‘No Outsiders’ is a two-faced project; the public face shows it as an innocent attempt to gently steer people away from all types of xenophobia. The shocking true face, however, is something you must search to find as you will not see it in the media or hear it from teachers.
It started as a government-funded research project in 2006 with the stated aim of “developing effective means of challenging heteronormativity in primary schools”. Half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money was used to work out how to stop “heterosexuality” appearing normal, and to replace it with recently invented, fringe social constructs like ‘queer sexuality’ and ‘gender theory’. It is specifically targeted to the youngest school children – where they are at their most impressionable age – before the natural process of puberty would, in the vast majority of cases, make opposite-sex attraction and the male-female distinction seem self-evidently normal.
And it is not only theoretical; despite their frequent claims in the media, the aim is also to facilitate expression of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘transgenderism’ as normal behaviour. A 2008 ‘No Outsiders’ seminar was titled “Queering the Body; Queering Primary Education.”  From the summary:
“The danger of accusations [by critics of LGBTQ+ beliefs] of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire – and that it is therefore not about bodies. Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.” 
The negative implication presumably being that anything less than fully open expression and physical manifestation of same-sex desires or transgender feelings will teach the children that repression is expected; the opposite of the aim of the programme. One of the topics discussed was:
“How might we create primary classrooms where gender-queer bodies and queer sexualities (for children and teachers) are affirmed and celebrated?” 
As early as 2007, gay-identifying teacher and ‘No Outsiders’ researcher Andrew Moffat had produced a programme called ‘CHIPS’ (Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools), which drew repeated criticism from those opposed to promotion of LGBTQ+ beliefs to children. When the completed ‘No Outsiders’ programme was rolled out, they had disguised essentially the same content by piggybacking the Equality Act 2010. This hides the true, purely LGBTQ+ motive and allows them to claim their programme is legally required to be taught, when in fact it is discretionary and Moffat’s programme is only one of any number of ways the recommendations in the act could be met.
It has also made the ‘No Outsiders’ programme a Trojan Horse. The inclusion of other minorities, of either religion, ethnicity, or disability, makes it easy to claim that the programme is really a gift for them, that they must accept this gift, be grateful and uncritical of it. Anyone from those groups that object to the LGBTQ+ content is shut down by calling them a hypocrite, as though they had begged for a programme to enhance their group’s acceptance but now refuse the same benefit for others.
Invariably, when describing the ‘No Outsiders’ and ‘CHIPS’ programmes to the media, Mr Moffat will show the mildest of books, ones that include cute cartoon animals not fitting into a group because they are a different colour or shape and how they overcome that. To address the LGBTQ+ element, he shows ‘Mommy, Mama, and Me’, where two women simply care for a child and no mention is made of their marital status — they look like they could be friends or sisters.  It will be stated that the programme merely highlights the existence of diversity when it is really, much more than that.
Reading the final ‘No Outsiders’ academic paper, the principle researchers come across as hostile to the non-LGBT-identifying majority, bordering on paranoid:
“…our data revealed the many ways in which these people [referring to those not believing in or identifying as LGBT] are actually constantly coming out in schools, unconsciously asserting their majority status through small clues: the casual and unrestrained use of pronouns, stories and photos of partners, etc.” 
“…assumptions also include a belief that the normative is natural and essential rather than socially constructed.” 
Having such an obvious chip on their shoulder – and a personal agenda so strong it blinds them to the meaning of the word ‘normal’ – should surely rule them out when it comes to who we allow to create projects for the most vulnerable of children.
Whilst the world goes about its normal day, fringe elements like these take offence and half a million pounds to undermine and change beliefs, starting by ‘queering’ our children. Among themselves, they say:
“…disrupting this heterosexual matrix is a wider social justice project that broadens possibilities for all children.” 
Yet not declaring the true intention of this project when the media asks has denied society the opportunity to have a choice whether we actually want our children to be encouraged to “broaden” beyond “heterosexual” relationships. This duplicitous behaviour to deceive the majority proves it is not a sincere “social justice project”.
