In part one I covered a report detailing how young activists strategised how to disseminate gender identity ideology and normalise talking about sex with the under twelves. In that I illustrated the links to Lloyd Russell-Moyles, a British Labour MP . You can read part one below:

Rainbow Resources 1

The document I am going to look at today is a later edition of the Rainbow Resources. I have searched, in vain, to get a PDF of the first version to which Russell-Moyles put his name. If I track it down I will cover it in this series. You can read the full document here:

RR-English.compressed

The document recognises that the first edition was by Russell-Moyle. This was part of International Falcon Movement -Socialist Education International. Later we are told that the document was funded by the Council of Europe.

The organisations rely on the U.N declaration on the Rights of the Child and , to this end, they claim that children have as much ability to teach as to learn and that children are involved in the decision making process. This is quite fundamental to the ideology and why it conflicts with the idea of child safeguarding.

Here they claim they have been working with children on gender and sexuality for forty years.

In this edition they wanted to focus more on “trans” issues. They are also keen to stress that sexual rights are human rights and that children are not too young to discuss sexuality.

Allow yourself a wry chuckle at this next statement.

Naturally the oppose what the call conversion therapy but they include not just homosexuality but also “gender identity”. What this means, in practice, is that we end up “converting” gay kids to faux-straight adults by enclosing them in a medicalised closet. Also, because this is inspired by queer theory, they want to destroy social norms around different expressions of sexuality which brings us a world where we are not allowed to kink shame.

They next reference a pamphlet about child sexual development which has, unfortunately, has now been removed so I cannot interrogate the content.

There’s a section on being aware of your own privilege and biases and making sure you are self-aware and questioning your own adherence to stereotypical behaviour. In the next paragraph they advise that your identity is constructed not just by yourself but in dialogue with how others see you. (Tell that to the male “Lesbians”).

The next section tells us that everyone has a “gender identity” and uses the discredited statistic suggestion that 1% of people are born with a disorder of sexual development (DSD) which they call “intersex”. They provide the usual claptrap about “cisgender” and redefines sexual orientation to pretend that people are attracted to “gender identity” rather than biological sex.

The booklet then (sigh) uses the Gender Bread diagram to demonstrate their bonkers belief system.

Their definitions include “transvestite” without any recognition that some men cross-dress for erotic purposes.

Next up they confirm that they are informed by “Queer Theory”. It’s interesting to note that since 2014 we have seen an explosion of spicy straights claiming to be “Queer” that they argue undermines the LGBTI*.

Here is what they say about the family. 😳 They are clear that there needs to be empowerment of the child; the family may need “educating” and outside organisations have a role in shaping the child.

There’s a reasonable section on bullying and patriarchal language structure erasing women but, inevitably, they ruin it by opting for gender neutral language, preferred pronouns, and imposing their ideology by way of exercising the privilege they claim to be committed to eradicating.

As we know, from part one, the proponents of this ideology actually strategised that one way to overcome resistance, about talking to children about sex, is to hide the content of your “education”. They don’t repeat that (yet) but instead make the patronising assumption that resistance is borne out of ignorance.

Here’s the bit where they strategise to get the kids away from their parents, allay their fears by co-opting trusted professionals or charities and bury the content in wider issues.

There is a whole section on bullying which, ironically, uses bullying and public humiliation of any child who does not subscribe to their belief system. Finally these are the people they point to as role models.

Monroe Bergdorf who lost multiple appointments because of a failure to understand child safeguarding, who is on record making discriminatory comments about Lesbians and who parades himself as a pornified princess. Travis Abalanza who thinks teenage girls should be forced to share communal changing rooms, with him, at Top Shop. Or Fox Fisher who is still surgically mutilating their body twelve years after starting their testosterone journey.

It’s a no from me!

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

I came across this document while I was looking at Rainbow resources after I was sent a tip off about the involvement of Labour M.P Lloyd Lewis-Moyles in an organisation called International Falcon Movement – Socialist Education International. Document below. 👇

2012_IFM-SEI

Here is Lloyd Lewis-Moyles confirming his involvement with this organisation.This is from an old blog from his days as a student at Bradford University where, you will see, he has been pushing biological sex denialism since 2007.

Here he is welcoming the production of Rainbow Resources in 2011.

You may be familiar with Russell-Moyle because he shouted down Miriam Cait M.P and then moved to sit, menacingly, near her in parliament, because she has been raising issues about school teaching on sex and relationships. Here is Russell-Moyle sharing a personal tragedy and using this argument to suggest we should teach niche sexual practices to children.

This document was produced in 2012 and there is no audit train to suggest that Russell-Moyle was present but it does illustrate the waters he was swimming in. He did attend other events, hosted by IFM, including the Queer Easter events. This is a picture of one of the Queer Easter events found online.

The event itself was for youth leaders to reflect on how the Rainbow Resources could be improved. The event and production of the document was funded by the Council of Europe. The Coincil of Europe predated the formation of the European Union and is able to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The document itself covers a group of Youth Leaders who ran events for children. They boast about their desire to teach children from an early age about issues of gender and sexuality.

In this document they lament the lack of resources for children and their aim to work with children “from a very early age”.

Furthermore they want to develop tips on how to introduce this teaching “against parents wills” . This has echoes on the Chinese cultural revolution.

The Youth Workers are being trained to go back into their organisations and disseminate their ideas to others and, of course, the children in their care. Because they know opposition to teaching children about their sexual rights is still widespread they shared tips on how to overcome opposition from parents, colleagues and institutions.

The participants were from education settings or worked in youth groups or were involved in LGBT groups and otherwise had access to children to educate /indoctrinate. Many of them work with the under 12s which is the target age group.

These are some of the issues they discuss. They believe children who take openly about sexuality will be better equipped to respond to sexual jokes and defend themselves against sexual harassment. They also believe it’s a good thing if children feel confident to approach adults about sexual matters.

Additionally they talk about children’s rights to love whom they will.

To accomplish their aims the participants are advised to be economical with the truth when parents or teachers ask about the lessons. Tell them the method but not the content.

Frame your work as anti-bullying and discrimination and then introduce gender and sexuality.

Disturbing section on children’s sexuality and confirmation that a sexologist was invited to talk about chikdren’s sexuality. Remember we are talking about an under twelve age group.

Anticipating resistance one participant decided to run an event where parents were deliberately excluded. This is another one of their recommendations.

Additionally participants leaned that they did not need to make the nature of their content, on sexuality rights, explicit.

I am not suggesting these materials are being produced with conscious malign intent but they seem woefully naive, at best, about child safeguarding.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack