NJ to teach gender lessons

[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.

+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?

Because they absorb your manifest shame regarding their sexual organs and won't report abuse as a result of your/societal shame: https://www.enoughabuse.org/images/stories/Resources/Proper_Names_for_Private_Parts.pdf/

https://www.enoughabuse.org/images/stories/Resources/Proper_Names_for_Private_Parts.pdf

[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.

+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.

^^ this ignorance is why we need education

[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: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?

you are horribly naive if you think teaching your preferred words for body parts to 6 year old will do anything to prevent abuse.

[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:

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?

you are horribly naive if you think teaching your preferred words for body parts to 6 year old will do anything to prevent abuse.

“Preferred words”? You mean anatomical words?

[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:

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?

you are horribly naive if you think teaching your preferred words for body parts to 6 year old will do anything to prevent abuse.

You are horribly naieve if you think it doesn’t matter for stopping it. Kids internalize the type of puritanical shame adults people have about their body parts here. Precision matters. We don’t call our arms floppy handy things, or heads brain nuggets.

[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.

+1 million

- 1 million. I’m all for trans acceptance and understanding but stop calling it science when it’s all about how someone FEELS in their skin. I’m cool with how they feel and I’be always felt that some people are just born into the wrong body. But that’s not science.

[Anonymous]

This is NOT about abuse or good touch bad touch. If the language said something about providing children a background and framework for understanding abuse including identifying that bad touch includes any unwelcome touching of any part but particularly the vagina, penis, or anus, I do not think this law would be getting such enormous attention. Introduction biological terms is fine. Stating that touching those parts is not appropriate and should be reported to an adult as soon as possible is fine. This is NOT THAT! Show me the text that makes reference to helping children stop abuse. Show me that or stop trying to reframe this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is NOT about abuse or good touch bad touch. If the language said something about providing children a background and framework for understanding abuse including identifying that bad touch includes any unwelcome touching of any part but particularly the vagina, penis, or anus, I do not think this law would be getting such enormous attention. Introduction biological terms is fine. Stating that touching those parts is not appropriate and should be reported to an adult as soon as possible is fine. This is NOT THAT! Show me the text that makes reference to helping children stop abuse. Show me that or stop trying to reframe this discussion.

It covers all those things. Gender identity and expression, naming body parts and appropriate/inappropriate touching. I'm not even going to argue about the trans issues, but people are getting wound up about teaching the names of body parts to young children as well as getting upset about the gender language. Proper names for body parts is part of health and science, and is not something that should wait until middle school to be taught. That has been suggested in this thread. Another poster said that sex ed is never appropriate for primary grades. They didn't address the gender language, they said sex ed, which is broad and covers all these topics. Sex ed is much more than "put body part p inside body part v and nine months later you have a baby, so only have sex if you're married and ready for a baby." I really don't get why kids are expected to know more about the development of frogs than they are about humans, or why they need to name all the types of teeth but not understand how their reproductive system works.

[Anonymous]

Show me the outrage about the body parts and also quote me the text where it talks about good touch bad touch. I have seen the outrage about the trans language and I see it plain as day in the language. I know my position is real. You have yet to quote language from the law focused on teaching about abuse. The outrage is focused on the pink blue purple lesson which makes NO reference to abuse nor does it actually use biological terms. Instead it talks about feelings and parts. And implies parts are not the definitive answer regarding gender. You need to stop spinning and support the statements you are making. Perhaps some portions of the law are worth keeping. Pink blue purple not so much.

[Anonymous]

Pp here. And again. This is for 6 year olds. My 6 year olds were not ready for that. So much of the opposition is due to the very young age this is focused toward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is NOT about abuse or good touch bad touch. If the language said something about providing children a background and framework for understanding abuse including identifying that bad touch includes any unwelcome touching of any part but particularly the vagina, penis, or anus, I do not think this law would be getting such enormous attention. Introduction biological terms is fine. Stating that touching those parts is not appropriate and should be reported to an adult as soon as possible is fine. This is NOT THAT! Show me the text that makes reference to helping children stop abuse. Show me that or stop trying to reframe this discussion.

It covers all those things. Gender identity and expression, naming body parts and appropriate/inappropriate touching. I'm not even going to argue about the trans issues, but people are getting wound up about teaching the names of body parts to young children as well as getting upset about the gender language. Proper names for body parts is part of health and science, and is not something that should wait until middle school to be taught. That has been suggested in this thread. Another poster said that sex ed is never appropriate for primary grades. They didn't address the gender language, they said sex ed, which is broad and covers all these topics. Sex ed is much more than "put body part p inside body part v and nine months later you have a baby, so only have sex if you're married and ready for a baby." I really don't get why kids are expected to know more about the development of frogs than they are about humans, or why they need to name all the types of teeth but not understand how their reproductive system works.

[Anonymous]

DC based democrat here. Seems like many of you don’t have kids, or maybe your kids are younger or much older. This is very much being taught in DCPS, including to 6 year olds. It’s been a mess. In my observation it a) confuses many of the kids and b) very much reinforces gender stereotypes by putting them front and center. These kids are way too young to understand a complex topic. I don’t understand why Dems want to alienate their base. If the republicans ever manage to become less psycho I’m gone.

[Anonymous]

I hate to point out the blindingly obvious, but if this were about teaching kids to use anatomical language, then the pink blue purple lesson wouldn't be referring to "boy parts" and "girl parts". This isn't an attempt to teach kids anatomical language to equip them to report sexual abuse. This about teaching children that gender dysphoria is a completely normal, biological reality and that taking steps to live as the gender other than that assigned by nature is to be applauded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC based democrat here. Seems like many of you don’t have kids, or maybe your kids are younger or much older. This is very much being taught in DCPS, including to 6 year olds. It’s been a mess. In my observation it a) confuses many of the kids and b) very much reinforces gender stereotypes by putting them front and center. These kids are way too young to understand a complex topic. I don’t understand why Dems want to alienate their base. If the republicans ever manage to become less psycho I’m gone.

I mean we are definitely less psycho. We aren’t behind this garbage. We aren’t. There is a point where whatever perception you have about republicans and democrats needs to be stood up next to what the two parties are actually standing for and promoting today. Right now, the most sensible party is the republicans. We are not teaching a fringe belief system to 6 year olds. We aren’t opening the borders completely without regard to the impact on school systems and social service and the fentanyl issue. We aren’t obstinately refusing to use American natural resources that support American jobs and tax payers while turning to Venezuela and Iran for oil. It is time for you to get a gut check. We also aren’t anti gay or racists. We aren’t anti police. We aren’t anti-immigrant. We just believe the immigration laws on the books should be enforced. We are not the fringe crazies anymore. That is the democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to point out the blindingly obvious, but if this were about teaching kids to use anatomical language, then the pink blue purple lesson wouldn't be referring to "boy parts" and "girl parts". This isn't an attempt to teach kids anatomical language to equip them to report sexual abuse. This about teaching children that gender dysphoria is a completely normal, biological reality and that taking steps to live as the gender other than that assigned by nature is to be applauded.

Exactly. I have no problem with children being taught the proper names for body parts. But you are absolutely, 100% correct that this is not that.