No Outsiders: Introduction
This was a £500,000 project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. No Outsiders grew directly out of the project leaders’ earlier research in 2007/8 in which four key themes were identified as the basis for further investigation. These were:
“The invisibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) parents in schools.
The lack of representation, for children in families with same-sex parents
The tendency of teachers to take a reactive rather than a proactive approach to addressing sexualities equality.
The underestimation by teachers of the significance of homophobic bullying in primary schools.”
Readers might well question the extent by which children of primary school age might be considered homosexual, and the degree to which teachers might not be able to spot bullying, when the researchers spotted it straight away.
The project’s two main objectives were:
“To add to the understanding of the operation of heteronormativity within primary school contexts and to develop effective means of challenging this heteronormativity”
Heterophobia
Normativity – Something is said to have ‘normativity’ when it entails that some action, attitude or mental state of some other kind is justified, or a state one ought to be in. Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality, predicated on the gender binary, is the norm or default sexual orientation. It assumes that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of opposite sex.
Yes, you read it right. The No Outsiders Project’s main objectives were to challenge the idea that heterosexuality might be normal. They go on to say “We can state with confidence that the objectives of the research were achieved.” Later on in their report the authors even wrote of “subverting” the idea that it was normal to be heterosexual.
Apparently they didn’t find it all easy going, and they reported that “the silencing of popular cultures and the curricular constraints within primary classrooms sometimes prevented the exploration of fruitful ways of interrogating and subverting gender and sexuality norms”.
They certainly didn’t confine themselves to research. It was subversion all the way:
“In addition, teacher-researchers made less visible but crucial interventions in the everyday patterns of school life through spontaneous but persistent challenges to hetero- and gender-normative assumptions,”
It was the view of the authors that heteronormativity should be challenged as cultural phenomena like racism or homophobia, and should be addressed as social justice issues, and that this process was facilitated by ensuring that LGBT equalities work was not confined to the SRE (Sex and Relationship Education) curriculum.
So there you have it. Being normal is on the way out. The propaganda didn’t though work on Muslims. “In contrast, the project was not successful in crossing religious and cultural boundaries where objections to LGBT equalities work were raised by Muslim groups.”
Bisexual and Transsexual
Nothing in the hundreds of pages of research authored by the project’s director, Elizabeth Atkinson or by the chief researcher, Renée Depalma, addresses any trans rights topics, and neither does the research seem to deal with matters of bisexuality either. Indeed, Andy Moffat, who got an MBE for his work on the No Outsiders project has this to say on the topic of bisexuality and trans issues:
“I haven’t even thought about [transgender stuff], to be fair. And I wouldn’t know where to start. I am taking it one step at a time. Let’s just deal with gay and lesbian things. Even bisexual, I mean, really, you know, it’s hard, it’s hard. Because what I am saying to people, what I am sort of preaching in my lesson plan to people is that you don’t choose to be gay. It’s like having blue eyes or red hair, you know, you are gay or you are not gay. But bisexual fucks all that up. So actually can you not be bisexual, please. [laughs] … because on the one hand you want to say look, we have No Outsiders, it’s equality, you can love who you want to love like I was saying to the kids. But then that’s like saying you’ve got a choice. You haven’t got a choice. If you are gay, you are gay. It’s not like, you know, I might want to love a woman but I can’t. I love men. So it does make things very complicated that does, it ruins my whole scheme.”
See Also –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_erasure
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/28/bisexual-workers-excluded-by-lesbian-and-gay-colleagues/
https://web.archive.org/web/20071216065035/http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/MagArticle.cfm?Article=475&PageID=0
https://web.archive.org/web/20140720082629/http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr736_092104
Bisexuality varies between men and women in its prevalence, and in simple terms there are for more bisexual women than bisexual men, expressed as a percentage in the LGBT spectrum. The reasons for that are unclear and all we do know is that the reasons why some women are homosexual may not be the same reasons why some men are homosexual. Bisexual people, whether male or female are less likely to be open about their sexual orientation than gays or lesbians, but research carried out in the USA and elsewhere indicates that bisexuals constitute more than 50% of the entire LGB spectrum. That’s right. They outnumber gays and lesbians, yet they are ignored in this project. They barely rate a mention and none of those conducting the research are bisexual, although plenty are gay and lesbian researchers and teachers.
Put more simply:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/
In terms of this particular “No Outsiders” project, we might call this bi-phobia in action.
