NJ to teach gender lessons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You maybe mean well but this is 100% the attitude of pedophiles. I know both personally because my family has a few and because I work with kids many of whom have been abused. The "it's the parents job!" line is one of heard from basically even child molester I knew growing up. When you drive sex education or of schools you empower them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree. Nor is it up to the school to tell children that they are able to "choose" their gender based on how they "feel."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

Telling a six year old they can change their gender is not age-appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Every bolded statement refers to sex ed that has nothing to do with trans people. I'm responding to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Every bolded statement refers to sex ed that has nothing to do with trans people. I'm responding to that.

Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

Transgender people make up less than to, by generous estimates, 1% of the population. The country with the highest population that identifies as transgender is Sweden, and they come in at about 3%. There is no "this is what is happening in their world around them" argument to this and therefore no need to inform 6 year old kids about about transgenders in any way unless a parent wants to tell their kid because of a particular instance in their individual life. There is nothing controversial whatsoever about NOT informing the kids about the 1 or so percent of the population that this affects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

Transgender people make up less than to, by generous estimates, 1% of the population. The country with the highest population that identifies as transgender is Sweden, and they come in at about 3%. There is no "this is what is happening in their world around them" argument to this and therefore no need to inform 6 year old kids about about transgenders in any way unless a parent wants to tell their kid because of a particular instance in their individual life. There is nothing controversial whatsoever about NOT informing the kids about the 1 or so percent of the population that this affects.

yes. It can wait until middle school unless there is a transgender person in their family or in their particular classroom. Flexibility on the part of the teachers should be allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

Telling a six year old they can change their gender is not age-appropriate.

How is that worded? Example?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

Transgender people make up less than to, by generous estimates, 1% of the population. The country with the highest population that identifies as transgender is Sweden, and they come in at about 3%. There is no "this is what is happening in their world around them" argument to this and therefore no need to inform 6 year old kids about about transgenders in any way unless a parent wants to tell their kid because of a particular instance in their individual life. There is nothing controversial whatsoever about NOT informing the kids about the 1 or so percent of the population that this affects.

I’m from NJ and know several transgender people of all ages. It’s all over the news and social media. There are probably transgender kids at their school.

It’s absolutely happening in the world around them. And kids aren’t dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Every bolded statement refers to sex ed that has nothing to do with trans people. I'm responding to that.

Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

They can certainly learn basic anatomy in elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Every bolded statement refers to sex ed that has nothing to do with trans people. I'm responding to that.

Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

They can certainly learn basic anatomy in elementary.

again you are gaslighting. Look at the OPs post. Nobody is upset about learning basic anatomy. Why obfuscate the conversation? What is your purpose in doing that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

Transgender people make up less than to, by generous estimates, 1% of the population. The country with the highest population that identifies as transgender is Sweden, and they come in at about 3%. There is no "this is what is happening in their world around them" argument to this and therefore no need to inform 6 year old kids about about transgenders in any way unless a parent wants to tell their kid because of a particular instance in their individual life. There is nothing controversial whatsoever about NOT informing the kids about the 1 or so percent of the population that this affects.

I’m from NJ and know several transgender people of all ages. It’s all over the news and social media. There are probably transgender kids at their school.

It’s absolutely happening in the world around them. And kids aren’t dumb.

Do you really think these kids are all transgender? You answered that yourself - it is all over the news and social media. Kids are told if they are a girl and like boy things, or if they are a boy and like girl things, they are gender fluid, transgender, don't need to identify as a boy or a girl, nonbinary, etc. Of course they say they are transgender - because they have been conditioned to say so. 80 to 94% of kids will identify as their birth gender if left alone because we know that true transgenders are an extremely small percentage of the population. Instead of telling these kids they are trans, how about we let them sort out exactly what they are feeling and how those feelings evolve over time and through puberty and young adulthood? Is that too much to ask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

Telling a six year old they can change their gender is not age-appropriate.

I hope yuo dont live in DC. Thaty could be considered hate speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are explaining what is happening in the world around them.

Even if you don’t understand them, transgender people exist. That’s a fact. There is nothing controversial to inform kids about this fact in an age-appropriate way.

Telling a six year old they can change their gender is not age-appropriate.

How is that worded? Example?

Here is an example of a book recommended for K-2. No it is not appropriate. Because a girl wants to wear swim trunks like her dad and brother does not make her a boy truly in her heart. I was a real tomboy and thought all the boys stuff was way cooler than the girls stuff. Did everything with my dad outdoors and no cooking or sewing with my mom. Does that mean I am truly a boy in my heart? At 4 or 5, I thought I was a horse . Put noise makers on my hands and knees to clop around on the wood floors and made my younger brother ride on my back. Am I a horse? A 6 yo and even a teen does not understand phases in life, just how they feel at the moment. It is not appropriate to take a phase and tell a kid that they are born in the wrong body. It is harmful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CAEkSkkIyU