[flagged]
> Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate
This seems reasonable given we usually don't teach sex-ed until 5th or 6th grade.
> But that wasn't happening
I can tell you with certainty that this is definitely happening in California schools, no clue about Florida.
What does that even mean? That a boy prefers to play with dolls? How can a prepubescent second grade child be trans!?
Do you mean “how can they have a gender identity”? or “how can it be different than their assigned gender at birth“?
I’m trying to figure out what you don't understand here. Do cisgender identities in children that age surprise you?
Children throw tantrums over all sorts of trivial stuff, how could you possibly diagnose gender dysphoria off the fleeting whims of a preteen child?
What's arguably more dangerous is having an authority figure dictate to an impressionable child that they're "trapped in the wrong body" and setting them up for a lifetime of confusion. I don't think proponents of LGBT in the classroom realize that gender dysphoria is socially infectious, particularly when it is advertised as a solution to the typical confusion and angst that teens feel as they transition into adulthood.
The authority figure angle is interesting, though, especially in the case of one of the children I mentioned who has a cisgendered twin of the same biological sex. Seems weird the parents would push it on one child and not the other…
…or, it could just be as simple as you being wrong. Maybe even intentionally so. I don’t know. Regardless I’m not interested in responding to you any more after this because I don’t have time for bad faith actors.
Well isn't that ironic, considering you didn't answer mine in the GP. I'll tell you what is bad faith though, your shallow accusation as a substitute for an argument. What exactly are you implying with this accusation anyway?
>Seems weird the parents would push it on one child and not the other
It's not necessarily being "pushed" onto them, but excessive encouragement and failure to intervene - and I'm not implying that they've done anything out of selfish reasons (though transgenderism absolutely confers clout in certain circles these days).
1. The state of the progressive movement, where underprivilege is used to justify special treatment
2. Specific dynamics of the LGBT and especially trans community, which psychologically incentivises entry and continued participation, in the same way as a gang or cult. Complete with a flavor of excommunication for detransitioners who are accused of bigotry for saying exactly the sort of things I'm saying. What about their lived experiences?
3. The [false] promise that a troubled teen can effectively reinvent himself and become the person they want to be with pills and surgery. It's common for teens to desire to be someone else.
The clout angle isn't unique to gender dysphoria either - teenagers self diagnose with all kinds of trendy disorders in certain circles, and when I was in HS it wasn't transgenderism but bisexuality that people latched onto as a fashionable form of rebellion. Difference being we didn't give them affirmative therapy and HRT.
Sorry, but acknowledging that the incentives are perverse does not make me a bigot, and such accusations only serve to derail the discussion. Perhaps parents wouldn't be up in arms if this wasn't the default response to criticism.
Edit: also, the whole trans murder thing is a myth and perpetuating it helps no one. https://quillette.com/2019/12/07/are-we-in-the-midst-of-a-tr...
> how could you possibly diagnose gender dysphoria off the fleeting whims of a preteen child?
I'd recommend you take a look at the diagnostic criteria [0] for what you're talking about. Take note at how much stricter the criteria are for being diagnosed as a child. And then consider that mental health services already tend to discount the lived experiences of their adult clients. I can only imagine the crap young trans people have to go through.
> particularly when it is advertised as a solution to the typical confusion and angst that teens feel as they transition into adulthood.
I'm curious where you've been reading this. I only see people say this stuff in jest, and only if you take it out of context could you think it was serious.
Being a lesbian, I don't have to worry so much about having a partner who refuses to wash their ass or do chores because "that's gay," but that doesn't eliminate homophobia or catcalling or men thinking "I'm not interested, I have a girlfriend" means "I want to have a threesome with you and am playing hard to get, please continue to hit on me." Anyone who thinks about coming out knows that, even if being LGBT solves problem A, it creates problems B, C, and D.
But even if there is an epidemic of people thinking they're LGBT, what's the harm in that? Undergrad psychology students self-diagnose themselves all the time, and then they realize they're being stupid by the end of the semester. Trans people can't just write their own HRT prescriptions, the process is actually quite lengthy if you're a minor, and even for adults it can take awhile (and even then permanent effects take awhile, so if you realize you're not trans, it won't have lifelong consequences).
> gender dysphoria is socially infectious
It's not "socially infectious" like a disease, it's "socially infectious" in the sense of "oh wait, so these feelings I've been dealing with have a name, and I don't have to keep being miserable?" LGBT people tend to find each other and become friends, even while they're all still in the closet, and one coming out tends to have a bit of a chain reaction. It's not a bad thing unless you view being LGBT as a bad thing.
[0]: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphori...
You put that far more eloquently than I could!
As a trans person, I'm not confused about anything. I experienced severe gender incongruence since the moment puberty began. And no one's dictating anything to trans people either -- gender identity is remarkably resistant to external pressure, as seen in all the sexologist reports on trans kids from the 70s through the 90s. That's just not how gender works in our species.
So you find it horrifying if a young male openly identifies as a boy, and a young female openly identifies as a girl?
Those terms in this context refer to prepubescent children.
