Anonymous wrote:From page 24 of the "Teacher Manual" on the website:
"The lessons in this curriculum are specifically
written to challenge the gender binary and to be
inclusive, respectful, and supportive of all gender
expressions. Great resources that offer additional
ways for teachers to support this effort and
model district policy is Gay Lesbian and Straight
Education Network’s (GLSEN) and The Teaching
Transgender Toolkit available for purchase at www.
TeachingTransgender.com."
Sounds good to me.
^ And if the school districts in NJ decide to encourage kids to be “inclusive, respectful, and supportive” these lesson plans might be a good start.
But parents don’t all agree that gender binary should be challenged. Many of us (most perhaps) think it is based in science.
Anonymous wrote:So I guess at this point everyone agrees that the lesson plan is inappropriate.
That would be up to the individual school boards/communities.
Anyone who thinks some of this stuff is appropriate should not have any place with young children.
I looked at the organization's website that developed the lessons. I have no idea who they employ but I would be shocked if any of them are primary teachers.
They have a whole section for just New Jersey teachers, so clearly someone in NJ hired them to develop lessons.
After looking at some of the lessons and accompanying powerpoints, I am even more alarmed than before.
They have far too much content that is just not appropriate for the classroom.
Anonymous wrote:From page 24 of the "Teacher Manual" on the website:
"The lessons in this curriculum are specifically
written to challenge the gender binary and to be
inclusive, respectful, and supportive of all gender
expressions. Great resources that offer additional
ways for teachers to support this effort and
model district policy is Gay Lesbian and Straight
Education Network’s (GLSEN) and The Teaching
Transgender Toolkit available for purchase at www.
TeachingTransgender.com."
Sounds good to me.
^ And if the school districts in NJ decide to encourage kids to be “inclusive, respectful, and supportive” these lesson plans might be a good start.
Not if they challenge the "gender binary." That is anti-science.
Why are schools "teaching transgender?"
They might teach that transgender people exist. Which they do - so what is the issue?
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).
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.
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.
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?
This person is a trans-activist. You will only get double-speak
I’m a “facts activist”. OP’s post was misleading, at best. Question is: is she clueless or was it intentional? My guess is she was just parroting what she heard without fact checking.
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).
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.
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.
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?
This person is a trans-activist. You will only get double-speak
I’m a “facts activist”. OP’s post was misleading, at best. Question is: is she clueless or was it intentional? My guess is she was just parroting what she heard without fact checking.
OP here.
I stated facts. NJ is teaching gender lessons.
And, I linked to a tweet with a story about an organization providing lessons for teachers.
These are both facts.
Anonymous wrote:From page 24 of the "Teacher Manual" on the website:
"The lessons in this curriculum are specifically
written to challenge the gender binary and to be
inclusive, respectful, and supportive of all gender
expressions. Great resources that offer additional
ways for teachers to support this effort and
model district policy is Gay Lesbian and Straight
Education Network’s (GLSEN) and The Teaching
Transgender Toolkit available for purchase at www.
TeachingTransgender.com."
Sounds good to me.
^ And if the school districts in NJ decide to encourage kids to be “inclusive, respectful, and supportive” these lesson plans might be a good start.
Not if they challenge the "gender binary." That is anti-science.
Why are schools "teaching transgender?"
They might teach that transgender people exist. Which they do - so what is the issue?
Not everyone agrees with the concept of transgenderism, especially scientists. You have to believe that there is a soul that has a gender identity separate from the body. Many people don't believe in the concept of independent souls, much less the concept that souls have a gender identity. To many people, this sounds like hocus pocus.
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).
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.
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.
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?
This person is a trans-activist. You will only get double-speak
I’m a “facts activist”. OP’s post was misleading, at best. Question is: is she clueless or was it intentional? My guess is she was just parroting what she heard without fact checking.
OP here.
I stated facts. NJ is teaching gender lessons.
And, I linked to a tweet with a story about an organization providing lessons for teachers.
These are both facts.
We can all see what you posted. NJ is not teaching this lesson plan.
