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:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

Thank you, NJ Educator. But the folks upthread believe that respectful discourse and valuing individuals regardless of their gender or gender expression is “liberal indoctrination”. Treating others as you would want yourself to be treated is not a lesson they learned at their Sunday schools.

.
“Liberal indoctrination” **is** teaching kids to be respectful and value others. The golden rule.

That’s why the Rs and trans-haters are so against “indoctrination”. Their kids would realize they are crap people.

NP. You’re really not getting that the tide has turned against you. This isn’t 2019, when you could bump your gums about trans ideology and everyone was too disorganized and scared for their jobs to talk back to you. The opposition is organized now and state by state, your ideology is getting handled with targeted bills. People are also voting in politicians who will further clean up the mess that trans ideology is. Your movement is over.

So threatened by kindness and respect.

Do your kids know you’re a POS?

DP. Who, exactly, is "threatened by kindness and respect"? This thread is about teaching very young children about gender topics - something they simply don't need to know about at that age. Teaching children to be kind and respect one another is not AT ALL what is at issue here. Nice strawman.

Republicans and anti-trans bigots.

They don’t want their kids to learn:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual

Because then they will know their parents are bigoted a-holes.

You sound like the hateful one here. Typical leftist identify politics that if you don't whole heartedly agree with, embrace and accept, name calling, bigoted, racist, etc., ensues.

If you see “identity politics” or “gender ideology” when you read the bolded above then you are the problem.

Why are you so afraid to treat others with kindness?

Oh please, treating people with kindness is not the issue here. No one is against that, and you know it. Stop calling others haters because they DO want kindness to others as the main focus and NOT teaching very young children about issues beyond their ability to comprehend all of what they entail. Why do there have to be qualifiers on treating everyone with kindness (regardless of their gender, gender expression, blah blah blah)? Treat EVERYONE with kindness pretty much covers it. Redefining that in specific groups is the definition of identity politics.

Exactly

In my view its kind of like communism is one form of economic system that can be analyzed and compared in HS history or Econ class along side all of the other political / economic systems

But put it in a " little red book" and mandate every 1st grader in America study communism so that they are " safe and free to be respected for their identity" .... we all know what that was called when Moa did it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

Thank you, NJ Educator. But the folks upthread believe that respectful discourse and valuing individuals regardless of their gender or gender expression is “liberal indoctrination”. Treating others as you would want yourself to be treated is not a lesson they learned at their Sunday schools.

.
“Liberal indoctrination” **is** teaching kids to be respectful and value others. The golden rule.

That’s why the Rs and trans-haters are so against “indoctrination”. Their kids would realize they are crap people.

NP. You’re really not getting that the tide has turned against you. This isn’t 2019, when you could bump your gums about trans ideology and everyone was too disorganized and scared for their jobs to talk back to you. The opposition is organized now and state by state, your ideology is getting handled with targeted bills. People are also voting in politicians who will further clean up the mess that trans ideology is. Your movement is over.

So threatened by kindness and respect.

Do your kids know you’re a POS?

DP. Who, exactly, is "threatened by kindness and respect"? This thread is about teaching very young children about gender topics - something they simply don't need to know about at that age. Teaching children to be kind and respect one another is not AT ALL what is at issue here. Nice strawman.

Republicans and anti-trans bigots.

They don’t want their kids to learn:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual

Because then they will know their parents are bigoted a-holes.

You sound like the hateful one here. Typical leftist identify politics that if you don't whole heartedly agree with, embrace and accept, name calling, bigoted, racist, etc., ensues.

If you see “identity politics” or “gender ideology” when you read the bolded above then you are the problem.

Why are you so afraid to treat others with kindness?

Oh please, treating people with kindness is not the issue here. No one is against that, and you know it. Stop calling others haters because they DO want kindness to others as the main focus and NOT teaching very young children about issues beyond their ability to comprehend all of what they entail. Why do there have to be qualifiers on treating everyone with kindness (regardless of their gender, gender expression, blah blah blah)? Treat EVERYONE with kindness pretty much covers it. Redefining that in specific groups is the definition of identity politics.

So why all the butthurt over this:
* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

Kids are fine with this. It’s the hateful adults who are so “confused”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

Hi there- do you have any good science-backed articles you’d recommend? I have a child going through exactly what you described (a sensitive very young boy who feels that since he feels a little different than his friends it must be because he’s intersex, which he learned about at school) and have been trying to no avail to find anything reliable (read: from a neutral source and evidence-based) to read on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

This is what they are teaching:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

You disagree with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

Hi there- do you have any good science-backed articles you’d recommend? I have a child going through exactly what you described (a sensitive very young boy who feels that since he feels a little different than his friends it must be because he’s intersex, which he learned about at school) and have been trying to no avail to find anything reliable (read: from a neutral source and evidence-based) to read on the subject.

No, I don't. I recommend going to a therapist who specializes in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

This is what they are teaching:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

You disagree with this?

This is what they are teaching:
”being a boy or a girl doesn’t mean you have to have those parts, there are some body parts that mostly just girls have and some body parts that mostly just boys have.”

That is what we disagree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

Hi there- do you have any good science-backed articles you’d recommend? I have a child going through exactly what you described (a sensitive very young boy who feels that since he feels a little different than his friends it must be because he’s intersex, which he learned about at school) and have been trying to no avail to find anything reliable (read: from a neutral source and evidence-based) to read on the subject.

No, I don't. I recommend going to a therapist who specializes in this.

Check out Genspect. https://genspect.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

This is what they are teaching:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

You disagree with this?

I do kind of disagree. Why is the regardless of solely focused on gender and related things?

Four or five yeas ago, my woke small agency starting publicizing a support group for raising your transgender child. The picture was of a boy who looked to be about five. Take out all the older people andunmarried young people at the agency, and this looked like they were forming a support group for at most one or two people.

A number of my colleagues who were dealing with kids with chronic illnesses were extremely upset by this. They had asked HR repeatedly for help with dealing with endless kid medical appointments, hospital stays, numerous appointments with school admins remonstrating them for their kids' absences, etc and nothing but deafening silence.

They were super put out about HR focusing on the fashionable issue de jour with de minimis effect on employees while totally ignoring real problems a number of employees face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

This is what they are teaching:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

You disagree with this?

I'm the pp you're responding to. It's important to treat all people, regardless of their mental health status, with courtesy, respect, and a welcoming spirit. However, the question is to what extent we need to participate in and validate their belief that sex and gender are social constructs rather than a biological reality. I think we can respect people while disagreeing with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

Thank you, NJ Educator. But the folks upthread believe that respectful discourse and valuing individuals regardless of their gender or gender expression is “liberal indoctrination”. Treating others as you would want yourself to be treated is not a lesson they learned at their Sunday schools.

.
“Liberal indoctrination” **is** teaching kids to be respectful and value others. The golden rule.

That’s why the Rs and trans-haters are so against “indoctrination”. Their kids would realize they are crap people.

NP. You’re really not getting that the tide has turned against you. This isn’t 2019, when you could bump your gums about trans ideology and everyone was too disorganized and scared for their jobs to talk back to you. The opposition is organized now and state by state, your ideology is getting handled with targeted bills. People are also voting in politicians who will further clean up the mess that trans ideology is. Your movement is over.

So threatened by kindness and respect.

Do your kids know you’re a POS?

DP. Who, exactly, is "threatened by kindness and respect"? This thread is about teaching very young children about gender topics - something they simply don't need to know about at that age. Teaching children to be kind and respect one another is not AT ALL what is at issue here. Nice strawman.

Republicans and anti-trans bigots.

They don’t want their kids to learn:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual

Because then they will know their parents are bigoted a-holes.

You sound like the hateful one here. Typical leftist identify politics that if you don't whole heartedly agree with, embrace and accept, name calling, bigoted, racist, etc., ensues.

If you see “identity politics” or “gender ideology” when you read the bolded above then you are the problem.

Why are you so afraid to treat others with kindness?

Oh please, treating people with kindness is not the issue here. No one is against that, and you know it. Stop calling others haters because they DO want kindness to others as the main focus and NOT teaching very young children about issues beyond their ability to comprehend all of what they entail. Why do there have to be qualifiers on treating everyone with kindness (regardless of their gender, gender expression, blah blah blah)? Treat EVERYONE with kindness pretty much covers it. Redefining that in specific groups is the definition of identity politics.

