Anyone here opting their kids out of sex ed in Virginia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

Can you please say a little more about why it’s GOOD to normalize a wildly misleading description of one of the most fundamental aspects of human biology?

Those who oppose this language are using the same words that have been used for centuries to discriminate against people who are not like them. At various times being black, being native, being gay, being disabled, being Jewish, being intellectually challenged, even being left handed was against the laws of nature. Now we're drawing the line at being non-binary. Why? These people exist, and your children will have to live with them.

Education is meant to open minds and hearts, not build walls to understanding. Let your children learn about the world as it is, and let them decide what is fundamental.

You didn’t answer the question

Why is it GOOD to normalize a new euphemism for biological sex (nothing to do with non binary, which is just a subjective internal feeling) that dishonestly spotlights the role of the medical establishment in foisting a sex upon an infant (which may describe what happens in 1 of 5000 cases or so) when the reality for nearly everyone you have ever met is that their sex was clearly established during gestation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

So the libraries have books that teach kids about various things?

Again, ignorance is a feature, not a bug.

You still haven’t answered my three simple questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

Can you please say a little more about why it’s GOOD to normalize a wildly misleading description of one of the most fundamental aspects of human biology?

Your premise that it is “wildly misleading” is wrong. See my comment about how you are confused. I realize cognitive dissonance is hard, but make some effort to work through it.

It is always good to normalize inclusive language.

Your objection to this, while rooted in confusion and feeblemindedness, is truly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

Can you please say a little more about why it’s GOOD to normalize a wildly misleading description of one of the most fundamental aspects of human biology?

Your premise that it is “wildly misleading” is wrong. See my comment about how you are confused. I realize cognitive dissonance is hard, but make some effort to work through it.

It is always good to normalize inclusive language.

Your objection to this, while rooted in confusion and feeblemindedness, is truly bizarre.

Jeez, I hope YOU aren’t a teacher

Maybe you’re a chatbot

“It is always good to normalize inclusive language”

Which number directive is that in your code?

Anyway I’m not the one you called confused, that was a DP

[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:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

Can you please say a little more about why it’s GOOD to normalize a wildly misleading description of one of the most fundamental aspects of human biology?

Those who oppose this language are using the same words that have been used for centuries to discriminate against people who are not like them. At various times being black, being native, being gay, being disabled, being Jewish, being intellectually challenged, even being left handed was against the laws of nature. Now we're drawing the line at being non-binary. Why? These people exist, and your children will have to live with them.

Education is meant to open minds and hearts, not build walls to understanding. Let your children learn about the world as it is, and let them decide what is fundamental.

You didn’t answer the question

Why is it GOOD to normalize a new euphemism for biological sex (nothing to do with non binary, which is just a subjective internal feeling) that dishonestly spotlights the role of the medical establishment in foisting a sex upon an infant (which may describe what happens in 1 of 5000 cases or so) when the reality for nearly everyone you have ever met is that their sex was clearly established during gestation?

Because it's more accurate. The fact is that a doctor decides at birth what sex the infant is.

Sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- it turns out the doctor was wrong.

Why not try to be as accurate as possible? What harm does that do to your children, who will grow up knowing one more thing than we did?

I grew up unaware that lesbians existed. Turns out, I am one. My childhood would have been a lot better if I had been told what I am was actually a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Also, how am I wrong about it being wildly misleading?

Based on the numbers, I’m as right as I could possibly be

Explain more from your knowledge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

These questions were directed to the PP, an alleged teacher who claims this language is not being used and invalidates out right to express our concern.
As for your responses, I’m sure you joyfully think it’s a wonderful thing, and even believe it your right to “normalize” this sort of language with someone else’s children. And you think it’s not a problem that you are this confused?

[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:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

Can you please say a little more about why it’s GOOD to normalize a wildly misleading description of one of the most fundamental aspects of human biology?

Those who oppose this language are using the same words that have been used for centuries to discriminate against people who are not like them. At various times being black, being native, being gay, being disabled, being Jewish, being intellectually challenged, even being left handed was against the laws of nature. Now we're drawing the line at being non-binary. Why? These people exist, and your children will have to live with them.

