely "no because" or "yes because" are a better option than simply yes or no.
It's not really an accurate summary of the issue in Birmingham - that was over whether or not primary school children should be taught about same-sex relationships. Not at all the same question as 'Should gay rights be taught in schools?' - 'rights' involves a bit more than just basic awareness of non-heterosexual relationships and obviously also includes secondary education too - where as far as I'm aware there was no controversy about it being discussed. I imagine whoever wrote the question for the episode was asked to concisely write a question to discuss the Birmingham dispute and didn't think it through for whatever reason.
Obviously it's not fair to say that 'no' is an invalid response because being homophobic is not illegal, but asking a question like that does inherently lend a microphone to people who object to any form of education about gay people whatsoever at any point in schooling. I.e. it goes considerably beyond the issue that people were actually arguing about in Birmingham and lights a fire where there wasn't one before.
Obviously it's not fair to say that 'no' is an invalid response because being homophobic is not illegal, but asking a question like that does inherently lend a microphone to people who object to any form of education about gay people whatsoever at any point in schooling. I.e. it goes considerably beyond the issue that people were actually arguing about in Birmingham and lights a fire where there wasn't one before.
Krom, //it's not fair to say that 'no' is an invalid response because being homophobic is not illegal//
Neither is it fair to assume that anyone says ‘no’ because they are homophobic. There are other reasons for saying ‘no’. Many parents prefer to deal with some issues themselves and answer questions if and when they arise. That doesn’t make them ‘homophobic’.
Neither is it fair to assume that anyone says ‘no’ because they are homophobic. There are other reasons for saying ‘no’. Many parents prefer to deal with some issues themselves and answer questions if and when they arise. That doesn’t make them ‘homophobic’.
Being excused from RE is one thing. Being excused from learning about relationships is something else.
For example, two women have a child in primary school. One or other of them, sometimes both, is waiting at the gates to drop the child off and pick them up each day.
How are child's classmates who are children of religious parents to learn what on earth is going on? From their parents? Clearly not. From the child? Not a great idea. Leave them to figure it out for themselves? Sure, while they're at it they can figure out Pythagoras's theorem from first principles too.
There's no need for a discussion of how lesbians have sex. Just a discussion about the different types of relationship. It equips children for living in the UK.
For example, two women have a child in primary school. One or other of them, sometimes both, is waiting at the gates to drop the child off and pick them up each day.
How are child's classmates who are children of religious parents to learn what on earth is going on? From their parents? Clearly not. From the child? Not a great idea. Leave them to figure it out for themselves? Sure, while they're at it they can figure out Pythagoras's theorem from first principles too.
There's no need for a discussion of how lesbians have sex. Just a discussion about the different types of relationship. It equips children for living in the UK.
Krom, //I think it is a tad homophobic to be against *any* education whatsoever about gay rights anywhere in the school system. //
Okay, let's say, for arguments sake, that a parent disapproves of the homosexual lifestyle, and for that reason considers it their responsibility to answer a child's questions if and when they arise and in whichever manner they choose. Is it okay for them to answer 'No'.
Okay, let's say, for arguments sake, that a parent disapproves of the homosexual lifestyle, and for that reason considers it their responsibility to answer a child's questions if and when they arise and in whichever manner they choose. Is it okay for them to answer 'No'.
Latest Posts
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Other Sports6 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.