I used the word that fit where the line is drawn for me. If that happens, it would be wrong because a teacher would be acting as an advocate rather than a teacher. That's not their job, nor is it appropriate for them to do that with other people's children.
Are you suggesting that teachers should be advocating for or promoting some sexual orientations or gender identities over others? Or should they simply be stating that LGBT people exist, just like heterosexual and cisgender people exist, and leave it at that? Why would they need to go any further than saying that in the first place?
No, it's generally not. Perhaps in some classes it has relevance, but it most definitely has nothing to do with teaching math, ELA, history, the vast majority of science classes, and on and on.
If it was a sociology class, then sure. That's relevant in the study of societies. However, sociology is not part of elementary school curriculum, and is only rarely (as an elective) part of high school curriculum.
What are you talking about? Health class isn't specifically about sex, kissing, STD, or where babies come from. It's about the human condition and physiological processes, nutrition, diseases, physical health, substance use and mental health conditions, parenting, and family functioning, among other things. If it was a psychology class, it would also be appropriate to discuss relevant factors of the human experience such as gender identity and sexual orientation.
It is not part of the curricula of the remaining courses that have nothing to do with gender or sex/attraction. This is common sense and not at all difficult to understand.
From a teacher who holds no expertise in sociology? Yes, I'm against that. Because that would be them talking out of their ass instead of staying in their lane.
If it's in a sociology class presumably taught by a qualified person, then I have no problem with that.
Who said what was a deviation?
Is anyone asking to remove their kids from classrooms for these reasons, or is this a red herring?
So what? Other than illustrating the problem of traditionalist repetition replacing critical inquiry and thought, so what?Its been referred to as the 3R's for decades
Not sure what you are ranting about. And Im not sure I care.So what? Other than illustrating the problem of traditionalist repetition replacing critical inquiry and thought, so what?
Actually I just provided scientific evidence that showed long term support for those procedures .Who has published reliable and replicated objective outcome research on these treatments for children?
There are no laws against treating people with gender dysphoria. They are free to go to therapy in all 50 states. If you were referring to children receiving gender reassignment and HRT treatments, that's not allowed in every state due to a lack of long-term research supporting the practice.
Actually they did NOT ban the practice but instead still perform gender reassignment surgery and HRT etc in a research setting.It's also why many countries around the world, including several very liberal countries, have banned the practice.
Lady Irony honors your devotion.Not sure what you are ranting about. And Im not sure I care.
I see. So no teaching of science like biology or scientific method ,Thats not true at all. Government schools should teach the 3 R's and thats it. But thats not good enough for you libs. You cant pass up the opportunity to indoctrinate a captive audience of little kids.
There you go again. Using that word "promotion" so freely. TEACHING about gay / trans / non-binary / intersex is not the same as promoting. Reading a book about a gay marriage ceremony is not the same as encouraging children to be get gay married. This is what the court case in question was about: a book about a gay wedding was presented in an elementary school classroom. I would agree with you, if they were reading the book "This Book is Gay" or "Gender Queer".Are you suggesting that teachers should be advocating for or promoting some sexual orientations or gender identities over others? Or should they simply be stating that LGBT people exist, just like heterosexual and cisgender people exist, and leave it at that? Why would they need to go any further than saying that in the first place?
Elemental School classrooms discuss sociology all the time. That's where children get their first exposure.If it was a sociology class, then sure. That's relevant in the study of societies. However, sociology is not part of elementary school curriculum, and is only rarely (as an elective) part of high school curriculum.
I never said it was specifically about sex, kissing, STD, or where babies come from. "Health Class" is an umbrellas term as well.What are you talking about? Health class isn't specifically about sex, kissing, STD, or where babies come from. It's about the human condition and physiological processes, nutrition, diseases, physical health, substance use and mental health conditions, parenting, and family functioning, among other things.
That would be you. You're accusing the educational system of throwing topics about LGBTQI into unrelated subject matters.Who said what was a deviation?
You're arguing that parents should be allowed to remove kids from classrooms, if the topic contradicts their beliefs. The question is how far do you take that?Is anyone asking to remove their kids from classrooms for these reasons, or is this a red herring?
That's exactly my point about the problematic nature of the ruling.If parents can opt their kids out of LGBTQ books because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, then they should also be able to opt out of other things as well such as evolution, geology, sex education and reproductive health, anything related to morals or ethics, anything involving religious content, etc. Actually, I feel like you can make a case that literally anything you teach in school might conflict with someone's religious beliefs one way or another. If a parent wants to opt out of these things then they should do homeschooling or send their kids to a private school that teaches things that aligns more with their beliefs. That is completely within their right if they don't like what public education teaches.
If a depiction of an LGBTQ relationship can be seen as "the government imposing and mandating a moral philosophy with religious implications" then a depiction of an interracial or interfaith relationship can be seen as that as well if their religion objects or condemns those things.The characters aren’t the issue in this case. The issue is whether or not the government can impose and mandate a moral philosophy with religious implication on children in a compulsory setting. And the answer is NO.
A win for parents. They have rights.
—————
Supreme Court backs parents seeking to opt their kids out of LGBTQ books in elementary schools
Parents sued Montgomery County, Maryland, schools after it said they couldn't opt their children out of exposure to LGBTQ books in the classroom.www.nbcnews.com
The biggest takeaway I get from your posts is that while you say you support the acknowledgement but oppose promoting transgenders,
you don't call out posters
who consider acknowledgement a form of promotion.
You support parents who oppose acknowledgement, a position you oppose.
I think he is saying it that he wants all children to read Gender Queer, but I'm not certainNot sure what you are ranting about. And Im not sure I care.
Actually I just provided scientific evidence that showed long term support for those procedures .