Far from being an LGBT project concerned with equalities, It’s not about tackling bi or transphobia, and it’s not about equalities either, it’s purely about homosexuality and attacking heteronormativity. The authors quickly forgot, if they ever knew, that some trans people are heterosexual too. (Daskalos, C.T. Changes in the Sexual Orientation of Six Heterosexual Male-to-Female Transsexuals. Arch Sex Behav 27, 605–614 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018725201811) That’s one of those inconvenient truths which gets brushed aside in the pursuit of casting a dim view on the sexual orientation of 95% of the population.
Teaching Materials
Shelley Charlesworth, a former BBC News journalist, conducted an investigation into the origins of the No Outsiders programme and carried out an excellent analysis of its materials and message to primary age children. There are five books with corresponding lesson plans for each year group. She read the 35 recommended books and correlated each one, where possible, with the 9 protected characteristics of the Equality Act. In her own words:
“This was done on the basis of the content of each book. 17 books could be said to have a link to one of the 9 protected characteristics of the Equality Act.”
They are listed here with the number of books that relate to them following in brackets.
Age (1)
Disability (3)
Gender Reassignment (4)
Race (3)
Religion or Belief (0)
Sex (1)
Sexual Orientation (5)
Marriage and Civil Partnerships (0)
Pregnancy and Maternity (0)
Nine books can be grouped into just two of the protected characteristics, Gender Reassignment and Sexual Orientation, which possibly is what Moffat is referring to when he says that some books specifically support the LGBT strand. Parents have a point when they say the programme is weighted towards LGBT issues.
My Princess Boy is taught to year 6,. The Princess Boy of the title is 4-year-old boy who likes pretty things, pink is his favourite colour. He wears girly dresses. Sometimes people are mean to him but his family all love him very much. The lesson plan tells teachers to ask the class if the Princess Boy feels like a girl or if he just want to wear dresses.
In the plenary session of the lesson there are these notes for teachers:
‘Say,…..”What does British law say about gender identity?” Refer to the seven characteristics on the Equality Act poster. Say, “Which characteristic is relevant to this story? (Gender identity) Ask, “How can we make sure we are following the law at our school?”’ (A reminder: Gender Identity is not a protected characteristic.)
This example, My Princess Boy, shows in the clearest detail the problem with No Outsiders.
The other books that come under the LGBT part of this course and promote the idea, in the text and the teaching notes, that you should be your authentic self, are about dogs, ducks, crayons. My Princess Boy stands out as it features a child, in this case a real one. Three of the books in the LGBT strand possibly straddle other categories (marriage and pregnancy) but are firmly set in gay relationships or being a gay dad. The learning intention in King and King, a story about two Kings who get married, for year 4s, states that it is to understand why people get married. The teaching notes however concentrate on same sex marriage and learning what gay and lesbian means.
The learning intention behind And Tango Makes Three in year 5 is to accept people who are different from me. The teaching notes emphasise gay couples. In the book two male penguins fall in love and want to hatch an egg. They do this and look after their chick together.
Note: No mention that you need a fertilised egg from a female penguin.
In the third book, The Odd Egg, for year 2s, a male duck wants to hatch an egg. The learning intention is to understand what makes someone feel proud. All the other birds in the story hatch eggs and produce their offspring, the owl has a baby owl, the ostrich a baby ostrich. The duck however sits on an enormous egg and hatches a crocodile who immediately calls him Mama. The children are taught that if the duck wants to look after a croc he should be allowed to and that all families are different.
Note: Crocodiles eat ducks. None of these egg parables work for lesbian ducks and penguins, since females can lay their own eggs.
The 8 books linked to Age, Disability, Race and Sex Equality are more straightforward and there is less dissonance between the text and the learning intentions.
This leaves 18 other books which are harder to categorise beyond saying they are about difference or discrimination and emphasise how, despite being different, we can all still get on. Two cover historical events, WW1 and WW2, one artistic freedom, one human rights. The issues of difference and cooperation are common themes for children’s literature and usually are taught as moral concepts rather than legal ones.
The question of why the Equality Act was chosen by Andrew Moffat as a vehicle for his teaching programme remains. There is no legal requirement to teach it in the way that Moffat has chosen. The framework of the 9 protected characteristics is cumbersome. The suspicion must be that he is using the cover of the Equality Act to teach what is his main interest, LGBT, and within that, gender identity. The genesis of No Outsiders bears this out. While most commentators have repeated the line that he thought up or devised the programme himself, in the introduction to No Outsiders he acknowledges its origins:”
Note: Again Bisexuality is completely excluded from the material, even though it is a protected characteristic. Excluding a Protected Characteristic is discriminatory.
