EXPOSE: How UN Agencies are inserting sexuality education & gender ideology into Sri Lankan schools 

 

The Pattern seen worldwide is now on Sri Lankan soil

Across the West, gender ideology and early sexuality teaching are now facing major reversals due to:
• child mental-health damage,
• parental backlash,
• confusion created among young children,
• the explosion of gender distress cases,
• the rise of irreversible medical harm.

 

Yet UNFPA, UNICEF, UNESCO and WHO continue pushing the same failed model into developing nations — through funded projects, teacher training, and disguised curriculum wording.

The same failed gender and sexuality programs causing mental health crises in Western countries are now being introduced in Sri Lanka through UN-backed teacher training and NGO programs.

 

Sri Lanka is now in Phase 3 of their global model:

teacher training → pilot districts → curriculum integration.

 

The Camouflage Strategy — The Core of the Deception

 

UN agencies never begin with the words “gender ideology” or “Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE).” knowing the opposition by parents, religious leaders & entities concerned about children.

 

Instead, they use soft, harmless-sounding terms that appear culturally acceptable but are designed to contain the same content once embedded.

 

Internationally known camouflage terms include:

Notice how locals tapped to roll out the programs are also using these terms.

Their usage immediately exposes their allegiance.

 

• Life-skills education
• Skills for wellbeing
• Healthy relationships
• Gender-transformative pedagogy
• Body autonomy
• Inclusion & diversity
• Menstrual health & body literacy
• Adolescent development
• Safe and enabling school environments
• Youth empowerment
• Social-emotional learning
• Digital citizenship
• Violence prevention (GBV)

 

Each of these terms links directly back to UNESCO’s International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (ITGSE) — the global blueprint for CSE.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260770  (UNESCO – ITGSE)

 

Thus, what is presented as “life skills” contains:
• gender norms,
• identity,
• attraction/orientation,
• pleasure,
• relationships,
• rights-based sexuality topics. — but in reality once approved the teachers will teach about masturbation, using condoms, early sexual experimentation etc.

 

This is how CSE infiltrates curricula without announcing itself.

This is why UN agencies must be questioned on why they are involved in curriculum design for Sri Lanka at all.

Chronological Timeline: The Sri Lankan insertion took place in a clear sequence

 

2014

• IPPF CSE Framework (2014):

“Teaching about sexual pleasure and masturbation is essential for adolescents’ understanding of sexuality” (p. 12).

 

2018–2021 — Global Blueprint Finalized

• UNESCO, UNFPA and WHO publish and promote the revised ITGSE.
  This is the single most influential document behind every Comprehensive Sexuality Education project worldwide (note not sex education but sexuality education)
• “Education should address gender identity, sexual orientation, and sexual rights of adolescents” (p. 22) ITGSE (UNESCO, 2018)

 

 

2019–2021 — South Asian Push Begins

 

• UNESCO CSE Regional Advocacy:

Sri Lanka participates in regional consultations.
This is the first point of penetration.

https://bangkok.unesco.org/theme/comprehensive-sexuality-education

 

• Regional briefings encourage governments to adopt “age-appropriate CSE,” framed under:
  life skills,
  • adolescent wellbeing,
  • prevention of violence,
  • gender equality.

 

• Notice how the promoters are regularly using the term “age-appropriate”.
• Sri Lanka participates in multiple consultations — the first point of entry.

 

2022 — Critical Year: Direct evidence of Teacher Training

 

UNFPA Sri Lanka’s Annual Report 2022 confirms:

• “554 teachers from six districts were trained in comprehensive sexuality education and life-skills.”
• UNFPA Annual Report 2022 – https://srilanka.unfpa.org/en/publications/unfpa-sri-lanka-annual-report-2022

 

This single sentence is the MOST IMPORTANT fact.
It proves CSE is already in the school system via teacher training.

 

2022–2024 — NGO & District Pilot Programmes expand

• FPA Sri Lanka (IPPF member), UN-funded NGOs and private donors run:
  youth SRHR (Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights) clubs,
  • school sessions,
  • vocational institute programmes,
  • digital SRHR literacy projects.

