NJ to teach gender lessons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Teaching kids in elementary school about “flicking the bean” is appropriate? It’s not. Not at all.

Ok. No one is proposing to do that.

Manufactured issue.

[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:Transgender people are only 0.06 % of the population.

In any middle school today it’s about 20%.

The bigots clearly don’t know any young kids today.

Perhaps you don't really know kids today and you should educate yourself more on the topic. The latest Gallup poll showed 20.8% of Gen Z identifies as LGBQT so basically 1 out of 5 kids. It is double the percentage of millennials (10.5%) and Gen X is only 4.2%.

So at the risk of poking the hornet nest, here I go anyway because someone needs to say it.

This isn't good. It is bad that so many young people are reporting this.

I am old enough to remember before.

In the old days gays and lesbians would say that they were otherwise normal men or women that for reasons they didn't understand and didn't choose, were attracted to their own sex. They wanted to be treated with the dignity and respect that any human deserved and allowed to live their lives pursuing love and happiness as they chose.

The initial wave of transpeople were a tiny slice of the population and whether for biological or psychological reasons they felt with absolute conviction that their gender did not match their actual biological sex. They also said that it was absolutely not a choice and was an immutable part of their being that could not be changed.

Now, in the space of a sliver of time in biological terms we have 1 in 5 young adults identifying as LGBTQ and 12% (1 in 8) identifying as something other than a man or a woman. (For comparison, 13-14% of the US population is black.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/survey-20-percent-millennials-identify-lgbtq-n740791

If this is biological, then something absolutely massive has changed in only the last few decades.

All of this. Something is clearly wrong.

+100 When the number of transgender individuals goes from a tiny fraction of one percent to 1 in 8 then there is definitely something going on. There are probably several factors involved but social media, social contagion especially among girls, increased isolation during covid etc all have played a role. There was a link in an earlier post about a transgender psychologist expressing her concerns over the explosion in the numbers of cases among teens. Jazz Jenning's surgeon came out not that long ago with similar concerns. You can tell they are in CYA mode because they can see the writing on the wall and know there will be an inevitable wave of lawsuits down the road.

Regardless of any of the factors (biological, social, more acceptable) contributing to higher numbers what exactly is “wrong”?

DP. I imagine what most people think is wrong is children making permanent changes to their bodies based on something that may be a phase if they are in fact exploring their identity due to social influences. I read something fairly recently saying that some teens are sort of seeking refuge in trans communities online because they have found acceptance there. They haven't had good social experiences with their peers/the opposite sex and the trans community offers something they haven't been able to get elsewhere. That is not the same thing as feeling from a young age that your genitals don't match your sense of self and should not be handled the same way. If I were a parent and my teen were suddenly exploring gender fluidity with no signs of such feelings or behavior during their earlier years, I would have a lot of doubts that this is really the path they are supposed to be on and would not be supportive of any kind of permanent alterations.

But this is not a debate about treatment, it’s about how openly gender and sexuality can be discussed.

By not allowing open, supportive discussion they are going to drive it underground.

But it needs to be age appropriate discussion. Young elementary school kids don’t need instruction on gender and sexuality.

What is the issue here? Did you actually read the NJ standards?

Social and Sexual Health
Social and Sexual Health is a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others efficiently. Individuals are able to form meaningful relationships with others and interact in healthy, appropriate ways. They encompass respect and accept differences of an individual’s race, religion, gender identity, gender expression, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic background, and perspectives of health-related decisions. The extent to which people connect with others in different environments, adapt to various social and sexual situations, feel supported by individuals, institutions, and experience a sense of belonging, all contribute to social and sexual health.

By the end of grade 2
• 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.

Enough with the fake news. NJ is not pushing masturbation videos for ES.

What is the issue with the actual NJ standards - posted above ^^^^?? Nothing. Which is why you keep posting other stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This video is gross, and should not be shown at school. It’s part of the proposed lesson plans.

They aren’t “proposed lesson plans”.

They are videos produced by Rutgers and support the lessons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Teaching kids in elementary school about “flicking the bean” is appropriate? It’s not. Not at all.

Ok. No one is proposing to do that.

Manufactured issue.

It’s directly from the videos produced by Rutgers to support the curriculum.

[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:Transgender people are only 0.06 % of the population.

In any middle school today it’s about 20%.

The bigots clearly don’t know any young kids today.

Perhaps you don't really know kids today and you should educate yourself more on the topic. The latest Gallup poll showed 20.8% of Gen Z identifies as LGBQT so basically 1 out of 5 kids. It is double the percentage of millennials (10.5%) and Gen X is only 4.2%.

