The NEA is pushing far left teaching upon children

[Hentenza]

Of course there is. Explaining to kids what is happening as they grow up is the job of adults.

Growing up isn’t easy and not talking about something because the adult thinks it’s icky is disgracefully bad care.

Why do kids need to know? Why does three percent of the population require me or anyone else to tell and explain to kids about their difference? Why does this issue that only affects three percent of the population need to dominate the conversation? Why does three percent of the population get to choose and force pronouns on others that are contrary to the actual English language definition of these pronouns? Why does three percent of the population require the rest to use their preferred name when said name does not match them physically? Why does three percent of the population get to inject gender confusion to everyone else?

No. Kids have enough to deal with their own role confusion issues to add this topic to it. This is the baby of the far left not of the rest of us.

 

[Hentenza]

No it won’t. Demystifying something reduces confusion. That’s why we explain things.

Yes it will add to their already complicated role confusion. Do you know what role confusion is?

Secondly, is not just about explaining things but about they conforming to what is being taught. There is no reason for kids to have to conform to non conforming speech and to be forced to do so.

 

[jacorian]

It's unfortunate but there are any number of teachers or professors who are teaching outside of their field & that is malpractice. Is it because they got marching orders or are they just going with a trend or do they really believe that going out of their way is so valuable to the student. Return to classical education. The gender stuff in particular is malpractice. When did any of us going thru school encounter a class in any grade where the teacher opened the lesson questioning whether some kid thought they were created wrong & the teacher is their to fix it. This gets into an area where the teacher is not licensed. When one looks back at the last decade of this stuff it shows that even in the USA, our own govt gets into social engineering no different than Mao Tse Tong. That is why people should never fawn over govt. The gender stuff is a case of body dysphoria & should be treated as a mental health issue. But here the politicians are looking to make more victim groups. I'm an educator by trade & lifelong academic & I have a lot of criticism for what the education system has become & I am disappointed in both parties. Neither party is creditable in their vision on education. On the left we have all these topics that encourage either victimization or pretending that the whole world can just do kumbaya or that we must generate animosity with tit for tat warfare. On the left it's really become about activism. Now the current view from the right I observe that they say all college is bad & no help to anyone & we should perhaps disband it. They want everyone to be a plumber. Well civilization includes people of all academics & occupations. Very sad when the right frowns on the fine arts or does not see the value of a course in sociology. So when you look at the theatrics, remember these people are just pundits. They aren't experts in anything. Can you imagine a country that had no theaters or choirs. The bookstore might as well vanish because you would only be able to sell books on plumbing. So neither side gets it.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Never. You are misusing behaviour and construct.

A behavioral construct is the means by which one interprets their experience and organizes their understanding of the world. Since when did "transgender" interpretation of their experience and organization of their understanding of the world... become an identity?

Education like health care should not be a competitive market.

Why not?

There are many instances of the Bible dictating unethical and immoral behaviour so they are not by necessity; they can be but it’s not guaranteed.

According to who? According to you? What moral weight does your opinion hold over anyone else's?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Well that’s an interesting definition. It used to be that one needed a gender dysphoria diagnosis to get insurance to pay for the hormone treatments. (I don’t think that even still now, no insurance (in the US at least) will pay for the surgery. They have to go by the DSM-5R criteria for diagnostic purposes / at least as related to insurance.

Insurance will at least still cover counseling services.

So the definition you quoted there is interesting; although it may not match the DSM diagnosis criteria. It takes a lot to update the DSM which I think was last updated a year or more ago now?

But I can see too where that definition may fit for men who have autogynephielia. And want surgery.

There’s been a big activist push to get all “sexual aberration” diagnoses removed. Which…. We’ll see where that goes; because ones that get people incarcerated, treatment is still payed for through public mental health services funding. Which mental health services (except for populations like veterans; is quickly disappearing; (and has been for almost 2 decades now.

So yes, what you posted could be the coming definition in the next DSM revision.

You are reading it wrong, you still need to suffer from gender dysphoria to get access to medical treatments. But being trans is not equivalent to suffering from gender dysphoria. Transgender is not a psychiatric diagnosis at all. And haven't ever been in DSM-5.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It also depends on what an individual may define as a construct of identity. How much weight do we give to our feelings in our self assessment of who we are?