So why all the butthurt over this:
* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

Kids are fine with this. It’s the hateful adults who are so “confused”.

Isn't this almost always the case? I wish more adults would try to look through the lens of being a child when they make policy decisions; most are them are for the purpose of satisfying the needs of the adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

This is what they are teaching:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

You disagree with this?

I do kind of disagree. Why is the regardless of solely focused on gender and related things?

Four or five yeas ago, my woke small agency starting publicizing a support group for raising your transgender child. The picture was of a boy who looked to be about five. Take out all the older people andunmarried young people at the agency, and this looked like they were forming a support group for at most one or two people.

A number of my colleagues who were dealing with kids with chronic illnesses were extremely upset by this. They had asked HR repeatedly for help with dealing with endless kid medical appointments, hospital stays, numerous appointments with school admins remonstrating them for their kids' absences, etc and nothing but deafening silence.

They were super put out about HR focusing on the fashionable issue de jour with de minimis effect on employees while totally ignoring real problems a number of employees face.

Maybe because the RWNJs are proposing hateful anti-trans legislation across the US? Transgender people are a target for bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

This is what they are teaching:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

You disagree with this?

I'm the pp you're responding to. It's important to treat all people, regardless of their mental health status, with courtesy, respect, and a welcoming spirit. However, the question is to what extent we need to participate in and validate their belief that sex and gender are social constructs rather than a biological reality. I think we can respect people while disagreeing with them.

But our kids should still learn to “welcome and include” everyone, right? Which is what NJ is teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

Hi there- do you have any good science-backed articles you’d recommend? I have a child going through exactly what you described (a sensitive very young boy who feels that since he feels a little different than his friends it must be because he’s intersex, which he learned about at school) and have been trying to no avail to find anything reliable (read: from a neutral source and evidence-based) to read on the subject.

No, I don't. I recommend going to a therapist who specializes in this.

Check out Genspect. https://genspect.org/

Careful. They lean towards non-affirming.

One therapist even equates affirmation to a lobotomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

I wish all the people ranting about this, including my co-teacher, would actually take time to read your post. The sample lessons they're so upset about are those provided by one outside organization, and are not the standards the state has set. One district looked at the resources provided by that organization, but did not adopt that curriculum (perhaps they will, perhaps they won't).

And just to be fully transparent, you've listed the "core ideas," - the health performance expectations for K-2 do include "List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals" and "2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behavior." The 3-5 and 6-8 standards do include more sex education, with the idea that by the time puberty and adolescence hit, kids should be aware of how their bodies function, rather than waiting until they're sexually active to teach them about safe practices.

So let's stop pretending that NJ is trying to confuse children and turn them "trans. Personally, I wasn't aware that it was like catching the cooties - at least the right wing is no longer claiming that gay marriage makes kids gay. The sex education ones are simply preparing kids to understand how their own bodies work (Not quite sure why "penis" is more objectionable than 'pee-pee') and the gender identity ones are about accepting diversity in general.

-another NJ educator

I think the real issue is that people don't want their children to become confused about gender, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes. In 2011, the Karolinksa Institute released the results of its study on people who underwent sex reassignment surgery, and the results were that they are 19 times more likely to kill themselves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/

Encouraging children to see any gender nonconforming traits as evidence they are not their natural sex can lead them to decide that they are transgender. And, gender dysphoria is still believed to be a mental illness despite the rebranding of "transgender identity." We still don't have evidence that people with vaginas can actually be male, and the best science that we have indicates that people generally are the gender that their body indicates that they are. This isn't to say that there are not intersex people, but it is to say that declaring something both at reality and a mental illness at the same time is alarming to people, especially when there is s focused effort to teach children that transgenderism is a real, natural phenomenon when the best science says it isn't.

Given that outcomes for the people who pursue this are generally awful- high risk for suicide, inability to experience orgasm, and quite often deep regret-- you really can't blame parents for balking. And you also can't claim that they are putting children at risk when the best science says that YOU are putting children at risk.

All this said, if the parents of NJ want this, go for it. I sincerely hope it works out for you. But please stop criticizing red states for outlawing it.

This is what they are teaching:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

You disagree with this?

I do kind of disagree. Why is the regardless of solely focused on gender and related things?

Four or five yeas ago, my woke small agency starting publicizing a support group for raising your transgender child. The picture was of a boy who looked to be about five. Take out all the older people andunmarried young people at the agency, and this looked like they were forming a support group for at most one or two people.

A number of my colleagues who were dealing with kids with chronic illnesses were extremely upset by this. They had asked HR repeatedly for help with dealing with endless kid medical appointments, hospital stays, numerous appointments with school admins remonstrating them for their kids' absences, etc and nothing but deafening silence.

They were super put out about HR focusing on the fashionable issue de jour with de minimis effect on employees while totally ignoring real problems a number of employees face.

Maybe because the RWNJs are proposing hateful anti-trans legislation across the US? Transgender people are a target for bigots.

Really? Care to cite this hateful anti-trans legislation?

[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:I'm a NJ educator and I can tell you that the exact 'Social and Sexual Health' standards for grades K-2 are:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* Families shape the way we think about our bodies, our health and our behaviors.
* People have relationships with others in the local community and beyond.
* Communication is the basis for strengthening relationships and resolving conflict between people.
* Conflicts between people occur, and there are effective ways to resolve them.

What was shared in the original post of this thread is a 'sample lesson' - that is a click to an outside source - that nobody is forced to use. Our individual boards of education approve curriculum and individual schools or principals would approve lessons. Because we are big believers in local rule, the values of the community at large are usually well-represented.

Standards for grades 3-5 are:
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
* Family members impact the development of their children physically, socially, and emotionally.
* People in healthy relationships share thoughts and feelings, as well as mutual respect.

The underlying theme is respectful functioning in society. That is not the same as 'leftist brainwashing indoctrination' into any kind of lifestyle.

Thank you, NJ Educator. But the folks upthread believe that respectful discourse and valuing individuals regardless of their gender or gender expression is “liberal indoctrination”. Treating others as you would want yourself to be treated is not a lesson they learned at their Sunday schools.

.
“Liberal indoctrination” **is** teaching kids to be respectful and value others. The golden rule.

That’s why the Rs and trans-haters are so against “indoctrination”. Their kids would realize they are crap people.

NP. You’re really not getting that the tide has turned against you. This isn’t 2019, when you could bump your gums about trans ideology and everyone was too disorganized and scared for their jobs to talk back to you. The opposition is organized now and state by state, your ideology is getting handled with targeted bills. People are also voting in politicians who will further clean up the mess that trans ideology is. Your movement is over.

So threatened by kindness and respect.

Do your kids know you’re a POS?

DP. Who, exactly, is "threatened by kindness and respect"? This thread is about teaching very young children about gender topics - something they simply don't need to know about at that age. Teaching children to be kind and respect one another is not AT ALL what is at issue here. Nice strawman.

Republicans and anti-trans bigots.

They don’t want their kids to learn:

* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual

Because then they will know their parents are bigoted a-holes.

You sound like the hateful one here. Typical leftist identify politics that if you don't whole heartedly agree with, embrace and accept, name calling, bigoted, racist, etc., ensues.

If you see “identity politics” or “gender ideology” when you read the bolded above then you are the problem.

Why are you so afraid to treat others with kindness?

Oh please, treating people with kindness is not the issue here. No one is against that, and you know it. Stop calling others haters because they DO want kindness to others as the main focus and NOT teaching very young children about issues beyond their ability to comprehend all of what they entail. Why do there have to be qualifiers on treating everyone with kindness (regardless of their gender, gender expression, blah blah blah)? Treat EVERYONE with kindness pretty much covers it. Redefining that in specific groups is the definition of identity politics.

So why all the butthurt over this:
* Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.
* All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation

Kids are fine with this. It’s the hateful adults who are so “confused”.

Isn't this almost always the case? I wish more adults would try to look through the lens of being a child when they make policy decisions; most are them are for the purpose of satisfying the needs of the adults.

Maybe adults are aware that young kids are known for magical thinking, and that it is a bad thing to have them thinking they can change their sex, which can put them on a path for damaging hormones and surgery?