So at the risk of poking the hornet nest, here I go anyway because someone needs to say it.

This isn't good. It is bad that so many young people are reporting this.

I am old enough to remember before.

In the old days gays and lesbians would say that they were otherwise normal men or women that for reasons they didn't understand and didn't choose, were attracted to their own sex. They wanted to be treated with the dignity and respect that any human deserved and allowed to live their lives pursuing love and happiness as they chose.

The initial wave of transpeople were a tiny slice of the population and whether for biological or psychological reasons they felt with absolute conviction that their gender did not match their actual biological sex. They also said that it was absolutely not a choice and was an immutable part of their being that could not be changed.

Now, in the space of a sliver of time in biological terms we have 1 in 5 young adults identifying as LGBTQ and 12% (1 in 8) identifying as something other than a man or a woman. (For comparison, 13-14% of the US population is black.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/survey-20-percent-millennials-identify-lgbtq-n740791

If this is biological, then something absolutely massive has changed in only the last few decades.

All of this. Something is clearly wrong.

+100 When the number of transgender individuals goes from a tiny fraction of one percent to 1 in 8 then there is definitely something going on. There are probably several factors involved but social media, social contagion especially among girls, increased isolation during covid etc all have played a role. There was a link in an earlier post about a transgender psychologist expressing her concerns over the explosion in the numbers of cases among teens. Jazz Jenning's surgeon came out not that long ago with similar concerns. You can tell they are in CYA mode because they can see the writing on the wall and know there will be an inevitable wave of lawsuits down the road.

Regardless of any of the factors (biological, social, more acceptable) contributing to higher numbers what exactly is “wrong”?

DP. I imagine what most people think is wrong is children making permanent changes to their bodies based on something that may be a phase if they are in fact exploring their identity due to social influences. I read something fairly recently saying that some teens are sort of seeking refuge in trans communities online because they have found acceptance there. They haven't had good social experiences with their peers/the opposite sex and the trans community offers something they haven't been able to get elsewhere. That is not the same thing as feeling from a young age that your genitals don't match your sense of self and should not be handled the same way. If I were a parent and my teen were suddenly exploring gender fluidity with no signs of such feelings or behavior during their earlier years, I would have a lot of doubts that this is really the path they are supposed to be on and would not be supportive of any kind of permanent alterations.

But this is not a debate about treatment, it’s about how openly gender and sexuality can be discussed.

By not allowing open, supportive discussion they are going to drive it underground.

But it needs to be age appropriate discussion. Young elementary school kids don’t need instruction on gender and sexuality.

What is the issue here? Did you actually read the NJ standards?

Social and Sexual Health
Social and Sexual Health is a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others efficiently. Individuals are able to form meaningful relationships with others and interact in healthy, appropriate ways. They encompass respect and accept differences of an individual’s race, religion, gender identity, gender expression, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic background, and perspectives of health-related decisions. The extent to which people connect with others in different environments, adapt to various social and sexual situations, feel supported by individuals, institutions, and experience a sense of belonging, all contribute to social and sexual health.

By the end of grade 2
• 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.

Enough with the fake news. NJ is not pushing masturbation videos for ES.

What is the issue with the actual NJ standards - posted above ^^^^?? Nothing. Which is why you keep posting other stuff.

they are.



Rutgers Answer, K-12

https://www.nj.gov/education/standards/chp/index.shtml#standard2.1
no.gov

the videos posted above are from their org

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Teaching kids in elementary school about “flicking the bean” is appropriate? It’s not. Not at all.

Ok. No one is proposing to do that.

Manufactured issue.

It’s from Rutgers Amaze, and it’s listed as a resource for NJ students on the nj.gov education resources website.

They have an entire youtube channel and the videos and screenshots posted here are directly from their videos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This video is gross, and should not be shown at school. It’s part of the proposed lesson plans.

They aren’t “proposed lesson plans”.

The district superintendent Raymond González told The Washington Post “the sample plans were part of a website that was included as a link to illustrate the type of possible resources for school districts shared by the N.J. Department of Education.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This video is gross, and should not be shown at school. It’s part of the proposed lesson plans.

They aren’t “proposed lesson plans”.

The district superintendent Raymond González told The Washington Post “the sample plans were part of a website that was included as a link to illustrate the type of possible resources for school districts shared by the N.J. Department of Education.“

+1

And the clitoris is called “the bean” and children will be told “flicking it” is how women masturbate.

And a young boy is shown graphically having an orgasm as he watches porn on his computer.

And a brother and sister are shown looking at the website “Meat Men” together in public, and a man with a cartoonishly large penis is discussed by them.

It’s gross.