Full text at:
We’ll now look at the other and subsequent works of the authors of this research, as they specialise in this type of work. Some quotes:
Homophobia, transphobia and culture: Deconstructing heteronormativity in English primary schools – Article in Intercultural Education · February 2010 – 2 authors, including: Renée Depalma
1. “This paper defines heteronormativity as a cultural phenomenon underpinning recognizable acts of homophobia and transphobia”
“Heteronormativity as a cultural process”
“As a means of enforcing heteronormativity, homophobia affects everyone, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.”
It might have helped if I knew what transphobia was, so that I could properly address my cultural processes. From the outset it is clear that we’re guilty, because if you think that heterosexuality is normal, then you must be anti-gay, and against transvestites as well (I looked it up and ‘trans’ includes transvestites)
2. “In a recent controversial statement, responding to Radio 1 broadcaster Chris Moyles’ description of a telephone ring tone as ‘gay’, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Board of Governors asserted that ‘The word “gay” now means “rubbish” in modern playground-speak and need not be offensive to homosexuals’ (Sherwin 2006). This statement implies that children have ceased to understand the word as an insult that might be offensive to people as well as telephones and other inanimate objects.“
I wasn’t aware that telephones could take offence. I hadn’t realised how sensitive they are.
3. “DePalma and Atkinson’s (2009) interviews with lesbian, gay and straight primary teachers and teacher-trainees points to a widespread underestimation of the prevalence and significance of homophobia in schools. This seems to be due partly to the relative invisibility of LGBT teachers and parents. For example, out of 20 gay and lesbian teachers in the sample of 72 practising and trainee teachers, only one gay man had come out to his pupils.”
Let’s get this right. A sample of 72 practising and trainee teachers and 20 of them are homosexual? That’s more than 25%, when only around 5% of the population is homosexual? This five-fold over-representation goes unobserved and unremarked. Where are your bisexual teachers?
4 “LGBT equality is unique in being perceived by some as against someone’s religion.”
Actually it probably isn’t. The world is replete with racist churches, and many religions are also against other religions. Ask the Jews, blacks and disabled, if you can cope with not feeling special.
Atkinson, Elizabeth et al (2009). No Outsiders: Researching approaches to sexualities equality in primary schools: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-062-23-0095. Swindon: ESRC
5. “The project’s objectives were:
To add to the understanding of the operation of heteronormativity within primary school
contexts
To develop effective means of challenging this heteronormativity”
Don’t forget. It’s wrong to be heterosexual, but right to be homosexual.
6. “the silencing of popular cultures and the curricular constraints within primary classrooms sometimes prevented the exploration of fruitful ways of interrogating and subverting gender and sexuality norms – (Cullen & Sandy, 2009)”.
It can be seem here that the project’s aims didn’t just include research. It had a political agenda, a subverting political agenda. That’s a subversion aimed at children and teachers alike. The report goes on to say that:
7. “In addition, teacher researchers made less visible but crucial interventions in the everyday patterns of school life, through spontaneous but persistent challenges to hetero- and gender-normative assumptions,”
Heteronormativity is expressed as an evil. It’s like racism and homophobia:
8. “We found that colleagues’, parents’ and governors’ concerns usually resulted from the false assumption that the project’s work involved either implicit or explicit teaching about gay sex. We found that these concerns were addressed most effectively where homophobia, transphobia and heteronormativity were challenged as cultural phenomena (like racism) that should be addressed as social justice issues” (DePalma & Jennett, 2007)
Lack of success:
9. “In contrast, the project was not successful in crossing religious and cultural boundaries where objections to LGBT equalities work were raised by Muslim groups.”
I wonder why that was.
‘No Outsiders’: moving beyond a discourse of tolerance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools Rene´e DePalma and Elizabeth Atkinson
Challenging heteronormativity isn’t just about challenging homophobia. There’s a second agenda. Read what they said:
10. “One of the central tensions in the project relates to the distinction between anti-homophobia and counterheteronormative work. “
I suspect that Andy was the headmaster in this particular case. He wants to make gay relationships part of school life.
11. “Andy quite consciously came out to his pupils just before his civil partnership in the hope that by extending the ways in which the marriages of heterosexual people are celebrated and discussed in primary schools, he could help make gay relationships part of the everyday fabric of school life.”
It appears that we’re only normal because we’re forced to be so:
12. “Stand up for us is a plea for tolerance that just doesn’t even speak about what is to be tolerated never mind trying to develop teachers’ and students’ understandings of how heteronormativity or compulsory heterosexuality creates the very conditions in which homophobia is produced.” (Ellis, 2007, p. 21)
I can’t believe we paid half a million pounds to have this done to us:
13. “It is through such ‘small acts of resistance’ that participants in this project seek not only to understand the processes of heteronormativity within primary schools, but to develop effective means of challenging it.”
