NJ to teach gender lessons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

Not fake news.

From the link above:

"But the issue gained new attention in recent weeks after the Westfield school board shared sample resources educators could use to follow the standards."

When a school district in NJ shares these resources, this is not fake news or fake outrage. If a school district can interpret the standards in such a way to believe that these resources are an appropriate way to teach them, then parent concern is totally understandable.

That school district can teach whatever TF they want without input from you. No teacher was required to teach that particular lesson plan. It was an example.

And it’s a school district, not NJ.

Fake news.

So you’re saying school districts do not have to answer to the taxpayer? Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-another NJ educator

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

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

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

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

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

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

NP. Unfortunately you have to be careful with therapists. Some of them very much encourage kids down this pathway now regardless of harm to the kids and also actively teach distrust of parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

Not fake news.

From the link above:

"But the issue gained new attention in recent weeks after the Westfield school board shared sample resources educators could use to follow the standards."

When a school district in NJ shares these resources, this is not fake news or fake outrage. If a school district can interpret the standards in such a way to believe that these resources are an appropriate way to teach them, then parent concern is totally understandable.

That school district can teach whatever TF they want without input from you. No teacher was required to teach that particular lesson plan. It was an example.

And it’s a school district, not NJ.

Fake news.

So you’re saying school districts do not have to answer to the taxpayer? Is that right?

The school board represents their local community. Which is not you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-another NJ educator

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

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

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

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

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

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

NP. Unfortunately you have to be careful with therapists. Some of them very much encourage kids down this pathway now regardless of harm to the kids and also actively teach distrust of parents.

And some equate affirmation to a lobotomy. Be careful indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

I don't think it's fake news. The NJ governor ordered a review of the teaching materials. It looks like there is a genuine problem, but not with the standards. The issue is how the standards were interpreted and executed. But since the NJ governor seemed to realize this was all over the line, they are working to correct it. But that is not the same thing as "we didn't do it." The left needs to stop pretending that they never advocated for unpopular policies once they fail. It makes you look like you're sneaking around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

Not fake news.

From the link above:

"But the issue gained new attention in recent weeks after the Westfield school board shared sample resources educators could use to follow the standards."

When a school district in NJ shares these resources, this is not fake news or fake outrage. If a school district can interpret the standards in such a way to believe that these resources are an appropriate way to teach them, then parent concern is totally understandable.

That school district can teach whatever TF they want without input from you. No teacher was required to teach that particular lesson plan. It was an example.

And it’s a school district, not NJ.

Fake news.

So you’re saying school districts do not have to answer to the taxpayer? Is that right?

The school board represents their local community. Which is not you.

You didn’t answer my question. I assume the local community pays taxes, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

Not fake news.

From the link above:

"But the issue gained new attention in recent weeks after the Westfield school board shared sample resources educators could use to follow the standards."

When a school district in NJ shares these resources, this is not fake news or fake outrage. If a school district can interpret the standards in such a way to believe that these resources are an appropriate way to teach them, then parent concern is totally understandable.

That school district can teach whatever TF they want without input from you. No teacher was required to teach that particular lesson plan. It was an example.

And it’s a school district, not NJ.

Fake news.

So you’re saying school districts do not have to answer to the taxpayer? Is that right?

The school board represents their local community. Which is not you.

You didn’t answer my question. I assume the local community pays taxes, right?

Depends what you mean by “answer to”.

That school board was elected by that local community. Not you. They DGAF about *your* opinion.

And it was a school board. Not NJ. Fake news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

I don't think it's fake news. The NJ governor ordered a review of the teaching materials. It looks like there is a genuine problem, but not with the standards. The issue is how the standards were interpreted and executed. But since the NJ governor seemed to realize this was all over the line, they are working to correct it. But that is not the same thing as "we didn't do it." The left needs to stop pretending that they never advocated for unpopular policies once they fail. It makes you look like you're sneaking around.

Exactly. Here is a link to the DM story with the materials that were handed out in parent meetings. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702691/First-graders-New-Jersey-given-sex-education-lessons-dubbed-Pink-Blue-Purple.html

Now of course they claim these materials were somehow not the materials that were going to be used, but they were the materials handed out in meetings. The backtracking when caught is so typical. Next step, blame Rs and/or Donald Trump.

[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 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/

Right, just as I suspected and in line with all of the "anti-trans" hysteria. None of this is anti-trans. 99% of it involves establishing standards for women's sports and protecting women. Thankfully, most Americans by a wide margin agree this is not anti-trans and is needed.

Yes, that is anti-trans RWNJ hysteria.

Bills to prevent one kid in the state from participating in sports. Banning affirmation treatment. Limiting gender options on birth certificates. Etc.

Whatever BS laws they can think up to be hateful jerks.

No, not RWNJ hysteria. It is what the majority of Americans believe. You are in the minority, and thank goodness they are banning affirmation treatment since 90% +/- a few percentage points depending on the study of kids who believe they are transgender end up identifying with their birth gender by their early 20s. It is a shame states are having to intervene so as not to allow the LWNJs to influence kids into hormone therapy and surgical treatment when they are confused teens and preteens in to protect them and allow the parents to have a say. Again, knowing that almost all of these kids will eventually identify as their birth gender, why would you want them to undergo affirmation treatment? England tried allowing teens to make these decisions and have done a complete reverse course.

+100 There are multiple studies that show if kids are left alone a majority of them will outgrow gender dysphoria with a lot of them growing up to be gay adults. There are other European countries who have reversed course as well as the UK including France, Finland and Sweden. The UK alone had a 4,000% increase in the number of girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria over the past decade. In the US I have read several recent medical articles urging caution for puberty blockers and hormone therapy for kids because they know there is trouble brewing when you only have a gender affirmation model in place. Just wait until the medical lawsuits start happening and we realize how many kids have been hurt by this movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

I don't think it's fake news. The NJ governor ordered a review of the teaching materials. It looks like there is a genuine problem, but not with the standards. The issue is how the standards were interpreted and executed. But since the NJ governor seemed to realize this was all over the line, they are working to correct it. But that is not the same thing as "we didn't do it." The left needs to stop pretending that they never advocated for unpopular policies once they fail. It makes you look like you're sneaking around.

Exactly. Here is a link to the DM story with the materials that were handed out in parent meetings. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702691/First-graders-New-Jersey-given-sex-education-lessons-dubbed-Pink-Blue-Purple.html

Now of course they claim these materials were somehow not the materials that were going to be used, but they were the materials handed out in meetings. The backtracking when caught is so typical. Next step, blame Rs and/or Donald Trump.

I know you all struggle with facts and all so let’s recap.

OP said that NJ was implementing the "Purple, Pink and Blue” lesson plan.
>>>THAT IS FALSE

In 2020, NJ passed these standards:
https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

School districts in NJ can determine their specific curriculum & lesson plans.

One school district shared sample lesson plans.

Murphy is going to review lesson plans and ensure everything is age appropriate.

He also said:
“Unfortunately, our learning standards have been intentionally misrepresented by some politicians seeking to divide and score political points”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

I don't think it's fake news. The NJ governor ordered a review of the teaching materials. It looks like there is a genuine problem, but not with the standards. The issue is how the standards were interpreted and executed. But since the NJ governor seemed to realize this was all over the line, they are working to correct it. But that is not the same thing as "we didn't do it." The left needs to stop pretending that they never advocated for unpopular policies once they fail. It makes you look like you're sneaking around.

Exactly. Here is a link to the DM story with the materials that were handed out in parent meetings. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702691/First-graders-New-Jersey-given-sex-education-lessons-dubbed-Pink-Blue-Purple.html

Now of course they claim these materials were somehow not the materials that were going to be used, but they were the materials handed out in meetings. The backtracking when caught is so typical. Next step, blame Rs and/or Donald Trump.

I know you all struggle with facts and all so let’s recap.

OP said that NJ was implementing the "Purple, Pink and Blue” lesson plan.
>>>THAT IS FALSE

In 2020, NJ passed these standards:
https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

School districts in NJ can determine their specific curriculum & lesson plans.

One school district shared sample lesson plans.

Murphy is going to review lesson plans and ensure everything is age appropriate.

He also said:
“Unfortunately, our learning standards have been intentionally misrepresented by some politicians seeking to divide and score political points”

OP here.
No, I did not say that NJ is implementing the "Purple, Pink, Blue" lesson plan. I said they were teaching gender lessons...... which they are.
I linked to a story about the lesson plan referenced.

Can you not understand that a controversial lesson plan shared with the public by a NJ school board might be..... well, controversial?
And, if Gov. Murphy does not want standards to be misinterpreted, perhaps he should look to the school districts sharing resources that cause the standards to be misinterpreted.
Or, better yet...... draft standards that cannot be misinterpreted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

I don't think it's fake news. The NJ governor ordered a review of the teaching materials. It looks like there is a genuine problem, but not with the standards. The issue is how the standards were interpreted and executed. But since the NJ governor seemed to realize this was all over the line, they are working to correct it. But that is not the same thing as "we didn't do it." The left needs to stop pretending that they never advocated for unpopular policies once they fail. It makes you look like you're sneaking around.

Exactly. Here is a link to the DM story with the materials that were handed out in parent meetings. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702691/First-graders-New-Jersey-given-sex-education-lessons-dubbed-Pink-Blue-Purple.html

Now of course they claim these materials were somehow not the materials that were going to be used, but they were the materials handed out in meetings. The backtracking when caught is so typical. Next step, blame Rs and/or Donald Trump.

I know you all struggle with facts and all so let’s recap.

OP said that NJ was implementing the "Purple, Pink and Blue” lesson plan.
>>>THAT IS FALSE

In 2020, NJ passed these standards:
https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

School districts in NJ can determine their specific curriculum & lesson plans.

One school district shared sample lesson plans.

Murphy is going to review lesson plans and ensure everything is age appropriate.

He also said:
“Unfortunately, our learning standards have been intentionally misrepresented by some politicians seeking to divide and score political points”

OP here.
No, I did not say that NJ is implementing the "Purple, Pink, Blue" lesson plan. I said they were teaching gender lessons...... which they are.
I linked to a story about the lesson plan referenced.

Can you not understand that a controversial lesson plan shared with the public by a NJ school board might be..... well, controversial?
And, if Gov. Murphy does not want standards to be misinterpreted, perhaps he should look to the school districts sharing resources that cause the standards to be misinterpreted.
Or, better yet...... draft standards that cannot be misinterpreted.

Yes, you did. We can all see it. You said NJ, not a specific district. And that was a sample lesson plan being discussed by a district, not mandated by that district or NJ. At best, you were misleading. Either way. It’s fake news.

NJ to teach gender lessons
.....for children as young as 6. First grade.

This is not appropriate. This is content that should be taught at home at this age.

One lesson plan, "Purple, Pink and Blue," instructs teachers to talk to their first graders about gender identity, and its first objective is to have the students be able to define "gender, gender identity and gender role stereotypes."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

I don't think it's fake news. The NJ governor ordered a review of the teaching materials. It looks like there is a genuine problem, but not with the standards. The issue is how the standards were interpreted and executed. But since the NJ governor seemed to realize this was all over the line, they are working to correct it. But that is not the same thing as "we didn't do it." The left needs to stop pretending that they never advocated for unpopular policies once they fail. It makes you look like you're sneaking around.

Exactly. Here is a link to the DM story with the materials that were handed out in parent meetings. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702691/First-graders-New-Jersey-given-sex-education-lessons-dubbed-Pink-Blue-Purple.html

Now of course they claim these materials were somehow not the materials that were going to be used, but they were the materials handed out in meetings. The backtracking when caught is so typical. Next step, blame Rs and/or Donald Trump.

I know you all struggle with facts and all so let’s recap.

OP said that NJ was implementing the "Purple, Pink and Blue” lesson plan.
>>>THAT IS FALSE

In 2020, NJ passed these standards:
https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

School districts in NJ can determine their specific curriculum & lesson plans.