Education is meant to open minds and hearts, not build walls to understanding. Let your children learn about the world as it is, and let them decide what is fundamental.

You didn’t answer the question

Why is it GOOD to normalize a new euphemism for biological sex (nothing to do with non binary, which is just a subjective internal feeling) that dishonestly spotlights the role of the medical establishment in foisting a sex upon an infant (which may describe what happens in 1 of 5000 cases or so) when the reality for nearly everyone you have ever met is that their sex was clearly established during gestation?

Because it's more accurate. The fact is that a doctor decides at birth what sex the infant is.

Sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- it turns out the doctor was wrong.

Why not try to be as accurate as possible? What harm does that do to your children, who will grow up knowing one more thing than we did?

I grew up unaware that lesbians existed. Turns out, I am one. My childhood would have been a lot better if I had been told what I am was actually a possibility.

I agree that you should have been told about lesbians - sorry you were not

Using misleading euphemisms (massively wrong in their implication that the doctor is the primary factor in determining sex for most people) is not introducing accuracy, it’s destroying accuracy

What if instead of straight we said “non-gay”? Wouldn’t that be accurate too? Or better yet, “not proven gay”? Also correct. But wouldn’t it be misleading too, to invert your focus to give the most prominence to the exception? Since the vast majority of people are straight?

[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:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

Can you please say a little more about why it’s GOOD to normalize a wildly misleading description of one of the most fundamental aspects of human biology?

Those who oppose this language are using the same words that have been used for centuries to discriminate against people who are not like them. At various times being black, being native, being gay, being disabled, being Jewish, being intellectually challenged, even being left handed was against the laws of nature. Now we're drawing the line at being non-binary. Why? These people exist, and your children will have to live with them.

Education is meant to open minds and hearts, not build walls to understanding. Let your children learn about the world as it is, and let them decide what is fundamental.

You didn’t answer the question

Why is it GOOD to normalize a new euphemism for biological sex (nothing to do with non binary, which is just a subjective internal feeling) that dishonestly spotlights the role of the medical establishment in foisting a sex upon an infant (which may describe what happens in 1 of 5000 cases or so) when the reality for nearly everyone you have ever met is that their sex was clearly established during gestation?

Because it's more accurate. The fact is that a doctor decides at birth what sex the infant is.

Sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- it turns out the doctor was wrong.

Why not try to be as accurate as possible? What harm does that do to your children, who will grow up knowing one more thing than we did?

I grew up unaware that lesbians existed. Turns out, I am one. My childhood would have been a lot better if I had been told what I am was actually a possibility.

I agree that you should have been told about lesbians - sorry you were not

Using misleading euphemisms (massively wrong in their implication that the doctor is the primary factor in determining sex for most people) is not introducing accuracy, it’s destroying accuracy

What if instead of straight we said “non-gay”? Wouldn’t that be accurate too? Or better yet, “not proven gay”? Also correct. But wouldn’t it be misleading too, to invert your focus to give the most prominence to the exception? Since the vast majority of people are straight?

First, I disagree that the doctor is not the primary factor in determining sex. If a parent says, "No I actually think my infant is a girl" and the doctor disagrees, the birth certificate will say "it's a boy."

Second, the term "non-gay" is exactly the same as the word "straight," except it assumes gay is the prevailing/preferred state and non-gay is the aberration. Both are inaccurate, really. The more we learn about sexuality (as with gender), the more we realize it is fluid and changes over time. So any term would applies to the here and now. At the moment, I am gay. I wasn't always, and who knows what tomorrow may bring.

Third, I think history has taught us that any practice that favors the majority inevitably disadvantages the minority, whether that is intended or not. Teaching children that people can only be male or female and they are "born that way" just because that is true for the majority dismisses the very few who do not believe they are the sex they were assigned at birth. And that inevitably causes psychic harm. Why not use language that doesn't do harm?

Be honest: You're not concerned with being accurate. You're worried that suggesting there are options other than "the sex you were assigned at birth" will cause your child to question their sex.

[Anonymous]

First, I disagree that the doctor is not the primary factor in determining sex. If a parent says, "No I actually think my infant is a girl" and the doctor disagrees, the birth certificate will say "it's a boy."