14. “Heteronormativity can be defined as the ‘organizational structures in schools that support heterosexuality as normal and anything else as deviant’ (Donelson & Rogers, 2004, p. 128).2
Heterosexuals should be able to self-determine the nature of heteronormativity, not to have a pejorative one thrust upon them by people whose stated aims included subversion.
15. “The recent amendment to the UK’s Children, Schools and Families Bill to permit faith schools to teach that homosexuality is wrong (Williams, 2010) illustrates just such a conceptual schizophrenia: how can schools address homophobic bullying if they are simultaneously supporting homophobia?”
We understand the dilemma, but religions have an answer for it. It’s called hate the sin and love the sinner. The law says tolerance is the answer, but challenging heteronormativity, no matter how you define it, is moving beyond tolerance. It’s like demanding 50% of the cake when you’re only 5% of the population.
16. “These assumptions also include a belief that the normative is natural and essential rather than socially constructed and the conviction that sexuality is a private bodily issue that has no place in public, disembodied spaces such as schools. “
A belief isn’t an assumption. An assumption is when a belief is mistaken for a fact. Heteronormativity is as natural as homosexuality – that would appear to be a fact, unless some anthropologist has an exciting new story to tell. It certainly appears throughout nature. But we’re being told that it’s a cultural evil like racism, and has to go. Don’t forget, these are people who talk about “compulsory heterosexuality” and that heterosexuality is “socially constructed”. If your sexuality is “socially constructed”, then it’s a lifestyle choice. You’re not born that way. Rather makes a mockery of the gay rights movement, doesn’t it?
And yes, a person’s sexuality is their own affair. Why should it have a place in school? Don’t people have a right to a private life? Where is it written that my child needs any knowledge of your sexuality, or mine for that matter? The children in other schools have no knowledge of your sexuality. They seem to manage OK.
INTERROGATING HETERONORMATIVITY IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS: THE WORK OF THE NO OUTSIDERS PROJECT
edited by Renée DePalma and Elizabeth Atkinson 2009
17. “For Elizabeth, the shift has been from theory to praxis: it was strategically important for her from the beginning to name heteronormativity, and later gender normativity, as dominant discourses to be challenged through the affirmation of LGBT identities.”
For some people even the idea of gender was something to be attacked, and the notion that boys and girls should be able to act in a traditionally masculine or feminine way was anathema. The science is with me on that one. Boys prefer boy’s toys it seems: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/icd.2064/abstract
Even the Gender Similarities Hypothesis acknowledges that gender differences are well established in four areas: verbal ability, visual-spatial ability, mathematical ability, and aggression. See – https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-606581.pdf
18. “Neither of us has ever presented as bi, and while a number of members of the project team have had relationships with people of both genders, none have chosen identify openly as bi within the context of the project.”
It is apparent, from the lack of reference to, and the lack of representation of, that the No Outsiders Project did indeed leave plenty of communities outside, notably Bisexual males and females, as well as all the trans communities.
The Authors:
Renée Depalma – Project Senior Researcher
Renée DePalma received her PhD in 2003 from the University of Delaware (US), where she helped establish the university-community partnership La Red Mágica with the Latin American Community Center in Wilmington, Delaware. She worked from 2004-2009 at the University of Sunderland (UK) in sexualities equality research and was Senior Researcher for the No Outsiders project. Her research and teaching has focused on social justice and equity in terms of ethnicity, language, race, gender and sexuality. She is currently book reviews editor for the journal Power and Education and holds a research fellowship at the University of Vigo, Spain.
She has written and published extensively on heteronormativity and homophobia in primary schools:
DePalma, R. (2010). The nature of institutional heteronormativity in primary schools and practice-based responses. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, pp. 1669-1676.
Matusov, E., DePalma, R., & Smith, M. (2010) The creation and maintenance of a “learning-loving minority” in conventional high schools: a research-based response to John Ogbu. Oxford Review of Education 36(4), pp. 463-480.
DePalma, R., & Jennett, M. (2010). Homophobia, transphobia and culture: Deconstructing heteronormativity in English primary schools. Intercultural Education 21(1), pp. 15–26.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (Eds) (2010) Undoing homophobia in primary schools. Stoke on Trent, Trentham.