 

All disguised under:

• life skills
• health promotion
• adolescent empowerment
• gender equality

 

IPPF/UNFPA Youth SRHR Program

• https://www.fpasrilanka.org/en/youth (SRHR initiatives by FPA SL features transgender activist documentary)
• https://www.ippf.org/sites/default/files/policy_handbook_nov_2014_english.pdf (IPPF Policy Handbook 2014 includes CSE)

 

 

2023–2024 — Curriculum Framing Phase

 

UNICEF & UNESCO push frameworks designed to insert CSE without naming it:

• Gender-transformative education
• Inclusive learning environments
• Safe-school frameworks
• Child-friendly schools

 

These frameworks globally contain hidden CSE modules.

 

https://www.unicef.org/education/gender-transformative-education (UNICEF Gender Transformative Education)

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384300 (UNESCO Safe & Inclusive Schools)

 

 

SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS (SRHR) is a Trojan Horse —

 

What it really contains

SRHR is a Trojan Horse. UNFPA, WHO, IPPF documents include:

• pleasure-based sex education
• masturbation
• sexual orientation & gender identity
• adolescent “sexual rights”
• exploration of sexual behaviours

 

https://www.ippf.org/resource/ippf-framework-comprehensive-sexuality-education

The IPPF CSE Framework explicitly instructs teachers to cover ‘sexual pleasure’ (IPPF, 2014, p. 12)

 

Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) is presented by UN agencies (UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO) as a harmless health or rights package.

But SRHR is actually a broad political and ideological framework used to insert highly sensitive sexual, gender, and identity content into policies, schools, teacher training, and health systems without openly naming it.

This is why SRHR is called a Trojan Horse — the term hides what is inside.

 

What SRHR actually Includes (Hidden Contents)

 

Below is the internationally accepted content of SRHR according to UNFPA, WHO, UNESCO, and IPPF documentation.

These are not assumptions — these are their own definitions.

 

1. Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE)

• “Pleasure-based” sex education
• Promotion of “sexual rights” for adolescents
• Content related to masturbation, sexual behaviours, and “exploring sexual identities”
• Materials encouraging acceptance of all sexual orientations & gender identities
• Concepts that normalize adolescent experimentation and “consent” narratives

 

2. Gender Ideology (under “rights”, “equality”, “non-discrimination”)

Inserted under neutral terms like:

• “gender norms”
• “gender stereotypes”
• “SOGI / SOGIESC”
• “inclusion”
• “identity-based discrimination”

 

These terms are used to introduce:

• gender fluidity
• multiple gender identities
• self-identification concepts
• rejection of biological sex in favour of identity

 

3. Abortion Activism (under ‘reproductive rights’)

• Liberalizing abortion laws
• “Access to safe abortion as a right”
• Training health workers on abortion services
• Removing parental consent barriers
• Advocacy inside schools through “health information”

 

4. Contraception for Minors (under ‘reproductive health services’)

• Contraceptives to adolescents without parental knowledge
• Emergency contraception
• Referrals through school health programs

 

5. LGBTQI+ Activism (under ‘rights’ and ‘non-discrimination’)

• Protection for sexual orientation & gender identity (SOGI)
• Policy reforms to recognise gender identity
• Gender-affirming environment in schools
• Training teachers to challenge “binary norms”

 

6. Legal & Policy Changes (under ‘rights-based approach’)

 

SRHR is used to push:

• anti-discrimination laws including gender identity
• school policy reforms
• health-sector guidelines
• repeal of “restrictive” laws (such as Sri Lanka’s Penal Code 365/365A)

 

Why SRHR is Deceptive

Because it never uses the words “gender ideology”, “sexuality training for minors”, “gender identity conversion”, or “abortion rights”.

 

Instead it hides everything under:

• “health”
• “rights”
• “inclusion”
• “equality”
• “wellbeing”
• “safe spaces”
• “life skills”

 

This allows SRHR to be inserted into school textbooks, teacher manuals, youth programs, and health policies without public consent.