If a girl likes to dress in what is traditionally recognised as boys clothes and play with trucks, that just kids being kids, there's nothing transgendered to be found there.
> If a girl likes to dress in what is traditionally recognised as boys clothes and play with trucks, that just kids being kids, there's nothing transgendered to be found there.
There is nothing *necessarily* transgendered about this. However, the grandparent stated there are openly transgendered kids in a second grade class. Are you saying it’s impossible for a child to know if they’re trans or not? I think we generally accept that some gay people knew they were gay at that age, why can’t the same be true for trans people?
Then, you know, hormones happened. It’s insane to think that kids can be trans because a huge part of what makes us men or women happens during puberty. I didn’t think much about my gender until puberty hit either.
As far as I can tell, nearly all kids are fairly certain about their gender identity by the time they start school. What makes you so certain that those of them who are transgender will have no idea?
It’s insane to think that kids can be cis gendered because a huge part of what makes us men or women happens during puberty.
So given both of those positions, exactly what point are you trying to make in relation to this thread besides trying to imply that prepubescent transgendered kids don't exist, when they clearly do by their own accounts as adults?
My best friend growing up was gay and some people recognized it before puberty, but he either couldn't or wasn't willing to recognize it until after high school. He had a breakdown while drunk on our band trip and said he was asexual. Do you think a little kid that realizes he's different from everyone else might just think he's trans instead of realizing he's just gay? That's kind of hard to sus out until you actually have sexual attraction to people.
I was never into either dolls or trucks as a kid, nor did I wear girls' clothes. I still experienced gender incongruence.
“Transgender” is not a sexual identity, it is a relationship of gender identity to gender socially ascribed at birth, usually on the basis of the appearance of external genitalia (but possibly on the basis of genetics where that has been previously tested.)
And people usually have an open gender identity by second grade.
(Second grade also isn't particularly early for children to have an established sexual orientation, though it's a bit earlier than the median age for that.)
But, this does not preclude young children to not have sexual identities! My wife’s best friend knew he was gay when he was 6. He didn’t have the understanding to know this precisely, but he did know he was different from the other boys. This is not an uncommon experience.
If there’s anything this thread indicates, based on demonstrated ignorance of these topics, it’s that clearly schools should in fact be spending more time teaching this subject.
This is the "phobia" part of "transphobia".
It wasn't just a claim. One example shown was a math textbook that showed a graph saying that conservatives were more racist than liberals. I'm a staunch liberal but I found that to be pretty shocking. I would love to see more examples from the other textbooks, but for that particular textbook, I myself would have no qualms telling the published to change that graph to something less divisive.
How would you feel if that graph instead showed "56% of all crimes are committed by African Americans"? That statistic is true, but is that appropriate for a math textbook without a deeper conversation about underlying causes?
Is a hard truth indoctrination?
> This isn't a free speech issue, it's a question of appropriateness.
Excellent point. Doesn't this apply to the so-called censorship on Twitter as well? No one is getting arrested, and thus is cannot be a free speech issue. Should Twitter not get to decide what is appropriate on their platform?
> Making an comment about how conservatives are more racist than liberals is not appropriate for a math textbook.
What if the purpose of math textbooks should be to teach how math is applied in the real world? A graph of oranges vs lemons isn't going to be good at that.
This sounds like the same argument used to justify "shielding" kids from homosexuality.
> How would you feel if that graph instead showed "56% of all crimes are committed by African Americans"? That statistic is true, but is that appropriate for a math textbook without a deeper conversation about underlying causes?
This is a great rebuttal. Alone, I would agree it's not appropriate. But if the textbook then proceeded to use math to show why that might be the case, then I would fully support it. In fact, that would be an excellent addition to a statistics lesson for kids.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30843726/
Here's some actual data shows that liberals are more racist than conservatives. Would it be appropriate to go from there to the government indoctrinating the nation's elementary school students into believing that liberals are more racist than conservatives?
What is a fact?
> Those minorities are less competent.
"Those minorities"? You mean the individuals involved in the interaction? I didn't see where the study establishes that those people are less competent. Or do you mean the individuals are being stereotyped based on an assumed racial statistic?
> Liberals recognize that fact and propose how to fix it. Conservatives say it is genetics and ignore the problem, making it worse.
Well that's not what this study demonstrates.
And which conservatives do you believe say this anyway? The ones in this study? The average conservative? Or the imaginary boogyman that your math textbook warned you about?
> Which of these is racist?
Assuming a black individual one is conversing with is less competent due to their skin color and treating them differently because of that, is racist. Making no assumptions about an individual's competence based on their skin color and treating them as you would any other individual is not racist. At least that's my definition of the word and the one I was taught.
I stated the fact in the very next sentence, which you quoted.
> I didn't see where the study establishes that those people are less competent.
That was not the point of the study. Other studies have established this fact.
> Well that's not what this study demonstrates.
I didn't claim it did. You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.
> And which conservatives do you believe say this anyway?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4567596/?report...
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-mu...