The primary factor determining the sex is whether or not there is a penis or a vagina. Pretty much this has been the determining factor for as long as we have had babies born. We also do this with animals. Milk cows are different from bulls.

The doctor signs the birth certificate based on the evidence presented. Do you really think a parent disagrees with the doctor?

There may be rare--very rare --babes that the sex is in question. But, these are not trans babies.

[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:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

Can you please say a little more about why it’s GOOD to normalize a wildly misleading description of one of the most fundamental aspects of human biology?

Those who oppose this language are using the same words that have been used for centuries to discriminate against people who are not like them. At various times being black, being native, being gay, being disabled, being Jewish, being intellectually challenged, even being left handed was against the laws of nature. Now we're drawing the line at being non-binary. Why? These people exist, and your children will have to live with them.

Education is meant to open minds and hearts, not build walls to understanding. Let your children learn about the world as it is, and let them decide what is fundamental.

You didn’t answer the question

Why is it GOOD to normalize a new euphemism for biological sex (nothing to do with non binary, which is just a subjective internal feeling) that dishonestly spotlights the role of the medical establishment in foisting a sex upon an infant (which may describe what happens in 1 of 5000 cases or so) when the reality for nearly everyone you have ever met is that their sex was clearly established during gestation?

Because it's more accurate. The fact is that a doctor decides at birth what sex the infant is.

Sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- it turns out the doctor was wrong.

Why not try to be as accurate as possible? What harm does that do to your children, who will grow up knowing one more thing than we did?

I grew up unaware that lesbians existed. Turns out, I am one. My childhood would have been a lot better if I had been told what I am was actually a possibility.

I agree that you should have been told about lesbians - sorry you were not

Using misleading euphemisms (massively wrong in their implication that the doctor is the primary factor in determining sex for most people) is not introducing accuracy, it’s destroying accuracy

What if instead of straight we said “non-gay”? Wouldn’t that be accurate too? Or better yet, “not proven gay”? Also correct. But wouldn’t it be misleading too, to invert your focus to give the most prominence to the exception? Since the vast majority of people are straight?

First, I disagree that the doctor is not the primary factor in determining sex. If a parent says, "No I actually think my infant is a girl" and the doctor disagrees, the birth certificate will say "it's a boy."

Second, the term "non-gay" is exactly the same as the word "straight," except it assumes gay is the prevailing/preferred state and non-gay is the aberration. Both are inaccurate, really. The more we learn about sexuality (as with gender), the more we realize it is fluid and changes over time. So any term would applies to the here and now. At the moment, I am gay. I wasn't always, and who knows what tomorrow may bring.

Third, I think history has taught us that any practice that favors the majority inevitably disadvantages the minority, whether that is intended or not. Teaching children that people can only be male or female and they are "born that way" just because that is true for the majority dismisses the very few who do not believe they are the sex they were assigned at birth. And that inevitably causes psychic harm. Why not use language that doesn't do harm?

Be honest: You're not concerned with being accurate. You're worried that suggesting there are options other than "the sex you were assigned at birth" will cause your child to question their sex.

Your point #1 is just pure sophistry so let’s focus on that

Natal sex is not a matter of anyone’s opinion

Nearly everyone is definitively one or the other and no doctor would ever screw it up unless they were high or wanted to lose their license

For the rare cases where surgery is needed to pick one path, the parents and the doctor would decide - but the parents decide in the end

At no point ever is a doctor, or anyone else, hemming and hawing over an anatomically normal baby

When I come across something that’s just a lie, I don’t try to contort my brain around to see it some other way - and I don’t Ike the idea of lying to anyone’s kids about something so important

[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:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

1) Use the terms. Happily. It’s good to normalize this sort of language.
2) Yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. It is important that we teach our children these things. Why do you think it’s a problem?
3) Give your children some credit. They aren’t confused. You are.

Can you please say a little more about why it’s GOOD to normalize a wildly misleading description of one of the most fundamental aspects of human biology?

Your premise that it is “wildly misleading” is wrong. See my comment about how you are confused. I realize cognitive dissonance is hard, but make some effort to work through it.

