A friend of mine is a teacher and educational specialist.
She recently told me about an episode that happened in a class of primary school pupils: A kid suggested to divide the groups into girls and boys for some group work. The pedagogical assistant told the boy: "Your idea is for the dustbin, Anton! (made up name). We no longer differentiate between girls and boys here!" She further is reported to have said ( mutatis mutandis) that "other children who have not yet decided on a gender could feel excluded as a result."
My friend spoke to the teacher privately after the lesson
and opposed this treatment of the children, saying that it would make the children feel insecure and that this was not valuable guidance for such young children. The woman replied that she heard her arguments but would not accept them and that it had been approved from above that this language was to be used from then on. With that she ended the conversation.
My friend took the colleague's statement as an opportunity to pass it on to the founders of the school
(it is an independent school; or, as independent as it can get). They were very irritated because they had never officially issued such a language regulation. I am curious to see what happens next. My advice to my friend was to nail her colleague down to naming the law that makes it a punishable offence to teach young children to distinguish between girls and boys. Or where it should be reprimanded if a teacher simply lets this distinction happen.
If she cannot do that (because there is no such law), she has to comply with the instructions and guidelines of her employer according to her employment contract. It would even be liable to a warning in my eyes and the teacher would have to accept this warning because she used something she interpreted but apparently did not research.
This statement that "henceforth no distinction shall be made between boys and girls" cannot actually be put into any law,
because otherwise the so-called equality commissioners in government would no longer be able to use the words "men" and "women" to refer to income inequalities between the sexes, for example. They would lose their own position because if the gender distinction were removed, they would lack any argument for denouncing inequality.
Moreover, people make fools of themselves when they insist, for example, that it is no longer women who have babies, but ... ?
If one imagines the scenario that the children with and without penises
should now no longer have a concept of this distinction, how should such a decision ever be possible for those who supposedly have not yet decided which sex they belong to, if there is to be such a thing as gender neutrality? That is gross nonsense. All genders, of which there are now many, derive from the origin of the distinction between male and female, from what else? So if this distinction had never existed, being against it would not be possible, because you cannot be against something that does not exist.
This hypocrisy of do-goodery shall be decisively countered,
for example, by acting if one is working directly in the relevant professions where such gender issues are rampant. Such as in schools. As long as no law says that it will punish anyone who uses certain terms in class, such action as described above must be refrained from. If not, then it must be refrained from on threat of punishment and use of the warning.