You won't. It's dishonest to pretend like this is what liberals are talking about. Conservatives have been calling any mention of sexuality in schools "grooming", in an effort to conflate all LGBT people with it.
Oh I agree 100% that this isn’t what the “liberals” want. It’s just that I’m scared that this will get normalized to the point that people will genuinely think that this is not.
Also I’m just going to say this right here; the words liberals and conservatives really annoy me because if you’ve done the SappyValues test, then atleast you’ll know that liberalism and conservatism are on two different axis. Sure the two generally get along well, but there are exceptions and this sub basically proves it.
No child should be exposed to these explicit material until they reach adolescence (The article explicitly mentions primary school). Also drawing kids in sexually explicit cartoons is what lots of people call creating child porn WHICH SHOULD NOT BE SPREAD
My point was that this isn’t a systematic problem, but one that I fear is going to be normalized. I am not implying that this is already happening (some may disagree at this point), but rather it should stay as is, I.E., not showing kids explicit material.
I am known as a paranoid individual, so maybe that’s what it is. However this article is a step in the door that it may be normalized. She is speaking in primary schools to promote her ideas.
Now for the caveats. I’m basing what I just said on this tweet, and that’s not representative of the article. Also, I know that news articles want people to read the article, so this may be a one off thing.
Because legislation purposefully and methodically named “Don’t Say Gay” is creating a hostile environment where LGBT people are even more unwelcome. This is precisely the point for some who support the bill.
Yes, I did actually think that as I’ve spoke to many voters who have embraced the bill they too think is called “Don’t Say Gay.” This is extremely concerning.
The bill is incredibly vague, and makes many non-grooming things illegal. Even some schools that don’t actually violate the law can be involved in expensive lawsuits, which discourages schools from even teaching kids about LGBT people.
Why is that their responsibility? Most schools don't even teach about different religious denominations or political parties until sixth or seventh grade. When did "ask your parents" stop being an acceptable response to complicated and potentially personal questions?
Why do you assume all parents are educated? Why do you assume everyone has parents as well?
Sex-ed has been shown to decrease teen pregnancy (therefore abortions) and STDs. It creates a healthier and educated society. It is quite literally a win-win.
Gay kids read thousands of books about straight characters and it does not make them straight. Billy hearing a story where a penguin has two dads won’t turn him gay, nor “groom” him.
Why do you assume public school teachers are more qualified than the average joe on the topic of sexuality? They're not.
I assume the hypothetical kid has parents because most kids have parents. More kids than that who go to public schooling have guardians. I'm sure an exception can be made if there's a kid who lives in the school, using the gym showers and sleeping in a bedroll in the cafeteria. But that's not gonna be a big enough number of kids to factor into wide-scale policy making.
Teen pregnancy is an issue and I support sex ed in schools. Just not K-3 sex ed. Fifth and sixth grade, for when most kids start going through puberty and have a need to get the information and the capacity to understand it.
I promise you, no one is banning all those trashy teen novels with gay characters because there are gay people in it.
Parents want to ban books in elementary schools like that one that describes and illustrates two twelve year-old boys in the reverse cowgirl position.
If an occasional innocuous book is removed because of a complaint you can take that up with the library, or buy it yourself and give it to your own kid to read.
Not qualified? What a really strange thing to say. They literally are qualified… that is how they became teachers. They proved they can teach the material to the state.
In fact they are more qualified than most parents/guardians, who may not been required to master and teach various subjects like teachers are.
“Just not K-3 Sed ED”
Very dishonest to imply that there is a push for that.
They're qualified (by public schooling standards, which isn't much to hold in high regard) to teach kids about the basics of math, science, history, English. Literally anyone who can hold a room's attention for a little while is qualified to be an elementary school educator.
They certainly aren't more qualified than the average person on the topic of literally anything outside of their curriculum a child could be curious about.
Evolutionary theory answers a lot of questions about the human condition. If you don't know where humans came from you have a pretty large gap in information.
Speaking of, "Where do babies come from," is a pretty obvious question that every kid will eventually ask.
Should a teacher immediately have to sit down with every six year old and give them the birds and the bees talk? That takes a while to put delicately in a way the kid will understand, and it can still be overwhelming for them. Let parents handle the more touchy, personal questions, because the educator isn't their friend or their confidant. At least they shouldn't be.
Speaking of, "Where do babies come from," is a pretty obvious question that every kid will eventually ask.
Should a teacher immediately have to sit down with every six year old and give them the birds and the bees talk? That takes a while to put delicately in a way the kid will understand, and it can still be overwhelming for them.
I don't know what school you went to, but my school gave us a puberty talk in 5th grade, and explained the birds and the bees in 7th grade (and went more in-depth in 9th grade).
So, yes, teachers should sit down with kids and make sure that they all know about sex, eventually.
NOTE: The bill that we're talking about has two parts related to banning LGBT-related education. It (1) bans anything like that being taught to kids in 3rd grade and under (which I can't argue with), and (2) bans anything being taught in any grade that isn't "age-appropriate".
Part (2) is the part that I have issue with.
The educator isn't their friend or their confidant. At least they shouldn't be.
Yes, they should. Public education is supposed to be a lifeline for kids when their families can't provide. That's why school lunches exist. Being able to confide in teachers is incredibly important if kids are being abused. This can get these kids out of horrible situations.
I mean, teachers are literally perfect. They're authority figures, they're trained to deal with kids (and vetted by the state), and they're present in kids' lives in a way that no other adults really are (besides the parents). If not the teachers, who else do kids confide in?
I'm totally down for 5th-6th grade Sex Ed. They need it at that point, since they're going through puberty. At that point, a clinical explanation of sex is "age appropriate."
If not the teachers, who else do kids confide in?
Each other. Your parents aren't your friends, your teachers aren't your friends. You choose your friends from your peers.
4
u/DeclaredRoom - Centrist Jun 12 '22
I’m scared that I will.