Many of the large number of books with accompanying lesson plans can be broadly classified as ‘overcoming the challenge of being different’. On the surface, this seems like a good idea, but even the most benign stories are a double-edged sword. The children are taught that it is always bad to discriminate between what is accepted as normal and what is considered abnormal, which of course lays the groundwork for throwing out any concept of an accepted ‘norm’. It will become clear why this is deliberate.
Being a non-conformist is shown as essential for the hero of the story’s personal fulfilment and happiness. Anyone who objects, usually a parent, is portrayed as being utterly unreasonable until they come around to the child’s way of thinking in the end, which they invariably do, with smiles all round, often a celebration, and a sense that everyone is much better off because the child defied the parents’ wishes or society’s accepted norms. This is all opposite to the vast majority’s concept of parental responsibility and what they expect from schools; to train our children to behave with values and virtues that have been within fairly stable boundaries for thousands of years. The LGBTQ+ campaigners would claim this is a liberation in the aspects they are interested in, but what about the other aspects where we would hope children respect their elders and conform to their religion and society? Any amount of collateral damage done to families and society is of no concern to them.
The Vital but False “You can only be Born Gay” Dogma
The most crucial point of underlying ‘No Outsiders’ dogma to bear in mind is the often-repeated claim that “you can’t make someone gay – it’s just the way some people are”. According to the American Psychological Association, “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation”, so it would not be surprising for them to believe that.  Moffat will undoubtedly believe that in every classroom there will be children who have been ‘born gay’ and will start to have same-sex inclinations during their primary school years as he did. The generally accepted scientific position, on the other hand, is that it could be nurture as much as nature, not a gay gene:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.”
So much depends on accepting the false ‘only born gay’ theory. If true, they can make a good case that this would supersede any religious ethics that a parent might try to paint over ‘their child’s true nature’. It creates a belief that there is no need for safeguards as, no matter how much promotion, it is entirely safe if it is ‘impossible to make someone gay’; hence, most parents are relaxed about LGBTQ+ promotion. If someone exposed to the material goes on to ‘come out as gay’, it will be said they were already gay, and that it merely helped them to express their true self. It forms the basis for believing that any small sign of same-sex attraction is proof that the person must have been ‘born gay’ and should be encouraged to join the LGBTQ+ community in identifying as some form of non-heterosexual inclination. Also, it would be said that any therapy used to work with someone who wants to understand or resist same-sex attraction is going against their essential true nature, and LGBTQ+ advocates have succeeded in having such therapy made illegal in many places. The theory also serves to justify a higher level of LGBTQ+ promotion in a community with very few people identifying as gay, bisexual, pansexual etc, or with values or ideologies opposing the acceptance of these recent definitions of behaviour. After all, if it is naturally occurring across humanity, there ‘must be’ an equal proportion of ‘gays’ in every community, so more combating of prejudice and encouragement for people to be their ‘true self’ is needed until there is an equal number of open ‘gays’.
The “Queering” of Same-sex Attraction
The ‘No Outsiders’ programme is not theoretical, but rather a practical education for the supposed pre-existing “gay children”, teaching them that having any same-sex attraction is an absolutely normal feeling, that it is called being “gay” (or other “queer sexuality”) and it is to make their environment free of any hostility so that the child will have an utterly trouble-free landing in their “gay” identity. As they said in the seminar: “How might we create primary classrooms where gender-queer bodies and queer sexualities (for children and teachers) are affirmed and celebrated?” 3 Moffat and Co want to provide the gay children welcoming arms to save them the challenges they endured, and I have no doubt that in this respect they are of genuinely noble intentions.