It is always good to normalize inclusive language.

Your objection to this, while rooted in confusion and feeblemindedness, is truly bizarre.

Jeez, I hope YOU aren’t a teacher

Maybe you’re a chatbot

“It is always good to normalize inclusive language”

Which number directive is that in your code?

Anyway I’m not the one you called confused, that was a DP

You sound very confused, too.

I work with children.

It is absolutely good to normalize inclusive language. Why on Earth is this a difficult concept for you? It’s not like any objection to it is valid or anything.

Here’s a suggestion for you as you wrestle with that cognitive dissonance: Try breathing through your nose. All that mouth breathing you do now isn’t letting enough oxygen flow to your brain.

[Anonymous]

I bet these morons also have issues with the expression “people with the capacity for pregnancy.”

They’re so easily triggered. It’s like they need a safe space or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

So the libraries have books that teach kids about various things?

Again, ignorance is a feature, not a bug.

You still haven’t answered my three simple questions.

1/3 - I’m not a teacher
2 - I think it’s great that the libraries have books with various topics for the students who seek them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where exactly can one see this “assigned at birth” language used in the elementary curriculum? FCPS follows the state curriculum verbatim. So are you saying that the Republican-led government (and VDOE) changed the curriculum? Or do you have access to some new curriculum that FCPS is using?

If you have children in FCPS you most certainly have received correspondence from the county using this new gender identity terminology. In fact, the latest survey sent to parents last fall on the proposed FLE changes uses it exclusively.

This was the recommendation for last year’s curriculum:
SY2022 - 23 Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC) Consideration
In 2022 - 23 FLECAC should explore and recommend changes regarding inclusion of the gender spectrum in the elementary FLE curriculum and a more overall inclusive curriculum in Family Life Education.

The entire document:
https://www.fcps.edu/node/33908

So, I see that’s what the-powers-that-be are recommending or suggesting. Has this been approved? Will this be the curriculum this year? If not, then why opt-out your kid this year unless you were going to do it anyway, regardless of the actual curriculum. To say you are opting out this year because of future proposed language is disingenuous.

Are you a parent in FCPS? If so, you must have noticed that this language has already been used for over a year.

You should have also noticed that the 2023-2024 FLE and Human Growth forms have not been updated. FCPS hasn’t even updated the FLE Opt-Out forms since 2021.

It would be disingenuous to continue using an outdated Opt-Out form that doesn’t reflect the contents nor the language of this current year when school is about to start. Given the polemic surrounding the FLE changes for this year, transparency and accuracy should be a must.

It has NOT been used with ELEMENTARY students. I teach it verbatim and there is no “assigned at birth” in the elementary curriculum.

You are talking about the old FLE--they have not yet approved the new one.

EXACTLY. But people are posting that they are opting their kids out of an FLE that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Will it change? Yeah, maybe. And then opt out if you want; that’s your right as a parent.

But these posters are straight-up lying by saying that the curriculum currently presented to elementary children uses the phrase “assigned at birth”. IT. DOES. NOT.

So, I’ll say again that to opt your child out of something that is not currently in existence is STUPID.

Three questions for you:
1. What will you do when you are instructed to use assigned male or female at birth with your ES students?
2. Have you visited your school’s library lately? FCPS has books in its ES libraries that not only use those terms as substitutes for boys and girls, they also teach students why those terms exist.
3. When students ask you what those terms in the books mean because they are confused, what do you reply?

So the libraries have books that teach kids about various things?

Again, ignorance is a feature, not a bug.

You still haven’t answered my three simple questions.

1/3 - I’m not a teacher
2 - I think it’s great that the libraries have books with various topics for the students who seek them out.

Towards the end of this document, there is a reference to the kind of material that has been in the ES libraries of FCPS for some time. Move forward six years, the trans activism in FCPS has gotten more intense, and the variety of material is even more explicit and graphic. Not sure why you think it’s your place to encourage someone else’s kids to be exposed to it, as is very doubtful that kids this young seek it out on their own initiative:
https://fcta.org/FxCo/Schools/2017_fcps_FLEfacts.pdf