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: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:

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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: 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:

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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

[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: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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

Sex education at that age largely consists of anatomy and good touch/bad touch.

[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: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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

Sex education at that age largely consists of anatomy and good touch/bad touch.

Except when it doesn't, like the NY 1st graders learning that it feels good to touch yourself in private, and the subject of this thread, teaching gender studies to this age group. Does a 1st grader really need to know the correct anatomical term for their privates anyway? If a 6 yo wants to call his thing his pee-pee, so what? Is there some reason knowing the correct anatomical terms for every body part is important at age 5-10? I'm not for not telling a kid if they ask, but at the same time, I don't care if they learn this nor feel it needs to be an important part of the curriculum either.

[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: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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

Sex education at that age largely consists of anatomy and good touch/bad touch.

Except when it doesn't, like the NY 1st graders learning that it feels good to touch yourself in private, and the subject of this thread, teaching gender studies to this age group. Does a 1st grader really need to know the correct anatomical term for their privates anyway? If a 6 yo wants to call his thing his pee-pee, so what? Is there some reason knowing the correct anatomical terms for every body part is important at age 5-10? I'm not for not telling a kid if they ask, but at the same time, I don't care if they learn this nor feel it needs to be an important part of the curriculum either.

Schools teach things because parents won’t or don’t know the material. Why is it ever wrong for a child to know the correct name for a body part? Why is that something to be kept secret or shameful? Hiding this information from children makes it feel secretive, and makes reporting harder. For all the conservatives yelling about democrats being groomers for wanting to educate children, the mindset that only parents should teach about anything related to sex, including basic anatomy, is what enables predators.

[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: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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

Sex education at that age largely consists of anatomy and good touch/bad touch.

Except when it doesn't, like the NY 1st graders learning that it feels good to touch yourself in private, and the subject of this thread, teaching gender studies to this age group. Does a 1st grader really need to know the correct anatomical term for their privates anyway? If a 6 yo wants to call his thing his pee-pee, so what? Is there some reason knowing the correct anatomical terms for every body part is important at age 5-10? I'm not for not telling a kid if they ask, but at the same time, I don't care if they learn this nor feel it needs to be an important part of the curriculum either.

Schools teach things because parents won’t or don’t know the material. Why is it ever wrong for a child to know the correct name for a body part? Why is that something to be kept secret or shameful? Hiding this information from children makes it feel secretive, and makes reporting harder. For all the conservatives yelling about democrats being groomers for wanting to educate children, the mindset that only parents should teach about anything related to sex, including basic anatomy, is what enables predators.

That's what you believe. And you clearly think people who believe otherwize are so stupid and evil that you have to treat them like dogs and control their behavior. But is it really so bad to wait to junior high school? Can you not allow them any freedom at all in how they raise their children? you certainly wouldn't like them talking to you like 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: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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

Sex education at that age largely consists of anatomy and good touch/bad touch.

Except when it doesn't, like the NY 1st graders learning that it feels good to touch yourself in private, and the subject of this thread, teaching gender studies to this age group. Does a 1st grader really need to know the correct anatomical term for their privates anyway? If a 6 yo wants to call his thing his pee-pee, so what? Is there some reason knowing the correct anatomical terms for every body part is important at age 5-10? I'm not for not telling a kid if they ask, but at the same time, I don't care if they learn this nor feel it needs to be an important part of the curriculum either.

Schools teach things because parents won’t or don’t know the material. Why is it ever wrong for a child to know the correct name for a body part? Why is that something to be kept secret or shameful? Hiding this information from children makes it feel secretive, and makes reporting harder. For all the conservatives yelling about democrats being groomers for wanting to educate children, the mindset that only parents should teach about anything related to sex, including basic anatomy, is what enables predators.

I never said it was something to hide or that it was wrong for a child to know the names of the correct body parts. I just don't think it needs to be part of a specific curriculum in elementary school, and I think schools have bigger issues to address than whether a kid knows the correct anatomical name of their genitalia. If it gets brought up, I don't think it should be skirted, but I don't think it needs to be a specific scheduled class about it because I don't think it matters as much if a kid can identify their body parts if they can't add/subtract multiple/divide, identify parts of sentences or read at their grade level.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1000

Schools should focus on academic subjects and steer clear of politics & religion.