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 wrote:From page 24 of the "Teacher Manual" on the website:
"The lessons in this curriculum are specifically
written to challenge the gender binary and to be
inclusive, respectful, and supportive of all gender
expressions. Great resources that offer additional
ways for teachers to support this effort and
model district policy is Gay Lesbian and Straight
Education Network’s (GLSEN) and The Teaching
Transgender Toolkit available for purchase at www.
TeachingTransgender.com."
Sounds good to me.
^ And if the school districts in NJ decide to encourage kids to be “inclusive, respectful, and supportive” these lesson plans might be a good start.
Not if they challenge the "gender binary." That is anti-science.
Why are schools "teaching transgender?"
They might teach that transgender people exist. Which they do - so what is the issue?
Not everyone agrees with the concept of transgenderism, especially scientists. You have to believe that there is a soul that has a gender identity separate from the body. Many people don't believe in the concept of independent souls, much less the concept that souls have a gender identity. To many people, this sounds like hocus pocus.
Transgenderism doesn’t have anything to do with “souls”. ???
Anonymous wrote:From page 24 of the "Teacher Manual" on the website:
"The lessons in this curriculum are specifically
written to challenge the gender binary and to be
inclusive, respectful, and supportive of all gender
expressions. Great resources that offer additional
ways for teachers to support this effort and
model district policy is Gay Lesbian and Straight
Education Network’s (GLSEN) and The Teaching
Transgender Toolkit available for purchase at www.
TeachingTransgender.com."
Sounds good to me.
^ And if the school districts in NJ decide to encourage kids to be “inclusive, respectful, and supportive” these lesson plans might be a good start.
Not if they challenge the "gender binary." That is anti-science.
Why are schools "teaching transgender?"
They might teach that transgender people exist. Which they do - so what is the issue?
Not everyone agrees with the concept of transgenderism, especially scientists. You have to believe that there is a soul that has a gender identity separate from the body. Many people don't believe in the concept of independent souls, much less the concept that souls have a gender identity. To many people, this sounds like hocus pocus.
Transgenderism doesn’t have anything to do with “souls”. ???
Transgender people exist. Period.
What is the percentage of transgender people in general population?
Anonymous wrote:From page 24 of the "Teacher Manual" on the website:
"The lessons in this curriculum are specifically
written to challenge the gender binary[i] and to be
inclusive, respectful, and supportive of all gender
expressions. Great resources that offer additional
ways for teachers to support this effort and
model district policy is Gay Lesbian and Straight
Education Network’s (GLSEN) and The Teaching
Transgender Toolkit available for purchase at www.
TeachingTransgender.com."
Sounds good to me.
How many second graders give gender expression any thought to Not be inclusive and supportive?
Can someone explain why there is this goal to challenge gender binary for little kids? What is wrong exactly with gender binary that it needs to be "challenged", and how do you challenge it?
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).
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.
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.
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?
This person is a trans-activist. You will only get double-speak
I’m a “facts activist”. OP’s post was misleading, at best. Question is: is she clueless or was it intentional? My guess is she was just parroting what she heard without fact checking.
Anonymous wrote:From page 24 of the "Teacher Manual" on the website:
"The lessons in this curriculum are specifically
written to challenge the gender binary and to be
inclusive, respectful, and supportive of all gender
expressions. Great resources that offer additional
ways for teachers to support this effort and
model district policy is Gay Lesbian and Straight
Education Network’s (GLSEN) and The Teaching
Transgender Toolkit available for purchase at www.
TeachingTransgender.com."
Sounds good to me.
^ And if the school districts in NJ decide to encourage kids to be “inclusive, respectful, and supportive” these lesson plans might be a good start.
Not if they challenge the "gender binary." That is anti-science.
Why are schools "teaching transgender?"
They might teach that transgender people exist. Which they do - so what is the issue?
Not everyone agrees with the concept of transgenderism, especially scientists. You have to believe that there is a soul that has a gender identity separate from the body. Many people don't believe in the concept of independent souls, much less the concept that souls have a gender identity. To many people, this sounds like hocus pocus.
Transgenderism doesn’t have anything to do with “souls”. ???
Transgender people exist. Period.
Call it what you want, but you're saying there is a part of people that is gendered, but not for physical reasons. For some mystical, magical reason. Again, it's hocus pocus. You're born with a vagina or penis and it makes you male or female, regardless of which bit you prefer to have been born with.
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
