Aims: The present article seeks to explore the historical context of relationships and sex education (RSE) and examine the positioning of 'No Outsiders' within this. Consideration is given to the credibility of arguments against the implementation of No Outsiders in education settings and examination of whether diversity strands of 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' deserve the disproportionate amount attention they receive. Method: The paper utilises Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development (1950, 1963) to interpret the capacity of understanding of children and young people (CYP) in relation to an RSE curriculum. Contemporary research outlines the need for an environment which enables exploration. Further consideration deconstructs the argument for childhood innocence as a reason for not providing an informed RSE curriculum. Findings: The paper reports on the inherent difficulties of delivering an RSE curriculum, which may require the reconciliation and compromise of personal and societal values. Equally, there is a clear need for schools, institutions and society to remain steadfast and resolute in the face of discriminatory views. Limitations: The challenges in unifying groups who divide themselves on core issues is recognised, however a legislative backdrop frames the foundation for how this can be achieved. Conclusions: The 'No Outsiders in Our School' resource offers a fresh approach to the teaching of relationships education in primary schools (Moffat, 2015). Despite its seemingly harmonious early existence, the programme has suffered significant scrutiny, precipitating protests, vilification and condemnation by some sections of society. Matters of sexual orientation and gender reassignment deserve equal recognition as protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010). Too often, the legitimacy of these protected characteristics are questioned or presented as 'other' within the context of equality. The move towards a more inclusive RSE curriculum should be brave in its embodiment of legislative policy.