[Anonymous]

Are all the videos from Rutgers Answers? Because according to their website, the lesson plans are for grades 8-12. While masturbation and porn are awkward conversations, they're also activities that teenagers engage in, whether parents like to admit it or not. It's better that teens have access to accurate information than live in shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This video is gross, and should not be shown at school. It’s part of the proposed lesson plans.

They aren’t “proposed lesson plans”.

They are videos produced by Rutgers and support the lessons.

It’s a resource that school districts can use to pull resources that fulfill the standards. That means that they pick and choose relevant materials - they don’t just show kids everything on every website that NJDOE has posted.

Where do you see masturbation or sexual readiness on the list of NJ standards for grade 2?




MANUFACTURED ISSUE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are all the videos from Rutgers Answers? Because according to their website, the lesson plans are for grades 8-12. While masturbation and porn are awkward conversations, they're also activities that teenagers engage in, whether parents like to admit it or not. It's better that teens have access to accurate information than live in shame.

I don't want teachers discussing these issues with my 8th grader. I'm morally opposed to porn. It's my job as a parent to teach these issues, not my county's. The government does not provide any financial benefits to me for my child and there is no incentive for me to see my child as belonging, in any sense, to the government. This is a nation that considers children to be the sole financial obligation of parents. So they dont get to suddenly @ me with this "takes a village" garbage when it politically suits them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all the videos from Rutgers Answers? Because according to their website, the lesson plans are for grades 8-12. While masturbation and porn are awkward conversations, they're also activities that teenagers engage in, whether parents like to admit it or not. It's better that teens have access to accurate information than live in shame.

I don't want teachers discussing these issues with my 8th grader. I'm morally opposed to porn. It's my job as a parent to teach these issues, not my county's. The government does not provide any financial benefits to me for my child and there is no incentive for me to see my child as belonging, in any sense, to the government. This is a nation that considers children to be the sole financial obligation of parents. So they dont get to suddenly @ me with this "takes a village" garbage when it politically suits them.

You can opt your kid out of sex ed.

No big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all the videos from Rutgers Answers? Because according to their website, the lesson plans are for grades 8-12. While masturbation and porn are awkward conversations, they're also activities that teenagers engage in, whether parents like to admit it or not. It's better that teens have access to accurate information than live in shame.

I don't want teachers discussing these issues with my 8th grader. I'm morally opposed to porn. It's my job as a parent to teach these issues, not my county's. The government does not provide any financial benefits to me for my child and there is no incentive for me to see my child as belonging, in any sense, to the government. This is a nation that considers children to be the sole financial obligation of parents. So they dont get to suddenly @ me with this "takes a village" garbage when it politically suits them.

You can opt your kid out of sex ed.

No big deal.

I'm also opposed to schools, in general, normaling human trafficking and consuming film of people with dubious consent engaging in acts of possible rape. In other words, I'm generally against any state-backed promotion of porn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This video is gross, and should not be shown at school. It’s part of the proposed lesson plans.

They aren’t “proposed lesson plans”.

They are videos produced by Rutgers and support the lessons.

It’s a resource that school districts can use to pull resources that fulfill the standards. That means that they pick and choose relevant materials - they don’t just show kids everything on every website that NJDOE has posted.

Where do you see masturbation or sexual readiness on the list of NJ standards for grade 2?




MANUFACTURED ISSUE.

The no.gov website lists the resources from Rutger’s AMAZE as appropriate for k-12.

The videos are not appropriate for an school age children. If the goal is educating students, cartoons of a child jacking off and instruction on how to “flick the bean” are childish and gross.

The videos are being touted as official resources for nj students k-12. It’s not a manufactured issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all the videos from Rutgers Answers? Because according to their website, the lesson plans are for grades 8-12. While masturbation and porn are awkward conversations, they're also activities that teenagers engage in, whether parents like to admit it or not. It's better that teens have access to accurate information than live in shame.

I don't want teachers discussing these issues with my 8th grader. I'm morally opposed to porn. It's my job as a parent to teach these issues, not my county's. The government does not provide any financial benefits to me for my child and there is no incentive for me to see my child as belonging, in any sense, to the government. This is a nation that considers children to be the sole financial obligation of parents. So they dont get to suddenly @ me with this "takes a village" garbage when it politically suits them.

You can opt your kid out of sex ed.

No big deal.

I'm also opposed to schools, in general, normaling human trafficking and consuming film of people with dubious consent engaging in acts of possible rape. In other words, I'm generally against any state-backed promotion of porn.

Which school used this video?

Does NJ standards include promoting porn?

MANUFACTURED ISSUE.