However, we are not talking about one or two children per class; more like 50%. The problem is the huge gulf between the number of people who experience occasional thoughts of same-sex attraction and the number who currently identify as “gay”. Statistics of same-sex attraction vary wildly but a recent study in Germany found only 45% of young adults never have any same-sex attraction whilst only 2% have solely same-sex attraction.  The number of people who identify as “gay” varies between polls but has typically been close to the small number of people who exclusively have same-sex attraction. Currently, the norm is to consider oneself “heterosexual” even if having occasional same-sex thoughts, and the disparity between these figures is the “heteronormative” aspect the campaigners want to destroy. Only when “heterosexual” is no longer accepted as the default position will there be no LGBTQ+ outsiders.
That is what “queering primary schools” aims to achieve. Queer Theory claims that we are all on a rainbow-like sexuality spectrum; we just did not know it. If every one of those 55% of children who might one day experience any same-sex attraction has someone at their elbow encouraging them to believe it, then they must accept one of the recently invented LGBTQ+ definitions and the number of LGBTQ+ identifying people would skyrocket. The content of the ‘No Outsiders’ programme appears designed to draw out any sign of belonging to one of their categories and to push that definition onto the child before they have a chance to naturally settle, as most otherwise would, into a straightforward and reproductive so-called “heterosexual” adult life after the vagaries of hormonal adolescence have passed.
If you still doubt this could be their intention, bear in mind it is consistent with a global drive by LGBTQ+ activists to stop male-female relationships being considered normal. As early as 2006, an educational blog was describing “heteronormativity” as a “social evil”.  Schools in Australia have been teaching that it is wrong and “heterosexist” to believe that it is normal to be so-called “heterosexual”.  In UK schools, LGBTQ+ trainers organisation ‘Educate and Celebrate’ use the phrase “smashing heteronormativity”.  You can also do your own research; a quick Google of the term ‘No Outsiders + heteronormativity’ brings a flood of evidence highlighting that this is the method of the programme. For example, this research paper: “‘No Outsiders’: moving beyond a discourse of tolerance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools”. It is, in their view, not enough for people tolerate “homosexuality”.
When Moffat or Anderton Park School head Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson dismiss parents’ concerns of indoctrination, saying it is just about “teaching equality and tolerance”, the public understands it to mean teaching children to treat all people with equal respect, and they give their support under those false pretences. However, the programme’s method to achieve the equality they want absolutely is an indoctrination; to force every child in primary school to unquestioningly believe male-female relationships are not “normal”, to instead make every kind of imaginable “sexuality” seem normal, and to create an illusion that there are no outliers, when if that was actually true, there would be no need to change what has always naturally been considered the norm for sexually reproducing creatures.
It makes absolute sense that this programme is the LGBTQ+ method to reach an understandably desirable goal; it is the most logical approach. However, it is simply too big of an ask to expect the community to accept social engineering of our sexual norms and replace them with other people’s norms. We need to say, “we understand but I’m sorry we simply cannot accommodate this request”.
‘No Outsiders’ is just Key Stage 1 in Queering Society
After the groundwork in making suggestable primary age children doubt so-called “heterosexuality” has been done by ‘No Outsiders’, the wider programme is continued in high school and by the media. The practical advice on issues like how to make anal “sex” more pleasurable is already given in some compulsory high school sex education classes, backed up by media outlets such as the youth-specific BBC Three. They have long been encouraging same-sex experimentation with a multitude of articles and programming, promoting it as healthy and essential to discover “who you really are”, explicitly telling youth to try “gay sex” in case they miss their true self, and that:
“When it comes to sexuality, there’s never been a more exciting time to be alive. Straight, gay, pansexual, asexual, transsexual, hetero-flexible, bisexual; the endless list of sexual identities surely indicates society is heading in an ever-more inclusive direction, right? Perhaps we’re finally moving towards a time where people are less afraid to live a life that reflects who they really are.” 
A recent YouGov poll,  discovered that the efforts of programmes like ‘No Outsiders’ and the media onslaught are having the desired effect. While 96% of over 60s said they were “heterosexual”, only 83% of under 24s did. Only 1% of over 60s identified as “gay” or “lesbian” compared to 10% of under 24s. The question arises: is this a giant leap of progress liberating humanity’s latent so-called “homosexuality” or is it merely the taking away of confidence in people’s “heterosexuality” – a new confusion? The clue is the startling lack of certainty over their sexuality. 92% of heterosexual over 60s said they were “completely heterosexual”, while only 55% of heterosexual under 24-year-olds were as certain of their “heterosexuality”. The headline from the BBC Three article about this data had a celebratory feel: “It’s OK guys, just admit it – half of you are not 100% straight”. And they are not stopping there:
“…despite the significant shift in numbers of younger people identifying as something other than heterosexual, there still seems to be one area of sexual activity where the shift in attitudes are lagging behind – men experimenting with men.” 
“Lagging behind” is the key phrase here, ‘more progress to be made’ then. It should be clear ‘No Outsiders’ is not about teaching “heterosexual” children to accept a little diversity; it is part of a wider drive to a “queer” society – as they freely admit when not in front of a camera – by “queering primary schools” to specifically teach children that they are on a confusing spectrum of “sexuality”, a theory invented less than 20 years ago and being made up by fringe academic-looking activists as they go along.
Can Same-sex Attraction be Encouraged?
Any doubter of the programme will be challenged with the question, “So do you think it’s possible to make a child gay?” This is misdirection when the term they use is “queering primary schools”, and clearly it is proving possible to convince many people to identify as some type of “queer sexuality” by pushing them to place great significance on any fleeting same-sex attraction that they might occasionally feel. In fact, it is not even true to say it is impossible to make a child have same-sex attraction. Boys whose first sexual experience is abuse by a male are known to have an increased likelihood of later experiencing same-sex attraction and identifying as gay.  Therefore, a person’s first sexual experience could be key; if it is with the same sex, it could form a pattern, a phenomenon called “homosexual imprinting”. This extract from an article published by the American Academy of Paediatrics shows how convoluted earliest sexuality usually is.
“Attraction occurs in late childhood/early adolescence and can precede or occur concurrently with a first romance or first sexual experience. It is not uncommon for adolescents to experience same-sex attractions; in fact, most gay youth experience opposite-sex attractions, sometimes before same-sex attractions. Previous studies report that more than 80% of same-sex–attracted girls and 60% of the boys acknowledged opposite-sex attractions.” 
When a number of children will experience same-sex attraction, the number choosing to identify as “gay” could be made to vary, depending on how attractive “being gay” is made to seem. In the child’s years before sexual attraction, when boys find girls annoying and ‘yucky’ and vice-versa, the books shown to the class describe “gay marriage” as between two best friends who want to spend the rest of their lives having fun together. This will encourage a pre-sexual child to idealise a same-sex lifestyle before opposite-sex attraction is a factor within them to sway their choice.
Writing this, I can imagine some people repeatedly thinking “so what if they want to be with the same-sex?” The point is why should they, from five-years-old, be artificially and repeatedly pointed towards same-sex relationships? Why not let children witness the world that is actually around them and allow nature to take its course? This brings me onto what the lessons contain.
Which ‘No Outsiders’ books the school uses varies from school to school, but one of the books Moffat recommends, ‘Prince Henry’, is a story of a prince whose father tries to arrange a marriage by inviting suitable matches for him to consider.  The book celebrates Henry going against his father’s wishes and marrying his male servant with whom, over preceding pages, he “had become very good friends, did everything together and shared the same interests”. The ‘No Outsiders’ programme suggests this book for Key Stage 2 children (7-years-old and above).  Children of this age have little concept of sexual attraction and the book makes no mention of sexual attraction being a pre-requisite or factor in choosing who to “marry and spend the rest of your life with”. The inevitable take away is that the friend each child in the class is closest to at that time – their best friend – would obviously be a good candidate for a life partner. As the children are still “asexual” beings and no sexual acts are shown, there is nothing to steer them away from thinking marriage between friends of the same sex is merely a continuation of their current status of best friends. It is not hard to imagine girls especially being pleased with the idea of spending the rest of their lives with their ‘BFF’ (best friend forever).