If you’d like more education on the subject here is another one
“Gender-affirming surgery is a durable treatment that improves overall patient well-being. High patient satisfaction, improved dysphoria, and reduced mental health comorbidities persist decades after GAS without any reported patient regret.”
Long-term Outcomes After Gender-Affirming Surgery: 40-Year Follow-up Study - PubMed
Gender-affirming surgery is a durable treatment that improves overall patient well-being. High patient satisfaction, improved dysphoria, and reduced mental health comorbidities persist decades after GAS without any reported patient regret.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Actually they did NOT ban the practice but instead still perform gender reassignment surgery and HRT etc in a research setting.
The issue was in some countries whether the process of determining whether gender care was appropriately rigorous.
Here in the states the process is much more rigorous than it was becoming in other countries like the uk.
Personally, I don't think Pre-Schoolers should be dealing with sex and sexuality at all. No "day care" personnel should be raising ANYTHING beyond this:
Even then only if the kids ask about the differences between boys and girls. Otherwise, NO "indoctrination" of literally innocent minds on all this sex/gender fluid crap beyond the obvious differences the video identifies between typical boys and girls.
I think he is saying it that he wants all children to read Gender Queer, but I'm not certain
Lets have an honest conversation about what is and isn't appropriate to discuss with children at different ages
Why do leftists take it upon themselves to act like the parent of other people's children?
Liberals would never do that.
There you go again. Using that word "promotion" so freely. TEACHING about gay / trans / non-binary / intersex is not the same as promoting.
Reading a book about a gay marriage ceremony is not the same as encouraging children to be get gay married.
This is what the court case in question was about: a book about a gay wedding was presented in an elementary school classroom.
I would agree with you, if they were reading the book "This Book is Gay" or "Gender Queer".
Elemental School classrooms discuss sociology all the time. That's where children get their first exposure.
I never said it was specifically about sex, kissing, STD, or where babies come from. "Health Class" is an umbrellas term as well.
"Health Class?" We're not talking about sex, kissing, STD, or where babies from, we're talking about people living in society.
Within the educational system, topics and subject matters can overlap. History class can also be a math lesson as well. If you're learning about psychology, you will need to learn about math, history, English, and sociology.
That would be you. You're accusing the educational system of throwing topics about LGBTQI into unrelated subject matters.
You're arguing that parents should be allowed to remove kids from classrooms, if the topic contradicts their beliefs. The question is how far do you take that?
^^^ A post just dripping with tolerance.Decisions like this merely confirm what a hateful religion and what hateful people many Christians are.
Nothing wrong with adults mutilating their own bodies or taking harmful unapproved hormone blockers. But we won’t be allowing this nonsense and child abuse for much longer among children.Actually I just provided scientific evidence that showed long term support for those procedures .
If you’d like more education on the subject here is another one
“Gender-affirming surgery is a durable treatment that improves overall patient well-being. High patient satisfaction, improved dysphoria, and reduced mental health comorbidities persist decades after GAS without any reported patient regret.”
Long-term Outcomes After Gender-Affirming Surgery: 40-Year Follow-up Study - PubMed
Gender-affirming surgery is a durable treatment that improves overall patient well-being. High patient satisfaction, improved dysphoria, and reduced mental health comorbidities persist decades after GAS without any reported patient regret.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Actually they did NOT ban the practice but instead still perform gender reassignment surgery and HRT etc in a research setting.
The issue was in some countries whether the process of determining whether gender care was appropriately rigorous.
Here in the states the process is much more rigorous than it was becoming in other countries like the uk.
distorted, contorted, hell outright lies, and inflaming rhetoric
Decisions like this merely confirm what a hateful religion and what hateful people many Christians are.
I am not sure if I understand your response. "Bias over other things"? That still doesn't make sense to me.Yes, because there's a difference between promoting, as in showing bias for one thing over others, and simply stating something as factual.
This is common sense, of course, and not at all difficult to comprehend.
You were defending the SCOTUS decision.Didn't say it was.
Who is "my side"?Others on your side don't agree with us on that issue.
Yes, I think health and sex education classes should ideally teach about LGBTQI issues.Then why, in response to me saying that health class is an appropriate place to discuss orientation and identity, did you say this:
As I correctly pointed out, health class covers a wide range of elements regarding people living in society, health issues, mental health, and so on. Therefore it's an appropriate curriculum to cover gender and sexual issues.
Sociology is taught in every grade.Sociology is not part of an elementary school curriculum. One doesn't even have the option of taking a sociology class until high school at the earliest.
Give me examples of this happening.Just stop with these silly gaslighting posts. It's hilarious, but ultimately pathetic.
Are you aware of the Don't Say Gay bills in Florida? They tried to ban books about Roberto Clemente and Rosa Parks because of race.Do you have any slippery slope examples that are actually happening in real life, or are we still talking about hypotheticals that have never happened and probably never will?
I am not sure if I understand your response. "Bias over other things"? That still doesn't make sense to me.
You were defending the SCOTUS decision.
Who is "my side"?
I am a registered Republican and hold moderate beliefs.
Yes, I think health and sex education classes should ideally teach about LGBTQI issues.
Sociology is taught in every grade.
Give me examples of this happening.
Are you aware of the Don't Say Gay bills in Florida? They tried to ban books about Roberto Clemente and Rosa Parks because of race.
Judge dismisses lawsuit that said teaching evolution was 'forcing' kids to accept atheism
A federal judge in Indiana dismissed a lawsuit filed by parents who argued the school should be banned from teaching evolution because it amounts to the state coercing students into accepting atheism.lawandcrime.com
Where is the line? Are we purely about sex education or can they opt out of other programs?
How tolerant are Christians, especially conservative or evangelicals, of others? They deserve that same amount of tolerance that they extend to others.^^^ A post just dripping with tolerance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?