DePalma, R. (2009). Sexualities equality in all primary schools: a case for not waiting for ideal conditions. In Koschoreck, James W. & Tooms, Autumn A. (Eds.) Sexuality matters: Paradigms and policies for educational leaders. Plymouth, Rowman & Littlefield.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2009). ‘No Outsiders’: Moving beyond a discourse of tolerance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools. British Educational Research Journal 35(6), pp. 837 – 855.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (Eds) (2009) Interrogating heteronormativity in primary schools: The work of the No Outsiders Project. Stoke on Trent, Trentham.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2009). “Permission to talk about it”: narratives of sexualities equality in the primary classroom. Qualitative Inquiry 15(7), pp. 876-892.
Atkinson, E., & DePalma, R. (2009). Unbelieving the matrix: queering consensual heteronormativity. Gender & Education 21(1), 17-29.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (Eds) (2008) Invisible Boundaries: Addressing Sexuality equalities in children’s worlds. Stoke on Trent, Trentham.
Allan, A., Atkinson, E., Brace, E., DePalma, R., & Hemingway, J. (2008). Speaking the unspeakable in forbidden places: addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in the primary school. Sex Education, 8(3), 315-328
Atkinson, E. & DePalma, R. (2008) Dangerous spaces: constructing and contesting sexual identities in an online discussion forum. Gender and Education 20(2), 183-194.
Atkinson, E. & DePalma, R. (2008) Imagining the homonormative: performative subversion in education for social justice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(1), 25-35.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2007). Exploring gender identity; queering heteronormativity. International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, 5(2), 64-82.
Matusov, E., DePalma, R., & Drye, S. (2007) Whose Development? Salvaging the Concept of Development within a Sociocultural Approach to Education. Educational Theory 57(4), 403-421.
DePalma, R. & Atkinson, E. (2007) Strategic embodiment in virtual spaces: Exploring an on-line discussion about sexualities equality in schools Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(4), 499-514.
DePalma, R., & Jennett, M. (2007) Deconstructing heteronormativity in primary schools in England: cultural approaches to a cultural phenomenon. In l. van Dijk & B. van Driel (Eds.), Challenging Homophobia: teaching about sexual diversity (pp. 19-32). Stoke on Trent, Trentham
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2006) The sound of silence: talking about sexual orientation and schooling. Sex Education 6(4), 333-349.
Elizabeth Atkinson
Elizabeth Atkinson was a Reader in Social and Educational Inquiry and CoDirector of the Centre for Equalities and Social Justice (CESOJ) at the University of Sunderland. She has published widely on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender identities and equalities in primary school settings and in 2007 was awarded the Queer Studies Scholar Activist award by the Queer Studies Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. Elizabeth is the Director of the ESRC-funded No Outsiders project, which is the focus of this book.
The nature of institutional heteronormativity in primary schools and practice-based responses – Nov 2010
‘No Outsiders’: Moving beyond a discourse of tolerance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools – Dec 2009
“Permission to Talk About It”: Narratives of Sexual Equality in the Primary Classroom – May 2009
Un-believing the matrix: Queering consensual heteronormativity – Jan 2009
Speaking the unspeakable in forbidden places: Addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in the primary school – Aug 2008
Dangerous spaces: Constructing and contesting sexual identities in an online discussion forum – Mar 2008
Imagining the Homonormative: Performative subversion in education for social justice – Jan 2008
Strategic Embodiment in Virtual Spaces: Exploring an on-line discussion about sexualities equality in schools – Dec 2007
Girls, Boys and Junior Sexualities: Exploring Children’s Gender and Sexual Relations in the Primary School – Dec 2007
The sound of silence: Talking about sexual orientation and schooling – Nov 2006
‘No Outsiders’: Moving beyond a discourse of tolerance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools – Dec 2009
The nature of institutional heteronormativity in primary schools and practice-based responses
Nov 2010
Girls, Boys and Junior Sexualities: Exploring Children’s Gender and Sexual Relations in the Primary School – Dec 2007
Speaking the unspeakable in forbidden places: Addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in the primary school – Aug 2008
Imagining the Homonormative: Performative subversion in education for social justice – Jan 2008
Strategic Embodiment in Virtual Spaces: Exploring an on-line discussion about sexualities equality in schools – Dec 2007
The sound of silence: Talking about sexual orientation and schooling – Nov 2006
“Permission to Talk About It”: Narratives of Sexual Equality in the Primary Classroom – May 2009
Un-believing the matrix: Queering consensual heteronormativity – Jan 2009
Dangerous spaces: Constructing and contesting sexual identities in an online discussion forum – Mar 2008
https://pastebin.com/xP35dvn3
