Hacker News Reader

Comment by _-david-_ | Hacker News Reader

I used the example of a dead parent because death is something that many young people do not really understand (do any of us?). They may never have experienced the death of a family member or friend. This is similar to how many young people don't understand homosexuality.

The fact you think I am trying to say homosexuality is the same as death is quite telling isn't it?

I don't care if somebody is OK with being out. It is not the place of a teacher to tell other students the home life of another student. I don't think a teacher should tell other students what the profession of a student's parents are either.

There is no reason for a teacher to do this.

View on HN

> The fact you think I am trying to say homosexuality is the same as death is quite telling isn't it?

I didn't say that. I said you compared them. You did so again in this comment, again putting them on the same level as taboo discussion subjects for children, which is just plain wrong. The fact that people of the same gender can love each other is not hard to understand, it's really quite simple to explain, but your last comment attempted to make it sound difficult to explain, seemingly to justify speaking in hushed tones about it or not at all if children are nearby, as if you were talking about their deceased parent. But it's an easy-to-understand, neutral subject, so your point is invalid.

And really? One kid tells another kid that his dad is an architect, the second kid asks the teacher to explain what the first kid's dad does. And the teacher says "No, I can't talk about anyone's parents." That's what you're going with?

This isn't necessarily about a student's parents anyway. That's just one example of where a child might be triggered to ask about it. Kids are curious, they will ask, and with this new legislation teachers will avoid it as if the kid asked about death. And when something gets treated as if it's taboo, it becomes taboo.

The problem is it is not quite so simple as you make it out. Kids are often told when a mommy and a daddy really love each other their love creates a baby. What happens if Johnny, a 5 year old, asks what happens if there is a daddy and a daddy. How far should the teacher go? No matter how the teacher answers it is going to cause issues.

Why not let the parents who know the child better explain these things?

In terms of a parent's profession there is nothing age inappropriate about an architect. There is certain age inappropriate things about sex. A teacher does not know if a kid has hit puberty, how mature they are, etc. This is why a parent should be involved with this not teachers.

How many 5 year olds are paying attention to laws being passed? None. The only reason they would know is if their parents or teachers tell them. I think kids should be kids. You shouldn't be telling kids about cultural / legal things that are going on if you can avoid it. I have no idea why so many people want kids to get involved with legal discussions. Just let kids be unaware of the strife, conflict and other things that don't matter to them in the world.

I don't want to talk to 5 year olds about taxes. Does that mean I want conversations about taxes to be taboo? I just think there is a time and place for things like this and teaching 5 year olds about this stuff is too early.

Also, I would note that the law only bans classroom instruction. If a student asks a teacher outside of that context the teacher could answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com