NJ to teach gender lessons

[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?

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.

Fake news.

That’s not part of the NJ standards.

[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: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?

Sex <> gender

[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'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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

What’s the point of being obtuse?

https://freedomforallamericans.org/legislative-tracker/anti-transgender-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:

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?

Sex <> gender

Not everyone agrees with that premise. The idea that people are, like nouns in the German language, randomly assigned a gender doesn't exactly comport with the way we have used the terms. We haven't indiscriminately decided that all people named Mason are male and all people named Madison are female. Instead, we have aligned our concept of gender with the anatomical features of sex. So people with vaginas are also known as women.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

[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: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?

Sex <> gender

Not everyone agrees with that premise. The idea that people are, like nouns in the German language, randomly assigned a gender doesn't exactly comport with the way we have used the terms. We haven't indiscriminately decided that all people named Mason are male and all people named Madison are female. Instead, we have aligned our concept of gender with the anatomical features of sex. So people with vaginas are also known as women.

Or transgender men. Or non-binary. Or…

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

On the contrary. I think the notion that the only way to respect someone is to agree with them is tearing at the fabric of our nation. People should be free to express their views, and people should be accepting of diversity of thought. You are the only one advocating for the concept that we can only respect someone by proactively validating their opinions and agreeing with them-- although I very much doubt this applies when it comes to people with more traditional value systems.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

On the contrary. I think the notion that the only way to respect someone is to agree with them is tearing at the fabric of our nation. People should be free to express their views, and people should be accepting of diversity of thought. You are the only one advocating for the concept that we can only respect someone by proactively validating their opinions and agreeing with them-- although I very much doubt this applies when it comes to people with more traditional value systems.

Right. Much better to call them mentally ill and tear down their identity. So “kind and respectful”.

[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.

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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

On the contrary. I think the notion that the only way to respect someone is to agree with them is tearing at the fabric of our nation. People should be free to express their views, and people should be accepting of diversity of thought. You are the only one advocating for the concept that we can only respect someone by proactively validating their opinions and agreeing with them-- although I very much doubt this applies when it comes to people with more traditional value systems.

Right. Much better to call them mentally ill and tear down their identity. So “kind and respectful”.

Are you trolling on purpose? Or unintentionally?

[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.

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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

On the contrary. I think the notion that the only way to respect someone is to agree with them is tearing at the fabric of our nation. People should be free to express their views, and people should be accepting of diversity of thought. You are the only one advocating for the concept that we can only respect someone by proactively validating their opinions and agreeing with them-- although I very much doubt this applies when it comes to people with more traditional value systems.

Right. Much better to call them mentally ill and tear down their identity. So “kind and respectful”.

Are you trolling on purpose? Or unintentionally?

Trying to tease out the “kindness and respect” of anti-trans bigots.

They want to teach kids to only be “kind and respectful” to some people.

[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.

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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

On the contrary. I think the notion that the only way to respect someone is to agree with them is tearing at the fabric of our nation. People should be free to express their views, and people should be accepting of diversity of thought. You are the only one advocating for the concept that we can only respect someone by proactively validating their opinions and agreeing with them-- although I very much doubt this applies when it comes to people with more traditional value systems.

Right. Much better to call them mentally ill and tear down their identity. So “kind and respectful”.

Are you trolling on purpose? Or unintentionally?

Trying to tease out the “kindness and respect” of anti-trans bigots.

They want to teach kids to only be “kind and respectful” to some people.

It's not bigotry. It's literally listed as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If you read my post upthread, you'll see my discussion of why the fact that science is saying it is a disorder is one of the main issues that stands in the way of people embracing transgenderism as natural and healthy. Additionally, while there is very little solid research on the topic, the research that exists generally does not support embracing the perceived identity as the most healthy path forward.

[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: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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

On the contrary. I think the notion that the only way to respect someone is to agree with them is tearing at the fabric of our nation. People should be free to express their views, and people should be accepting of diversity of thought. You are the only one advocating for the concept that we can only respect someone by proactively validating their opinions and agreeing with them-- although I very much doubt this applies when it comes to people with more traditional value systems.

Right. Much better to call them mentally ill and tear down their identity. So “kind and respectful”.

Are you trolling on purpose? Or unintentionally?

Trying to tease out the “kindness and respect” of anti-trans bigots.

They want to teach kids to only be “kind and respectful” to some people.

It's not bigotry. It's literally listed as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If you read my post upthread, you'll see my discussion of why the fact that science is saying it is a disorder is one of the main issues that stands in the way of people embracing transgenderism as natural and healthy. Additionally, while there is very little solid research on the topic, the research that exists generally does not support embracing the perceived identity as the most healthy path forward.

It’s only diagnosed as “mental illness” if it’s causing distress. If ALL people are treated with kindness and respect then maybe there will be less distress.

Calling every single transgender person “mentally ill” is, at best, ignorant.

[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: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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

On the contrary. I think the notion that the only way to respect someone is to agree with them is tearing at the fabric of our nation. People should be free to express their views, and people should be accepting of diversity of thought. You are the only one advocating for the concept that we can only respect someone by proactively validating their opinions and agreeing with them-- although I very much doubt this applies when it comes to people with more traditional value systems.

Right. Much better to call them mentally ill and tear down their identity. So “kind and respectful”.

Are you trolling on purpose? Or unintentionally?

Trying to tease out the “kindness and respect” of anti-trans bigots.

They want to teach kids to only be “kind and respectful” to some people.

It's not bigotry. It's literally listed as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If you read my post upthread, you'll see my discussion of why the fact that science is saying it is a disorder is one of the main issues that stands in the way of people embracing transgenderism as natural and healthy. Additionally, while there is very little solid research on the topic, the research that exists generally does not support embracing the perceived identity as the most healthy path forward.

It’s only diagnosed as “mental illness” if it’s causing distress. If ALL people are treated with kindness and respect then maybe there will be less distress.

Calling every single transgender person “mentally ill” is, at best, ignorant.

Your second sentence is a solid point and I think you'd get no quarrels from the right if the lesson plans focused on respect for all regardless of their gender EXPRESSION. The bit about genitals being unrelated to sex or gender is just a step too far.

[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: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.

I think if it were teaching kindness and acceptance, no one would have an issue. The problem is that it is teaching affirmation. There's a different between accepting someone as they are and affirming and validating their perceptions that may not align with reality or their best interests.

So teach kids to only be kind and respect SOME people.

On the contrary. I think the notion that the only way to respect someone is to agree with them is tearing at the fabric of our nation. People should be free to express their views, and people should be accepting of diversity of thought. You are the only one advocating for the concept that we can only respect someone by proactively validating their opinions and agreeing with them-- although I very much doubt this applies when it comes to people with more traditional value systems.

Right. Much better to call them mentally ill and tear down their identity. So “kind and respectful”.

Are you trolling on purpose? Or unintentionally?

Trying to tease out the “kindness and respect” of anti-trans bigots.

They want to teach kids to only be “kind and respectful” to some people.

It's not bigotry. It's literally listed as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If you read my post upthread, you'll see my discussion of why the fact that science is saying it is a disorder is one of the main issues that stands in the way of people embracing transgenderism as natural and healthy. Additionally, while there is very little solid research on the topic, the research that exists generally does not support embracing the perceived identity as the most healthy path forward.

It’s only diagnosed as “mental illness” if it’s causing distress. If ALL people are treated with kindness and respect then maybe there will be less distress.

Calling every single transgender person “mentally ill” is, at best, ignorant.

Your second sentence is a solid point and I think you'd get no quarrels from the right if the lesson plans focused on respect for all regardless of their gender EXPRESSION. The bit about genitals being unrelated to sex or gender is just a step too far.

That isn’t part of the NJ standards.