 

Camouflage Term	Surface Meaning	Hidden Content / Ideology
SRHR	Health & Rights	CSE, gender ideology, sexual orientation, abortion rights
Life Skills	Personal development	Masturbation, sexual behaviours, consent narratives
Gender-Transformative Education	Equality & fairness	Gender fluidity, rejection of biological sex
Safe Schools	Student protection	LGBTQ+ activism, SOGI inclusion, gender identity recognition
Youth Empowerment	Leadership skills	Sexual rights, advocacy for reproductive freedom
Digital Citizenship	Online safety	Exposure to sexual content, online SRHR promotion
Bodily Autonomy	Self-care	Reproductive health services without parental consent

 

The Modus Operandi:

How UN Agencies Insert Gender Ideology into Schools, Step by Step

 

This is the complete mechanism, used worldwide and now visible in Sri Lanka.

 

Step 1 — Use of Soft Terms (“Camouflage Phase”)

UN agencies avoid the word “CSE” because it triggers public resistance.
Instead they introduce broad terms that later allow sexuality/gender content to be added quietly.

 

Key terms used in Sri Lanka:

• Life-skills
• Gender-transformative education
• Safe schools
• Adolescent wellbeing
• SRHR (sexual & reproductive health & rights)
• Menstrual hygiene & body autonomy
• Healthy relationships
• Youth-friendly services
• Digital safety and citizenship

 

These are inserted into:
• policy briefs
• teacher guidelines
• donor project reports
• trainings
• workshops

 

Step 2 — Train Teachers FIRST (Cascade Model)

 

This is always Step 2 globally.

First train teachers → then children.

UNFPA confirms: 554 teachers trained across 6 districts on “CSE + life skills.”
This is a capacity-building pipeline.

 

Teachers trained will later:
• deliver lessons,
• influence school clubs,
• modify existing subjects,
• accept NGO-led student sessions.

 

These teachers will then influence students and school culture, embedding content without parental knowledge

The public never sees the training manuals.

 

Step 3 — Insert NGOs into Schools (Community Delivery Model)

 

NGOs (especially IPPF affiliates) enter schools under:
• “health promotion,”
• “adolescent development,”
• “menstrual awareness,”
• “gender equality,”
• “rights-based awareness.”

 

They then introduce CSE topics in small doses.

This also matches the recent Tourism Authority incident — NGOs quietly training an entire sector to normalize LGBTQIA+ ideology.

 

Step 4 — Pilot Districts (Test Before National Rollout)

 

UN agencies NEVER start nationally.
They pilot in 4–6 districts, gather data, then argue:
“Students benefited — therefore scale up.”

 

This happened with:
• the 554 teachers,
• youth SRHR clubs,
• district workshops with FPA Sri Lanka.

Once pilots are established, integration becomes “evidence-based.”

 

Step 5 — Curriculum Integration (Final Objective)

 

After enough teachers and NGOs are trained, UN agencies quietly move to:
• influence curriculum revisions,
• provide “technical assistance,”
• supply sample lesson plans,
• insert modules into Health Science, Life Skills, Civics, and Social Studies.

 

The wording in syllabi remains soft…
…but the content aligns with ITGSE (CSE blueprint).

This is the final takeover stage.

 

Why this is deceptive — The Core Argument

 

The deception lies in:

1. Changing the label but keeping the same content
2. Using harmless terminology to hide controversial concepts
3. Training teachers first — before parents are aware
4. Entering schools through foreign-funded NGOs — bypassing national approval
5. Piloting in districts where resistance is low or oversight is weak
6. Gradual integration — so no one notices the shift
7. International agencies sitting inside curriculum committees & influencing content
8. Funding tied to acceptance of ideology forcing Govt to compromise welfare of Sri Lanka’s children for Govt funding.

 

This is not transparent.
This is not democratic.
This undermines sovereignty.
And this exposes Sri Lankan children to ideological experimentation.

 

The Silence of Authorities: A Disturbing Failure

The Ministry of Education, NIE, and NEC have a legal and moral duty to protect children from unapproved curriculum content.

The Ministry of Education, NIE, and NEC are legally bound by the Constitution of Sri Lanka and Penal Code to protect children from unapproved curriculum content

 

All officials are constitutionally and legally obligated to protect children.

Failure to act constitutes dereliction of duty under the Constitution and Penal Code, potentially exposing them to legal consequences.

They cannot keep silent claiming they are simply doing their job.