> Assuming a black individual one is conversing with is less competent due to their skin color and treating them differently because of that, is racist
The study didn't show that the liberal whites assumed these groups were less competent and treated them that way but that liberal whites assumed that the audience was less interested in competence-related terms for voting and changed how they campaigned to them, probably around how they would fix the problems unique to these groups, which the conservative politicians ignored.
To be clear, what is racist is assuming the problems that these groups face is due to genetic mental inferiority, which is what conservatives assume, as the study I linked above shows.
I asked a question. "Those minorities" is not specific. If you are claiming it is the people in the study then you are wrong, no such fact was established.
> That was not the point of the study. Other studies have established this fact. This study just says that white liberals acknowledge this when speaking to these groups.
They are not "speaking to a group" or an amorphous blob. They are speaking to individuals in this study. Humans.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4567596/?report...
> https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-mu...
So some people. That does not support any such claim that "conservatives are more racist" unless you establish that's a general view among conservatives. You can say those people with that view are more racist if that's a racist opinion.
> They are on the whole less competent. Pretending that they aren't is ignoring the facts. This can be fixed. This is also a fact.
Treating people the same regardless of skin color is not ignoring the fact there are statistical differences among different "socioeconomic" groups is not ignoring those differences. I'm astounded you're actually trying to claim that is being racist, but then again I'm allegedly a racist old curmudgeon for being against institutional discrimination against asian college applicants so I really should stop being so surprised at today's liberal dogma and just agree to disagree with you.
It's established all over the place. Look at SAT scores, IQ tests, grades, etc. I never claimed that the stidy you linked to established it.
> So some people. That does not support any such claim that "conservatives are more racist" unless you establish that's a general view among conservatives.
Which is exactly what the first link you quoted showed, if you were able to read it.
> Treating people the same regardless of skin color is not ignoring the fact there are statistical differences among different "socioeconomic" groups is not ignoring those differences
The way they were treated differently was by using less competence words to signal that they were a good politician to vote for, since these people are from communities without a highly competent reference. Instead, these white liberals probably talked about the unique problems these groups were facing, which conservatives ignore and blame on genetics. Talking about their problems is not racist, and is in fact why these groups vote for white liberals. Pretending their problems is due to genetics without being able to point to a gene is racist.
> I'm allegedly a racist old curmudgeon for being against institutional discrimination against asian college applicants so I really should stop being so surprised at today's liberal dogma and just agree to disagree with you.
Liberals are also against discrimination against Asians. They try to solve problems where discrimination against Asians hold Asians back, like working to get reparations for interned Japanese Americans. Liberals also recognize that a significant minority of Americans have been systematically discouraged from getting an education and that fixing that will have a far greater impact on economic progress than almost anything else we can do.
Competency is not established for the individuals involved in the study!
Read what I wrote. I never said there aren't statistical differences among racial groups. That's why I asked you to clarify when you said "those minorities" whether you were talking about the individuals in the study or the racial stereotypes.
> Which is exactly what the first link you quoted showed, if you were able to read it.
Using the revised liberal definition of racist that requires one to discriminate against asians and assume black people are incompetent, sure.
> The way they were treated differently was by using less competence words
Yes I know, you don't have to repeat what the study concluded. I just fundamentally disagree on your idea of what racism is. Do you still think it's a good idea to teach this stuff in math class? Using my definition of racism? Or yours?
> Liberals are also against discrimination against Asians.
Not the ones I've talked to who have been trying to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination in order to bring about policies of systemic racism and discrimination in their institutions.
They are being talked to in the terms of what the groups they belong to care about. What about that did you fail to understand?
> Using the revised liberal definition of racist that requires one to discriminate against asians and assume black people are incompetent, sure.
No, using the definition that people who think different races are less intelligent due to genetics. You clearly haven't read it, or if you did read it, you didn't understand it. Being a liberal, I won't reach to thinking this is due to your poor genetics but will instead point out that your poor reading ability is something that can be fixed and that society should strive to fix.
> Do you still think it's a good idea to teach this stuff in math class?
Sure, why not? This is real data that they're being asked to fit a polynomial to. The fact that you are offended by what the data shows does not make the data less real or the exercise any less instructive.
> Using my definition of racism?
To be clear, your definition of racism is to speak to people according to the problems that their communities face (whether it be competence of politicians or politicians who ignore their problems) instead of in exactly the same terms. I have heard of nobody else who shares your definition.
> Not the ones I've talked to who have been trying to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination in order to bring about policies of systemic racism and discrimination in their institutions
The policies they are pushing for are to reduce crime and poverty, which helps all people. Giving support to groups that need it instead of groups that won't benefit from it necessarily involves discrimination. It is beneficial to debate which policies are likely to have the largest benefit, but sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem (and then justifying it by hypothesizing that no policy will help due to genetics without providing any evidence for genetic difference in intelligence) is the type of lazy thinking that permeates conservative thought.
To me (not from the US, far from conservative), it seems needlessly divisive. I'm all for real-world examples in maths/science instruction, but there'd surely be better alternatives that keep focus on learning the core topic at hand.
Should the government indoctrinate the nation's school children with these "facts", in classes where they're supposed to be learning math?