One school district shared sample lesson plans.

Murphy is going to review lesson plans and ensure everything is age appropriate.

He also said:
“Unfortunately, our learning standards have been intentionally misrepresented by some politicians seeking to divide and score political points”

NJ passed the standards in 2020, but it really didn't cause much uproar because the standards were pretty generic. It was left up to the individual districts to implement the curriculum. So, you are correct in that the NJ overall standards do not call for the PP&B curriculum. How to implement the new curriculum that will take place in the fall was left up to the individual school districts, and they had either decided to or were contemplating using thee PP&B curriculum. Technically you are correct, but rather disingenuous in stating that children would not be following PP&B because the materials were distributed in individual school district/s that had decided to or were contemplating using it, fully intending this to be what is taught in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

I don't think it's fake news. The NJ governor ordered a review of the teaching materials. It looks like there is a genuine problem, but not with the standards. The issue is how the standards were interpreted and executed. But since the NJ governor seemed to realize this was all over the line, they are working to correct it. But that is not the same thing as "we didn't do it." The left needs to stop pretending that they never advocated for unpopular policies once they fail. It makes you look like you're sneaking around.

Exactly. Here is a link to the DM story with the materials that were handed out in parent meetings. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702691/First-graders-New-Jersey-given-sex-education-lessons-dubbed-Pink-Blue-Purple.html

Now of course they claim these materials were somehow not the materials that were going to be used, but they were the materials handed out in meetings. The backtracking when caught is so typical. Next step, blame Rs and/or Donald Trump.

Materials were not handed out at the meeting. And they weren’t the materials that were going to be used. Your “news” source is crap.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/new-jersey-education-guidelines/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I decided to read the text of the standards for myself in order to determine if your reading is correct and that the news is inaccurately reporting it, as it wouldn't be the first time the news has been inaccurate to whip up partisan fury and increase clicks. However, it appears that the standards have been deleted from the NJ website: https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/Docs/2020NJSLS-CHPE_GradeBand_K-2.pdf

If you don't want to click, I'll tell you that it just gives an Error 404 (not found).

Here you go:

https://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/2020/2020%20NJSLS-CHPE.pdf

After reading these standards, I have no concerns. I don't like the "pink blue purple" lesson plan, but the standards seem to be on point. The standards may in fact be so vague and benign that they would cover most people's definition of age appropriate and normal, as well as far left "pink blue purple" lessons that I would take issue with. Since NJ said that they are reviewing lesson plans to make sure extreme content isn't taught to children, I'm satisfied that this has been brought under control.

Yup. Just fake news to spin up Rs and bigots.

I don't think it's fake news. The NJ governor ordered a review of the teaching materials. It looks like there is a genuine problem, but not with the standards. The issue is how the standards were interpreted and executed. But since the NJ governor seemed to realize this was all over the line, they are working to correct it. But that is not the same thing as "we didn't do it." The left needs to stop pretending that they never advocated for unpopular policies once they fail. It makes you look like you're sneaking around.

Exactly. Here is a link to the DM story with the materials that were handed out in parent meetings. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702691/First-graders-New-Jersey-given-sex-education-lessons-dubbed-Pink-Blue-Purple.html

Now of course they claim these materials were somehow not the materials that were going to be used, but they were the materials handed out in meetings. The backtracking when caught is so typical. Next step, blame Rs and/or Donald Trump.

Materials were not handed out at the meeting. And they weren’t the materials that were going to be used. Your “news” source is crap.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/new-jersey-education-guidelines/

Per your own linked article, the material was included as sample plans of what would possibly be incorporated into the curriculum. Why do you keep trying to deny that this was seriously considered and probably would have been incorporated into the curriculum had the parents not protested. Why would they include the materials on their website as a proposed curriculum if they didn't intend to use it? Are you purposely being obtuse? The intent was clear and obvious to anyone and the reason the parents were upset. Westfield votes Dem 2/1, and the parents were upset, so it is not a D/R issue, it is doing what is right for the kids, and they are the ones that spoke up. Do you not believe them?