 

Yet none have:

• published the teacher-training materials
• disclosed the training approval process
• provided the names/districts of the 554 teachers
• clarified curriculum changes
• revealed NGO entry mechanisms
• consulted parents or religious bodies

 

Parliament has been silent.
Media has been silent.

Even the teachers taught who should have realized the dangers are silent.
No oversight committees have intervened.

 

When agencies quietly influence curricula while sitting inside drafting committees, this becomes foreign ideological capture.

 

A National Duty to Expose the Process

This exposé has now documented:
• the exact chronology
• the global-to-local pipeline
• the camouflage terminology
• the NGO entry mechanisms
• the teacher training evidence
• the district-based delivery
• the curriculum integration strategy
• the silence of local authorities

 

Sri Lanka must urgently demand:
* transparency
* release of all training materials
* full disclosure of curriculum edits
* removal of foreign agencies from drafting committees
* public consultations
* protection of cultural, religious and constitutional values
* safeguarding of children

 

If the West is reversing gender ideology because of its proven harm,
Sri Lanka must not allow those same failed experiments to be imposed on our children through deceptive wording and foreign funding.

 

Multiple Trojan Horses being rolled exposing Sri Lankan children to ideologically-driven experimentation” or “potential harm to mental and social wellbeing.

 

UN agencies use a portfolio of entry points, each appearing neutral or beneficial:

 

1. SRHR – Sexual & Reproductive Health Rights (IPPF CSE framework)

• Officially: “health and rights”
• In practice: includes CSE content, sexual behaviors, sexual rights for adolescents, LGBTQI+ identity concepts, contraception, abortion information.

 

2. Life Skills / Skills for Wellbeing (UNESCO ITGSE)

• Appears harmless: communication, decision-making, wellbeing
• Actually includes: consent, relationships, gender identity, sexual health, and pleasure-based education.

 

3. Gender-Transformative Education / Gender Norms & Equality (UNICEF Gender Transformative Education)

• Neutral: promoting equality
• Actually includes: challenging biological sex, gender fluidity, multiple gender identities, self-identification concepts.

 

4. Safe and Enabling School Environments / Safe Schools (UNESCO Safe & Inclusive Schools)

• Neutral: bullying prevention, safe schools
• Actually includes: SOGI inclusivity, LGBTQI+ acceptance, gender ideology, “safe spaces” for sexual exploration.

 

5. Youth Empowerment / Adolescent Development (UNESCO ITGSE)

• Neutral: leadership, self-confidence
• Actually includes: sexual rights, CSE modules, exploration of sexual behaviors.

 

6. Digital Citizenship / Digital Safety (UNESCO ITGSE Digital Citizenship section)

• Neutral: internet safety
• Actually includes: sexual content online, SRHR information, LGBTQI+ advocacy, “body autonomy” online.

 

7. Health / Bodily Autonomy / Body Literacy / Menstrual Health

• Neutral: personal hygiene, health knowledge
• Actually includes: masturbation, sexual pleasure, consent, body exploration, gender identity.

 

8. Healthy Relationships / Social-Emotional Learning (IPPF CSE Framework)

• Neutral: communication, friendship
• Actually includes: sexual relationships, consent, LGBTQI+ relationships, gender norms.

 

9. Violence Prevention / GBV Awareness (UNESCO ITGSE)

• Neutral: anti-bullying, anti-violence
• Actually includes: sexual harassment, gender-based power dynamics, challenging traditional sex roles.

 

10. Inclusion & Diversity / Rights-Based Awareness (UNESCO ITGSE)

• Neutral: anti-discrimination
• Actually includes: SOGI inclusion, sexual orientation acceptance, gender ideology, legal reform advocacy.

 

WARNING: Trojan Horses in Schools
CSE & Gender Ideology are being sneaked in under seemingly harmless modules:

SRHR • Life Skills • Gender-Transformative Education • Safe Schools • Youth Empowerment • Digital Citizenship • Health & Body Autonomy • Healthy Relationships • Violence Prevention • Inclusion & Diversity

By UN/IPPF/UNFPA/FPASriLanka/UNESCO/UNICEF/WHO & Education & Health Ministry.

 

What looks like “wellbeing” or “rights” is actually Comprehensive Sexuality Education and gender ideology.

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge