NJ to teach gender lessons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why we emphasizing feeling like a boy or girl at age 6. I really thought as a society we were moving toward not emphasizing that there were “boy” or “girl” activities, feelings and toys for kids. These lessons seem like a step backwards into segregating into gender stereotypes.

This x1000. It’s absurd and disturbing. Wth does “feel like a girl or a boy” mean to 1st grader? But I also agree it can’t be discussed here. I think there will be a backlash.

+1 democrat
I swear to god I think it’s an effort to lose. Dems hate winning.

+100

I agree. While I think that it's important to teach students about tolerance for LGBT people, I'm not supportive of what Democrats are doing. Their intense focus on gender identity will only lead to backlash, which will ultimately harm the LGBT community.

Waitaminnit - WHOSE intense focus on gender identity? Are you joking? Because from where I stand the "intense focus" is coming from only one direction, and it ain't the Democrats.

DP. You must be joking. Talk about loon...

We're not the ones having panic attacks on TV and storming school board meetings and the like. Face it, this is just the latest grossly overblown Shiny Object for you people to freak out about now that CRT has faded from the headlines. Your Krazy Klown Kult leaders need a new bugaboo to distract you from the fact that they have Absolutely. No. Actual. Ideas. and this week it's schools acknowledging that LGBT+ kids are a thing that exists in the real world.

Next week: Who knows? Left handed people being Secret Communists? Sure, why not? It's as plausible as any of the other garbage you dolts happily slurp down at the feet of your masters.

You sound completely unhinged. You will see how wrong and in the minority you are and that is not some fringe RWNJs looking for a distraction in about 7 months. Most people want teachers to teach the basics, not waste valuable instruction time on left wing fringe SJW BS. Talk about Krazy Klown Kult - the left and their cause du Jour is it, and they must capture the 5 yo crowd to brainwash for the next 12+ years because any reasonable thinking person above the age of 12 will reject all this nonsense.

+100
Most Americans don't want their children exposed to this crap at age 6.

“Most Americans” don’t live in NJ. Besides, nobody’s getting hurt by this. They might even turn out a few more female STEM professionals by tackling insidious gender discrimination early on. Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Their heads don’t explode when you suggest that white, Christian, Herero, natural born men supremacy isn’t the natural order of the world.

What do you mean nobody's getting hurt by this. The whole resistance to this movement for kids (now the push is for kids as young as 3) is because it IS harmful to kids. We know that 80 to 94% of children (depending on the study) will identify with their birth gender by the time they are in their early 20s, so yes, filling a 3 or even 6 yo's head full of confusing narratives about how they were born in the wrong body because a girl likes sports or a boy likes dolls is absurdity and, yes, HARMFUL to them. In about 15 to 20 years, let's revisit this and see what the suicide rate is amongst these mixed up kids. Then we will have a definite answer on just how harmful all of this is to them. This is aside from the fact that some rando teacher is in charge of explaining all of this to your child. It is so bizarre that people are willing to hand over every single aspect of raising their kids to the extraordinary (sarcastic) American public school system.

As far as STEM, the more gender equality a country has, the less women are in STEM. It is a paradox that has been studied from multiple angles with multiple possible conclusions, but the overall take away is that the countries with the most STEM choices available to women, the less percent of women actually choose these fields.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am over 60 years old. I remember a girl who was taunted for being a "tomboy" when I was in grade school. Believe me, 6 years old is not too young to talk about this kind of stuff. That "girl" never really met her potential in school (and later life) because of this. I doubt that parents talked about it either.

My mom was a tomboy growing up. Growing up, she always hung out with the boys, loved sports, and hated girly things. As an adult, my mom identifies as female and heterosexual.

In a lot of schools today, your mom would be encouraged to go into the ‘magic closet’ by the school teachers/administration where she would be given boys clothing to change into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am over 60 years old. I remember a girl who was taunted for being a "tomboy" when I was in grade school. Believe me, 6 years old is not too young to talk about this kind of stuff. That "girl" never really met her potential in school (and later life) because of this. I doubt that parents talked about it either.

My mom was a tomboy growing up. Growing up, she always hung out with the boys, loved sports, and hated girly things. As an adult, my mom identifies as female and heterosexual.

Your mom is lucky she wasn’t a kid in today’s climate. She may have been indoctrinated into thinking she was born into the wrong body for not confirming to regressive gender stereotypes. She would have been at risk for undergoing irreversible hormone treatments and surgeries. Please check out Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier.

+1000
Nowadays, you can't just be a tomboy. There must be a deeper, underlying issue. You must be a trans-boy and you just didn't know it! No doubt liberals are deeply in favor of banning Irreversible Damage, even though it's an excellent book which sheds much-needed light on these issues.

Go away, radical feminist.

I knew things would head this way. The moment women start protecting themselves, they are dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't waste your energy. DCUM's finest think this is a fabulous thing to be teaching young children. It's baffling, to say the least, that anyone would want to sexualize children, especially second graders. I imagine these LWNJs will find out just how unpopular their wacko agenda is come election time this fall. Sure would be nice if they'd simply focus on academics for once, rather than sexual issues.

No one is sexualizing second graders. Not sure how you interpret it that way. There’s no mention of sex at all.

You don’t have little kids. This topic is not something 6 year olds are ready for FULL STOP. Even old fashioned basic sex Ed without any kid of gender discussion is not age appropriate. They are too young to understand any of it. If you said 6th GRADE you would get an entirely different response from me but 6 YEARS old is just too young.

Six years old is not too young to know proper names for body parts. It’s also not too young to know the basics of sex ed. Plenty of kids live on farms or have younger siblings and have asked relevant questions that adults have answered. Stop stigmatizing science. Furthermore, children need to be educated about privacy and taught that their bodies are their own. The good touch/bad touch lessons fall under the sex ed umbrella and that’s absolutely appropriate for six year olds.

No one is stigmatizing science FFS. Some 6 year olds are ready, some 6 year olds are not. It is not up to you or the school system to decide when they are ready or how to answer the questions they may have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am over 60 years old. I remember a girl who was taunted for being a "tomboy" when I was in grade school. Believe me, 6 years old is not too young to talk about this kind of stuff. That "girl" never really met her potential in school (and later life) because of this. I doubt that parents talked about it either.

My mom was a tomboy growing up. Growing up, she always hung out with the boys, loved sports, and hated girly things. As an adult, my mom identifies as female and heterosexual.

Your mom is lucky she wasn’t a kid in today’s climate. She may have been indoctrinated into thinking she was born into the wrong body for not confirming to regressive gender stereotypes. She would have been at risk for undergoing irreversible hormone treatments and surgeries. Please check out Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier.

LOL! Whatever, you loon.

You’re really not helping your argument. What specifically do you disagree with?

This paranoid gibberish:

...indoctrinated into thinking she was born into the wrong body for not confirming to regressive gender stereotypes. She would have been at risk for undergoing irreversible hormone treatments and surgeries. Please check out Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier.

This is exactly what’s happening. You’re simply unaware if you don’t believe it’s true. Go check out r/detrans for some stories.

Yes, little Suzy wear overalls one day and next thing you know, her teacher has issued a legally enforceable order for their (NO GENDERED LANGUAGE ALLOWED!) parents to call them Steve and book the next available appojntment at the local transition surgeon's office. That's totally how it works.

Loon.

Glad to hear you agree that I'm crazy. So presumably you share parent’s anger when their kids change gender identity in school and the teachers and administrators deliberately hide it from the parents?

I dunno, do you share that kid's terror and anger at the prospect of being beaten or thrown out like yesterday's trash if their teachers tell their parents?

You think the majority of parents would react that way? So it’s appropriate for schools to hide this information from parents as a default, without doing any due diligence with the parents first?

The school and teachers know that the parents would throw the school and teachers out like yesterday’s trash - and sue to boot - so they hide it/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why we emphasizing feeling like a boy or girl at age 6. I really thought as a society we were moving toward not emphasizing that there were “boy” or “girl” activities, feelings and toys for kids. These lessons seem like a step backwards into segregating into gender stereotypes.

This x1000. It’s absurd and disturbing. Wth does “feel like a girl or a boy” mean to 1st grader? But I also agree it can’t be discussed here. I think there will be a backlash.

+1 democrat
I swear to god I think it’s an effort to lose. Dems hate winning.

+100

I agree. While I think that it's important to teach students about tolerance for LGBT people, I'm not supportive of what Democrats are doing. Their intense focus on gender identity will only lead to backlash, which will ultimately harm the LGBT community.

Waitaminnit - WHOSE intense focus on gender identity? Are you joking? Because from where I stand the "intense focus" is coming from only one direction, and it ain't the Democrats.

DP. You must be joking. Talk about loon...

We're not the ones having panic attacks on TV and storming school board meetings and the like. Face it, this is just the latest grossly overblown Shiny Object for you people to freak out about now that CRT has faded from the headlines. Your Krazy Klown Kult leaders need a new bugaboo to distract you from the fact that they have Absolutely. No. Actual. Ideas. and this week it's schools acknowledging that LGBT+ kids are a thing that exists in the real world.

Next week: Who knows? Left handed people being Secret Communists? Sure, why not? It's as plausible as any of the other garbage you dolts happily slurp down at the feet of your masters.

You sound completely unhinged. You will see how wrong and in the minority you are and that is not some fringe RWNJs looking for a distraction in about 7 months. Most people want teachers to teach the basics, not waste valuable instruction time on left wing fringe SJW BS. Talk about Krazy Klown Kult - the left and their cause du Jour is it, and they must capture the 5 yo crowd to brainwash for the next 12+ years because any reasonable thinking person above the age of 12 will reject all this nonsense.

+100
Most Americans don't want their children exposed to this crap at age 6.

“Most Americans” don’t live in NJ. Besides, nobody’s getting hurt by this. They might even turn out a few more female STEM professionals by tackling insidious gender discrimination early on. Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Their heads don’t explode when you suggest that white, Christian, Herero, natural born men supremacy isn’t the natural order of the world.

How would promoting the concept that gender is a social construct make women inclined to work in STEM? I'm a woman in STEM and don't see the connection you're making. I don't think there's anything about femininity that is at odds with working in science.

I guess what I worry is that, because of the historical association with men and physical sciences, that women who find themselves drawn to the physical sciences may worry they "feel" like a man, if this is not taught carefully and at an age where they can understand this subtlety.

You really think someone is going to feel like their gender identity doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth solely because of their interests/strengths? That seems highly unrealistic. However, there is some research linking androgens to better performance on spatial and mathematics tasks. So it is possible that someone with a more “male” brain is good at certain STEM things AND also has a deeply held sense of self that matches up more with being male than female. That sense of self part is really hard to explain well to little kids IMO and makes more sense to introduce a little later. Most adults probably don’t even have a good understanding of the idea that “maleness” and “femaleness” in terms of identity can exist on a spectrum. At least we’re not used to thinking or talking about it on that way. But it’s been there all along — all of us knew girls who were “tomboys” and boys who were “girly”. It doesn’t mean those kids go on the be transgender or gay. Some may but most will not. There has always been a spectrum just like there’s a spectrum for introversion and extraversion for example. That’s not the same thing as saying gender doesn’t exist or that people flip back and forth as they so choose. But that spectrum has been there all along and all of us fall somewhere along it. Social influences may play a role but we can’t discount the role of exposure to hormones before we were even born and how those influence brain development — something scientists are very much still trying to understand

People who feel like their sex assigned at birth doesn’t match their gender identity usually “know” from a young age but probably can’t articulate it. Maybe telling kids this stuff earlier will help those kids? I don’t know. It aea just as likely to confuse kids who haven’t spent much time thinking about gender identity.

kids are very imaginative and playful. so yes, I can easily imagine them wondering if the fact that they like boy things means they are transgender. If you put the idea of God in their heads, they can be fiercely religiously. Kids are very suggestive. I would let them play, and wouldn't discourage them if they came up with this idea on their own, but purposefully putting it in their heads is indeed grooming.

I don't totally disagree with "grooming" but I think what schools are doing is less like what a pedophile does and more like what the US government schools did to Native American families in the 19th century. The goal is to take the children out of their families' cultures and raise them in a way that celebrates "progress" and the currently fashionable values of the dominant group in society. Still wrong.

Yes, this is 100% grooming. It is grooming kids to turn to the schools/state for the answer to everything in their life and away from the parents ideals and standards so that they can be shaped from a very young age to think a certain way.

[Anonymous]

This whole thing is like "defund the police". A really bad idea that the proposers will soon be claiming that it means anything other than what you would guess from the common sense meaning of the words. They will unfortunately learn the hard way it is a bad idea, just like Minneapolis did with defund the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why we emphasizing feeling like a boy or girl at age 6. I really thought as a society we were moving toward not emphasizing that there were “boy” or “girl” activities, feelings and toys for kids. These lessons seem like a step backwards into segregating into gender stereotypes.

This x1000. It’s absurd and disturbing. Wth does “feel like a girl or a boy” mean to 1st grader? But I also agree it can’t be discussed here. I think there will be a backlash.

+1 democrat
I swear to god I think it’s an effort to lose. Dems hate winning.

+100

I agree. While I think that it's important to teach students about tolerance for LGBT people, I'm not supportive of what Democrats are doing. Their intense focus on gender identity will only lead to backlash, which will ultimately harm the LGBT community.

Waitaminnit - WHOSE intense focus on gender identity? Are you joking? Because from where I stand the "intense focus" is coming from only one direction, and it ain't the Democrats.

DP. You must be joking. Talk about loon...

We're not the ones having panic attacks on TV and storming school board meetings and the like. Face it, this is just the latest grossly overblown Shiny Object for you people to freak out about now that CRT has faded from the headlines. Your Krazy Klown Kult leaders need a new bugaboo to distract you from the fact that they have Absolutely. No. Actual. Ideas. and this week it's schools acknowledging that LGBT+ kids are a thing that exists in the real world.

Next week: Who knows? Left handed people being Secret Communists? Sure, why not? It's as plausible as any of the other garbage you dolts happily slurp down at the feet of your masters.

You sound completely unhinged. You will see how wrong and in the minority you are and that is not some fringe RWNJs looking for a distraction in about 7 months. Most people want teachers to teach the basics, not waste valuable instruction time on left wing fringe SJW BS. Talk about Krazy Klown Kult - the left and their cause du Jour is it, and they must capture the 5 yo crowd to brainwash for the next 12+ years because any reasonable thinking person above the age of 12 will reject all this nonsense.

+100
Most Americans don't want TO PAY FOR their children exposed to this crap at age 6.

Let’s remember that WE pay THEM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't waste your energy. DCUM's finest think this is a fabulous thing to be teaching young children. It's baffling, to say the least, that anyone would want to sexualize children, especially second graders. I imagine these LWNJs will find out just how unpopular their wacko agenda is come election time this fall. Sure would be nice if they'd simply focus on academics for once, rather than sexual issues.

No one is sexualizing second graders. Not sure how you interpret it that way. There’s no mention of sex at all.

You don’t have little kids. This topic is not something 6 year olds are ready for FULL STOP. Even old fashioned basic sex Ed without any kid of gender discussion is not age appropriate. They are too young to understand any of it. If you said 6th GRADE you would get an entirely different response from me but 6 YEARS old is just too young.

Six years old is not too young to know proper names for body parts. It’s also not too young to know the basics of sex ed. Plenty of kids live on farms or have younger siblings and have asked relevant questions that adults have answered. Stop stigmatizing science. Furthermore, children need to be educated about privacy and taught that their bodies are their own. The good touch/bad touch lessons fall under the sex ed umbrella and that’s absolutely appropriate for six year olds.

No one is stigmatizing science FFS. Some 6 year olds are ready, some 6 year olds are not. It is not up to you or the school system to decide when they are ready or how to answer the questions they may have.

What six year old isn't ready to learn that adults shouldn't be touching them inappropriately or what their body parts are called? The only reason I can see to keep that information from them is so you can abuse them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't waste your energy. DCUM's finest think this is a fabulous thing to be teaching young children. It's baffling, to say the least, that anyone would want to sexualize children, especially second graders. I imagine these LWNJs will find out just how unpopular their wacko agenda is come election time this fall. Sure would be nice if they'd simply focus on academics for once, rather than sexual issues.

No one is sexualizing second graders. Not sure how you interpret it that way. There’s no mention of sex at all.

You don’t have little kids. This topic is not something 6 year olds are ready for FULL STOP. Even old fashioned basic sex Ed without any kid of gender discussion is not age appropriate. They are too young to understand any of it. If you said 6th GRADE you would get an entirely different response from me but 6 YEARS old is just too young.

Six years old is not too young to know proper names for body parts. It’s also not too young to know the basics of sex ed. Plenty of kids live on farms or have younger siblings and have asked relevant questions that adults have answered. Stop stigmatizing science. Furthermore, children need to be educated about privacy and taught that their bodies are their own. The good touch/bad touch lessons fall under the sex ed umbrella and that’s absolutely appropriate for six year olds.

No one is stigmatizing science FFS. Some 6 year olds are ready, some 6 year olds are not. It is not up to you or the school system to decide when they are ready or how to answer the questions they may have.

What six year old isn't ready to learn that adults shouldn't be touching them inappropriately or what their body parts are called? The only reason I can see to keep that information from them is so you can abuse them.

This is the third time you have tried this line of argument. Stop the gas lighting. It ISNT about good touch bad touch. That conversation can be had with all children without making ANY reference to gender identity. The NJ law is blatant. It explicitly talks about girl parts and boy parts and indicates to children that their parts are not tied to their gender. It says ABSOLUTELY nothing about good touch bad touch. So stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't waste your energy. DCUM's finest think this is a fabulous thing to be teaching young children. It's baffling, to say the least, that anyone would want to sexualize children, especially second graders. I imagine these LWNJs will find out just how unpopular their wacko agenda is come election time this fall. Sure would be nice if they'd simply focus on academics for once, rather than sexual issues.

No one is sexualizing second graders. Not sure how you interpret it that way. There’s no mention of sex at all.

You don’t have little kids. This topic is not something 6 year olds are ready for FULL STOP. Even old fashioned basic sex Ed without any kid of gender discussion is not age appropriate. They are too young to understand any of it. If you said 6th GRADE you would get an entirely different response from me but 6 YEARS old is just too young.

Six years old is not too young to know proper names for body parts. It’s also not too young to know the basics of sex ed. Plenty of kids live on farms or have younger siblings and have asked relevant questions that adults have answered. Stop stigmatizing science. Furthermore, children need to be educated about privacy and taught that their bodies are their own. The good touch/bad touch lessons fall under the sex ed umbrella and that’s absolutely appropriate for six year olds.

No one is stigmatizing science FFS. Some 6 year olds are ready, some 6 year olds are not. It is not up to you or the school system to decide when they are ready or how to answer the questions they may have.

What six year old isn't ready to learn that adults shouldn't be touching them inappropriately or what their body parts are called? The only reason I can see to keep that information from them is so you can abuse them.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or are you trying to pretend the curriculum doesn’t include the gender ideology lessons that tell young children that they might not be an actual boy or girl if they somehow don’t “feel” like one, whatever that means. That’s what parents object to. Nice attempt at obfuscating it though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't waste your energy. DCUM's finest think this is a fabulous thing to be teaching young children. It's baffling, to say the least, that anyone would want to sexualize children, especially second graders. I imagine these LWNJs will find out just how unpopular their wacko agenda is come election time this fall. Sure would be nice if they'd simply focus on academics for once, rather than sexual issues.

No one is sexualizing second graders. Not sure how you interpret it that way. There’s no mention of sex at all.

You don’t have little kids. This topic is not something 6 year olds are ready for FULL STOP. Even old fashioned basic sex Ed without any kid of gender discussion is not age appropriate. They are too young to understand any of it. If you said 6th GRADE you would get an entirely different response from me but 6 YEARS old is just too young.

Six years old is not too young to know proper names for body parts. It’s also not too young to know the basics of sex ed. Plenty of kids live on farms or have younger siblings and have asked relevant questions that adults have answered. Stop stigmatizing science. Furthermore, children need to be educated about privacy and taught that their bodies are their own. The good touch/bad touch lessons fall under the sex ed umbrella and that’s absolutely appropriate for six year olds.

No one is stigmatizing science FFS. Some 6 year olds are ready, some 6 year olds are not. It is not up to you or the school system to decide when they are ready or how to answer the questions they may have.

Why do you have to be “ready” to learn the names of parts of the body? WTH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why we emphasizing feeling like a boy or girl at age 6. I really thought as a society we were moving toward not emphasizing that there were “boy” or “girl” activities, feelings and toys for kids. These lessons seem like a step backwards into segregating into gender stereotypes.

This x1000. It’s absurd and disturbing. Wth does “feel like a girl or a boy” mean to 1st grader? But I also agree it can’t be discussed here. I think there will be a backlash.

+1 democrat
I swear to god I think it’s an effort to lose. Dems hate winning.

+100

I agree. While I think that it's important to teach students about tolerance for LGBT people, I'm not supportive of what Democrats are doing. Their intense focus on gender identity will only lead to backlash, which will ultimately harm the LGBT community.

Waitaminnit - WHOSE intense focus on gender identity? Are you joking? Because from where I stand the "intense focus" is coming from only one direction, and it ain't the Democrats.

DP. You must be joking. Talk about loon...

We're not the ones having panic attacks on TV and storming school board meetings and the like. Face it, this is just the latest grossly overblown Shiny Object for you people to freak out about now that CRT has faded from the headlines. Your Krazy Klown Kult leaders need a new bugaboo to distract you from the fact that they have Absolutely. No. Actual. Ideas. and this week it's schools acknowledging that LGBT+ kids are a thing that exists in the real world.

Next week: Who knows? Left handed people being Secret Communists? Sure, why not? It's as plausible as any of the other garbage you dolts happily slurp down at the feet of your masters.

You sound completely unhinged. You will see how wrong and in the minority you are and that is not some fringe RWNJs looking for a distraction in about 7 months. Most people want teachers to teach the basics, not waste valuable instruction time on left wing fringe SJW BS. Talk about Krazy Klown Kult - the left and their cause du Jour is it, and they must capture the 5 yo crowd to brainwash for the next 12+ years because any reasonable thinking person above the age of 12 will reject all this nonsense.

+100
Most Americans don't want their children exposed to this crap at age 6.

“Most Americans” don’t live in NJ. Besides, nobody’s getting hurt by this. They might even turn out a few more female STEM professionals by tackling insidious gender discrimination early on. Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Their heads don’t explode when you suggest that white, Christian, Herero, natural born men supremacy isn’t the natural order of the world.

How would promoting the concept that gender is a social construct make women inclined to work in STEM? I'm a woman in STEM and don't see the connection you're making. I don't think there's anything about femininity that is at odds with working in science.

I guess what I worry is that, because of the historical association with men and physical sciences, that women who find themselves drawn to the physical sciences may worry they "feel" like a man, if this is not taught carefully and at an age where they can understand this subtlety.

You really think someone is going to feel like their gender identity doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth solely because of their interests/strengths? That seems highly unrealistic. However, there is some research linking androgens to better performance on spatial and mathematics tasks. So it is possible that someone with a more “male” brain is good at certain STEM things AND also has a deeply held sense of self that matches up more with being male than female. That sense of self part is really hard to explain well to little kids IMO and makes more sense to introduce a little later. Most adults probably don’t even have a good understanding of the idea that “maleness” and “femaleness” in terms of identity can exist on a spectrum. At least we’re not used to thinking or talking about it on that way. But it’s been there all along — all of us knew girls who were “tomboys” and boys who were “girly”. It doesn’t mean those kids go on the be transgender or gay. Some may but most will not. There has always been a spectrum just like there’s a spectrum for introversion and extraversion for example. That’s not the same thing as saying gender doesn’t exist or that people flip back and forth as they so choose. But that spectrum has been there all along and all of us fall somewhere along it. Social influences may play a role but we can’t discount the role of exposure to hormones before we were even born and how those influence brain development — something scientists are very much still trying to understand

People who feel like their sex assigned at birth doesn’t match their gender identity usually “know” from a young age but probably can’t articulate it. Maybe telling kids this stuff earlier will help those kids? I don’t know. It aea just as likely to confuse kids who haven’t spent much time thinking about gender identity.

kids are very imaginative and playful. so yes, I can easily imagine them wondering if the fact that they like boy things means they are transgender. If you put the idea of God in their heads, they can be fiercely religiously. Kids are very suggestive. I would let them play, and wouldn't discourage them if they came up with this idea on their own, but purposefully putting it in their heads is indeed grooming.

I don't totally disagree with "grooming" but I think what schools are doing is less like what a pedophile does and more like what the US government schools did to Native American families in the 19th century. The goal is to take the children out of their families' cultures and raise them in a way that celebrates "progress" and the currently fashionable values of the dominant group in society. Still wrong.

Yes, this is 100% grooming. It is grooming kids to turn to the schools/state for the answer to everything in their life and away from the parents ideals and standards so that they can be shaped from a very young age to think a certain way.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't waste your energy. DCUM's finest think this is a fabulous thing to be teaching young children. It's baffling, to say the least, that anyone would want to sexualize children, especially second graders. I imagine these LWNJs will find out just how unpopular their wacko agenda is come election time this fall. Sure would be nice if they'd simply focus on academics for once, rather than sexual issues.

No one is sexualizing second graders. Not sure how you interpret it that way. There’s no mention of sex at all.

You don’t have little kids. This topic is not something 6 year olds are ready for FULL STOP. Even old fashioned basic sex Ed without any kid of gender discussion is not age appropriate. They are too young to understand any of it. If you said 6th GRADE you would get an entirely different response from me but 6 YEARS old is just too young.

Six years old is not too young to know proper names for body parts. It’s also not too young to know the basics of sex ed. Plenty of kids live on farms or have younger siblings and have asked relevant questions that adults have answered. Stop stigmatizing science. Furthermore, children need to be educated about privacy and taught that their bodies are their own. The good touch/bad touch lessons fall under the sex ed umbrella and that’s absolutely appropriate for six year olds.

No one is stigmatizing science FFS. Some 6 year olds are ready, some 6 year olds are not. It is not up to you or the school system to decide when they are ready or how to answer the questions they may have.

What six year old isn't ready to learn that adults shouldn't be touching them inappropriately or what their body parts are called? The only reason I can see to keep that information from them is so you can abuse them.

When my daughter was 6, she was very curious about it all, so we had plenty of age-appropriate discussions, she knew all the anatomy, etc. My 6 yo immature for his age son could have cared less and had virtually no curiosity about it beyond me saying that those were his privates and no one should touch them and if so to tell me. Point is, each child is different and their PARENTS should decide based on the individual child when they are ready or open to these types of conversations. It is not the job of the school system or teachers to decide this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why we emphasizing feeling like a boy or girl at age 6. I really thought as a society we were moving toward not emphasizing that there were “boy” or “girl” activities, feelings and toys for kids. These lessons seem like a step backwards into segregating into gender stereotypes.

This x1000. It’s absurd and disturbing. Wth does “feel like a girl or a boy” mean to 1st grader? But I also agree it can’t be discussed here. I think there will be a backlash.

+1 democrat
I swear to god I think it’s an effort to lose. Dems hate winning.

+100

I agree. While I think that it's important to teach students about tolerance for LGBT people, I'm not supportive of what Democrats are doing. Their intense focus on gender identity will only lead to backlash, which will ultimately harm the LGBT community.

Waitaminnit - WHOSE intense focus on gender identity? Are you joking? Because from where I stand the "intense focus" is coming from only one direction, and it ain't the Democrats.

DP. You must be joking. Talk about loon...

We're not the ones having panic attacks on TV and storming school board meetings and the like. Face it, this is just the latest grossly overblown Shiny Object for you people to freak out about now that CRT has faded from the headlines. Your Krazy Klown Kult leaders need a new bugaboo to distract you from the fact that they have Absolutely. No. Actual. Ideas. and this week it's schools acknowledging that LGBT+ kids are a thing that exists in the real world.

Next week: Who knows? Left handed people being Secret Communists? Sure, why not? It's as plausible as any of the other garbage you dolts happily slurp down at the feet of your masters.

You sound completely unhinged. You will see how wrong and in the minority you are and that is not some fringe RWNJs looking for a distraction in about 7 months. Most people want teachers to teach the basics, not waste valuable instruction time on left wing fringe SJW BS. Talk about Krazy Klown Kult - the left and their cause du Jour is it, and they must capture the 5 yo crowd to brainwash for the next 12+ years because any reasonable thinking person above the age of 12 will reject all this nonsense.

+100
Most Americans don't want their children exposed to this crap at age 6.

“Most Americans” don’t live in NJ. Besides, nobody’s getting hurt by this. They might even turn out a few more female STEM professionals by tackling insidious gender discrimination early on. Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Their heads don’t explode when you suggest that white, Christian, Herero, natural born men supremacy isn’t the natural order of the world.

How would promoting the concept that gender is a social construct make women inclined to work in STEM? I'm a woman in STEM and don't see the connection you're making. I don't think there's anything about femininity that is at odds with working in science.

I guess what I worry is that, because of the historical association with men and physical sciences, that women who find themselves drawn to the physical sciences may worry they "feel" like a man, if this is not taught carefully and at an age where they can understand this subtlety.

You really think someone is going to feel like their gender identity doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth solely because of their interests/strengths? That seems highly unrealistic. However, there is some research linking androgens to better performance on spatial and mathematics tasks. So it is possible that someone with a more “male” brain is good at certain STEM things AND also has a deeply held sense of self that matches up more with being male than female. That sense of self part is really hard to explain well to little kids IMO and makes more sense to introduce a little later. Most adults probably don’t even have a good understanding of the idea that “maleness” and “femaleness” in terms of identity can exist on a spectrum. At least we’re not used to thinking or talking about it on that way. But it’s been there all along — all of us knew girls who were “tomboys” and boys who were “girly”. It doesn’t mean those kids go on the be transgender or gay. Some may but most will not. There has always been a spectrum just like there’s a spectrum for introversion and extraversion for example. That’s not the same thing as saying gender doesn’t exist or that people flip back and forth as they so choose. But that spectrum has been there all along and all of us fall somewhere along it. Social influences may play a role but we can’t discount the role of exposure to hormones before we were even born and how those influence brain development — something scientists are very much still trying to understand

People who feel like their sex assigned at birth doesn’t match their gender identity usually “know” from a young age but probably can’t articulate it. Maybe telling kids this stuff earlier will help those kids? I don’t know. It aea just as likely to confuse kids who haven’t spent much time thinking about gender identity.

kids are very imaginative and playful. so yes, I can easily imagine them wondering if the fact that they like boy things means they are transgender. If you put the idea of God in their heads, they can be fiercely religiously. Kids are very suggestive. I would let them play, and wouldn't discourage them if they came up with this idea on their own, but purposefully putting it in their heads is indeed grooming.

I don't totally disagree with "grooming" but I think what schools are doing is less like what a pedophile does and more like what the US government schools did to Native American families in the 19th century. The goal is to take the children out of their families' cultures and raise them in a way that celebrates "progress" and the currently fashionable values of the dominant group in society. Still wrong.

Yes, this is 100% grooming. It is grooming kids to turn to the schools/state for the answer to everything in their life and away from the parents ideals and standards so that they can be shaped from a very young age to think a certain way.

LOL

Laugh, but it's true. Look into it.