A commonly used book ‘And Tango Makes Three’,  is about two male penguins raising a chick. On the surface, it is innocent stuff, neither in the book nor in reality, does any “gay sex” occur, but still penguins have long been considered “gay icons” for occasional, usually short term, same-sex pairing behaviour. The reality has been found to not be as LGBTQ+ affirming as hoped. A lack of females causes them to pair with a male and practice flirting, nest building, and egg protecting until they can find a female partner.  They are not “gay” in any sense but are again used to portray a desexualised same-sex marriage. Ironically, giving them a chick to raise – used as an example of gay adoption in class discussions – diverts the penguins from otherwise finding a female mate. In the ‘CHIPS’ lesson plan, suggested discussion with the Year Two class (six to seven-year-olds) includes:
“Roy and Silo are two male penguins who are in love. What is the name for two men who love each other? (gay men). Do Roy and Silo affect the other penguins in any way? Do they make other penguins gay? (Of course not! You can’t make someone gay – it’s just the way some people are)…” 
The take away for a six-year-old who does not have a broad understanding of the love under discussion, but recognises the closeness of the penguins in the pictures being similar to how they are with their best friend, is that the words ‘love’ and ‘gay’ could clearly apply to them.
The next book in the ‘CHIPS’ programme, recommended to be read a week later, is ‘King and King’, where, much like ‘Prince Henry’, a prince is encouraged to get married to who is considered suitable by his mother. He tells his mother, “I’ll marry. I must say though I’ve never cared much for princesses”.  Many six-year-olds are likely to identify with this, as many boys will have ‘annoying’ sisters who dress up as princesses and the last thing they could imagine is choosing to spend their lives with someone like that, rather than with their best friends. Two princes would have so much more fun. To reinforce the fun involved, the role-play involves the children performing a full gay wedding in the classroom including children as the “registrar, best man (for both grooms), photographer, witness etc”.  Discussion advised is as follows:
“Are there any other fairy tales where a prince marries a prince and they live happily ever after? Why not? Could a princess marry a princess and live happily ever after? Of course! Note: if someone brings up how they can have children open it out to the group. Could they adopt? Maybe one of the princes already has a child. Note: There is a sequel book “King and King and family” where the two kings adopt a little girl. Do the king and king look unhappy about being gay? No. Is anyone calling them names or making them feel unwelcome? Of course not.” 
Same-sex marriage could be an extremely easy sell to pre-pubescent children. If around 50% might have some same-sex attraction thoughts as they grow, it is not hard to imagine what could happen next when they get to that age. Even after adults have been leading a so-called “heterosexual” life, statistics of life in prison show up to 75% of women and a high percentage of men have same-sex relationships when in a situation where it is normalised.  In their early years of burgeoning sexual maturity, a child who has been, for years, repeatedly encouraged to believe a same-sex lifestyle could be for them will have much easier access to same-sex experimentation because regulations and parents do not keep same-sex children apart during sleepovers, camping trips, school trips etc. On the last page of ‘King and King’, the two boys are shown kissing. The children learnt that to have affection for a best friend is called “love” and that they are “gay”; they are shown that their relationship is affirmed by kissing. Is it any surprise that part of the complaint of the Birmingham parents was because two nine-year-old boys were seen kissing after the class at a school? Presumably to affirm that they are best friends, or “gay lovers”, as they are being taught to call it.
After seeing some of this insidious non-consensual social engineering project’s true face, take two minutes to watch how the BBC portray what I have described above. The MPs, journalists, most parents and, in fact, many teachers have only seen the public face, please share this article widely (and the second part to follow), so the truth is better known.
The second part of this ‘No Outsiders’ article will discuss the books and lessons relating to “queering” of children’s sex with gender theory.