[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: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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

Sex education at that age largely consists of anatomy and good touch/bad touch.

Except when it doesn't, like the NY 1st graders learning that it feels good to touch yourself in private, and the subject of this thread, teaching gender studies to this age group. Does a 1st grader really need to know the correct anatomical term for their privates anyway? If a 6 yo wants to call his thing his pee-pee, so what? Is there some reason knowing the correct anatomical terms for every body part is important at age 5-10? I'm not for not telling a kid if they ask, but at the same time, I don't care if they learn this nor feel it needs to be an important part of the curriculum either.

Schools teach things because parents won’t or don’t know the material. Why is it ever wrong for a child to know the correct name for a body part? Why is that something to be kept secret or shameful? Hiding this information from children makes it feel secretive, and makes reporting harder. For all the conservatives yelling about democrats being groomers for wanting to educate children, the mindset that only parents should teach about anything related to sex, including basic anatomy, is what enables predators.

That's what you believe. And you clearly think people who believe otherwize are so stupid and evil that you have to treat them like dogs and control their behavior. But is it really so bad to wait to junior high school? Can you not allow them any freedom at all in how they raise their children? you certainly wouldn't like them talking to you like this.

Many kids have begun puberty before middle school. Why would you want to wait until after they’ve begun puberty to educate them about their bodies? Do you really think that’s the appropriate way to approach it?

[Anonymous]

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.

+1000

Schools should focus on academic subjects and steer clear of politics & religion.

We’re not talking about teaching politics or religion, we’re talking about health, biology and anatomy subjects.

Also no one is sexualizing children by educating them on these topics.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1000

Schools should focus on academic subjects and steer clear of politics & religion.

We’re not talking about teaching politics or religion, we’re talking about health, biology and anatomy subjects.

Also no one is sexualizing children by educating them on these topics.

Believing it’s possible to be “born in the wrong body” is a religious belief with no grounding in material reality. No thank you, I don’t want that taught to my children.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1000

Schools should focus on academic subjects and steer clear of politics & religion.

We’re not talking about teaching politics or religion, we’re talking about health, biology and anatomy subjects.

Also no one is sexualizing children by educating them on these topics.

Why does a six year old need to know the word for clitoris?

[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: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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

Sex education at that age largely consists of anatomy and good touch/bad touch.

Those are not the only items in the NJ curriculum. As usual, the devil is in the details.

[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: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?

Again, read the quoted selections. PP specifically said: Sex education is not appropriate in the primary grades. Ever. These are discussions left for home.

Pp specifically said sex education for six and seven year olds. Few parents want schools to teach the mechanics of sex to six year olds.

Sex education at that age largely consists of anatomy and good touch/bad touch.

Except when it doesn't, like the NY 1st graders learning that it feels good to touch yourself in private, and the subject of this thread, teaching gender studies to this age group. Does a 1st grader really need to know the correct anatomical term for their privates anyway? If a 6 yo wants to call his thing his pee-pee, so what? Is there some reason knowing the correct anatomical terms for every body part is important at age 5-10? I'm not for not telling a kid if they ask, but at the same time, I don't care if they learn this nor feel it needs to be an important part of the curriculum either.

Schools teach things because parents won’t or don’t know the material. Why is it ever wrong for a child to know the correct name for a body part? Why is that something to be kept secret or shameful? Hiding this information from children makes it feel secretive, and makes reporting harder. For all the conservatives yelling about democrats being groomers for wanting to educate children, the mindset that only parents should teach about anything related to sex, including basic anatomy, is what enables predators.

I never said it was something to hide or that it was wrong for a child to know the names of the correct body parts. I just don't think it needs to be part of a specific curriculum in elementary school, and I think schools have bigger issues to address than whether a kid knows the correct anatomical name of their genitalia. If it gets brought up, I don't think it should be skirted, but I don't think it needs to be a specific scheduled class about it because I don't think it matters as much if a kid can identify their body parts if they can't add/subtract multiple/divide, identify parts of sentences or read at their grade level.

Your thoughts and feelings aside, educators and pediatricians and experts agree- kids need to know the proper names for their parts. It’s a matter of health and a matter of their scientific education.

It’s even more important than that. Example- your kid says “The priest touched my pee pee.” Do you beat the crap out of that priest for molesting your kid, or do you give him your heartfelt thanks for cleaning up a toilet accident?