Sex Ed Books Don't “Groom” Kids and Teens. They Protect Them | Hacker News Reader

Sex Ed Books Don't “Groom” Kids and Teens. They Protect Them

bookriot.com

26 pointsAnon8430 comments

It’s particularly underhanded to start by talking about a book in the 90s, conflating it with books today, lauding the book from the 90s and then concluding everyone who has any criticism of what their children is being taught at all is a bigot. “Heather has two mommies” is not germane to what is happening currently.

Yes, lots and lots of idiots have banned perfectly good books. No, we shouldn’t hide sex education from children. But should 5 year olds be told that if they’re not feeling normal, they might not a boy or a girl, but something else?

I don’t have an answer to that question - but I have to say as a parent I had to stop reading when parent rights were put in scare-quotes. As if participating in your own children’s education is backwards.

Obviously this is all a million shades of grey, I’m not making any blanket accusations, and I’m not trying to ban any book. But parents should be involved in their children’s educations, full stop.

>> "Yes, lots and lots of idiots have banned perfectly good books. No, we shouldn’t hide sex education from children. But should 5 year olds be told that if they’re not feeling normal, they might not a boy or a girl, but something else?"

It would have helped me avoid a lot of confusion, conflict, and awkwardness growing up. I was always nonbinary. I just didn't have the language to talk about how I was feeling. Finally encountering other people whose specific experience matched mine in the 2010s was eye-opening.

Not only can you be something other than two possibilities, there's a whole space of possibilities inside, outside, and around them! Amazing. I needed that when I was 5.

Everyone is non-binary. The culture-bound stereotypes that are attached to and imposed upon female and male aren't enacted fully by anyone. One does not need an additional identity outside of woman or man to do this.

It's a nice sentiment, but no.

I've tried on man and woman. Both cause dysphoria the same way the wrong binary does for binary trans people. There are aspects of one or the other I do mesh with, but I've talked to enough enbies and binary trans and cis people to be confident that one does in fact need an additional identity to cover it. My experience is unlike that of the many men and women I've talked to about this.

This is not something I casually glommed on to and never considered again. I've thought about it more than you likely have. You can't "everyone is the same maaaaan" this away.

Well said. I’ve had a friend, who is non binary, tell me “they didn’t feel like themselves”. We had a very good chat wherein I revealed, as a straight white male, I too am plagued by the thought that I am the wrong person living the wrong life.

My choices are my own and I do not presume to judge anyone else's choices. But “thrown-ness” is not an indication of your sexuality (edit: or gender) - it’s an indication of your humanity.

This is about gender, not sexuality. Your confusion is understandable, but common among those who have not done the work required to have an opinion[0].

[0] https://fs.blog/the-work-required-to-have-an-opinion/

I don’t think telling people they don’t know enough about the human experience is the convincing argument you think it is. I do respect you and your opinion though - how can you possibly know what I’ve been through? It applies equally, you see?

Edit: the person who replied to me does not want me reply to them. Ideally, I’ve already said enough. Pedantically, you can assume “sexuality and gender” is the implication of the word “sexuality” above. Requiring homework or ideological preagreement before “being allowed to have an opinion” is among the most concerning things I’ve read that has been written in my lifetime.

>> "I don’t think telling people they don’t know enough about the human experience"

I'm going to stop you right there. I didn't say that. Let's back up to the post you replied to.

>> "Everyone is non-binary. The culture-bound stereotypes that are attached to and imposed upon female and male aren't enacted fully by anyone. One does not need an additional identity outside of woman or man to do this."

This isn't about "the human experience." This is about a specific human experience that you may have, but clearly need to process a bit more before you go around trying to dismiss--or participate in the dismissal--of others' experiences.

You do not know what you don't know and you reveal that in conflating gender and sexuality.

edit: I already responded to their post, so I won't be discussing this further. I've said all there is to say.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36026470

> But parents should be involved in their children’s educations, full stop.

They already are by being at home with them, at least in theory.

> But should 5 year olds be told that if they’re not feeling normal, they might not a boy or a girl, but something else?

School is supposed to expose children to the myriad of possibilities that constitute reality and being trans should not be discounted as one of them.

I agree. When I was 5 I really wanted to work on algebra and was never allowed. Schools should teach that starting in the first grade as well.

There's no /s here, since I understand it may seem that way.

This is an issue that’s very context specific. The content matters. The age matters.

There are videos on social media of books that are very much “NC-17” given to kids in middle school.

I would be inherently suspicious of videos. They are poor ways to engage critically with something. They can engage in exaggeration, misrepresentation, and outright lies, and you can't easily check them.

It would be so much more believable to just provide a link to the publisher or Amazon. But it's so easy to make a video and have people repeat the accusation.

You can’t link to part of a book.

The alternative though is pornhub. I see a study from 2017

"Study on Australians ages 15-29 found that 100% of the men (82% of women) had viewed porn."

No shocker there but:

"Also, 69 percent of males and 23 percent of females first viewed porn at age 13 or younger."

Just one of those things that makes me love being child free. No clue what you do in this situation.

Age inappropriate instructional materials don’t serve as a shield against harm from pornography.

Is there any research that increasing the level of explicitness and detail for younger ages increases benefit or mitigates harm?

I don't think a book can be rated NC-17.

proof.

I remember getting a sex ed book sent home in 6th grade. It sat around with my parents not wanting to touch the subject and I threw it in the garbage one day when they weren't home. They never said a word about what happened to the book.

To me that sums up the problem. So many parents are just too shy about sex to educate their kids.

Ignoring sex ed and at nearly the same age giving a kid a phone to take to bed with unlimited porn is utterly insane.

This is missing any semblance of nuance. When the article makes a point that "the wrong side" is using children to push their beliefs and does the same at the end of the text (think of the kids!), you know that it isn't worth the (digital) paper it was written on.

Not everything has to be nuanced. Some people want everyone to know being trans is a possibility, and some people don't. It's really cut-and-dry.

Here is a simple litmus test of whether a book is any good. When you go to someone's birthday with kids present, think about casually mentioning something from that book. If you can reasonably expect to be kicked out from the party, the book is no good.

Completely uncritical partisan drivel which doesn’t engage with any other viewpoints at all. “I’m right because my team is better than yours so you’re wrong,” etc.

I've never really understood the point of lying to children about sexual reproduction. Or trying to hide its existence I suppose.

I assume lying has only even been a possibility since (most) children now grow up without being around livestock of various kinds. And while I don't have any use for paranoia about 'grooming' I think it's not absurd to consider developmental stages - we don't let children drive, drink alcohol, vote, etc. because we don't consider them fully able to understand the consequences yet. So sex ed needs to be taught in a way that's understandable and useful, if not actionable, yet.

I completely agree, but we do not obfuscate the existence of cars, alcohol or voting either.

Because it makes immature adults, who were raised by immature adults, uncomfortable.

Ad-Hominem attacks do little to advance the discussion.

When they write a better article I’ll write a better comment

Reply on news.ycombinator.com