Of course it’s wise to understand that our feelings don’t always reflect what is actually true. Despite “negative messages” we get, tend to be the ones that “stick”.

And a lot of people make decisions based on “feelings”. Which in the case of running off negative messaging, there is limited ability to make good decisions in that state.

Then of course there is the “best decision given circumstances” (or perceived circumstances) option too.

And here is where I’ve seen the biggest detriment to trans people’s psyches when they come to the conclusion: “maybe I shouldn’t have done this”? There’s no “totally going back”. Once the hormone treatment and surgery are done; there’s a limited amount of “undo” that’s possible.

And here is where the most psychological danger of suicide comes in. I’ve listened to many “detransitioners” (or desisting) say they genuinely feel like there is no way God will ever forgive them for what they did to their bodies. (Which of course isn’t true!)

Yet believing the lies is what got them where they are in the first place. (Very wounded people with serious psychological challenges and/or neuro developmental disorders.

And of course if they walk away from the ideology they are ridiculed and often with more vitriol than from those who “had a problem” with their transitioning in the first place.

And the end result is that a lot of them don’t survive, because they commit suicide. They feel there’s no hope and no one will accept them, no matter what they do.

It’s really a horrendous tragedy!

The few studies on regret rates show them to be in single percents, iirc. Which is low for medical treatments.

Besides sex reassignment surgery, most interventions are almost reversible. For MtF extra breast tissue would of course have to be surgically removed.

When SBU (Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services) reviewed GnRH antagonists the only medical risk they identified was lower bone density, which at least partly (perhaps fully, not enough follow up time) seemed to be relieved when taking exogenous hormones or going off GnRH. That was why they stopped recommending GnRH antagonists.

 

[A2SG]

It wasn't exactly "embraced" considering that it was considered so ridiculous that simply seeing a male character in drag was considered high comedy. The joke was that it was patently absurd.

Sometimes, sure. Not always, though. Cross dressing in entertainment crosses a lot of different genres, and not all of them are satirical.

Great. Keep it away from the kids.

Why? Kids enjoy it. Haven't you ever seen a Bugs Bunny cartoon?

If you're referring to drag, you might have a point. But if you're referring to the historic comedic trope of "haha male character in women's clothes" then your point falls flat, since the source of the mockery is the absurdity of a man in women's clothes not some ribbing of a stereotype. As drag is a recent phenomena belonging to a particular subculture, it hardly can be said to be a source of normality.

Drag is hardly a recent phenomena. The history of theatre is rife with it, from ancient times on up. It was a major component of Commedia dell'arte, in fact, and that form of popular entertainment goes back centuries. And back then, kids loved it, too!

But, as to cross dressing as entertainment being mostly satirical, that's false as well. Just as an example, many Shakespeare plays feature women dressing as men, or vice versa, as a significant part of the plot. And here, we're talking about female characters, because men played every role in that time, so the cross dressing was not only plot specific, but real: male actors playing female characters as actual characters, not at all satirical.

Cross dressing as entertainment, including drag, has been around for pretty much as long as humans have entertained each other. It's only a recent phenomena that some tightly-wound people felt the need to have a problem with it.

-- A2SG, who knows why, maybe they needed a new scapegoat for all of society's ills....

 

[A2SG]

Mmmm… let’s see. Preferred pronouns, preferred name, conduct correction to make sure no one is “insulted”, the demonization of those that don’t think as they do, etc. etc. etc.

None of which is mandated by law.

-- A2SG, it's perfectly legal to be as rude or dismissive of anyone else as you like....

 

[A2SG]

That is not for the school to decide. The parent still has primary responsibility for their children. Nothing should happen without the parent’s consent.

Nothing does. Nothing that would require parental consent, anyway, like medical intervention of any kind. Now, if a kid wants to be referred to by different pronouns, or called a different gender than their body would indicate, or even by a different name, that hardly requires parental consent.

The only schools that perform any kind of surgery are medical schools, and no kids are going there.

-- A2SG, well, except maybe Doogie Howser....

 

[A2SG]

Why do kids need to know? Why does three percent of the population require me or anyone else to tell and explain to kids about their difference? Why does this issue that only affects three percent of the population need to dominate the conversation? Why does three percent of the population get to choose and force pronouns on others that are contrary to the actual English language definition of these pronouns? Why does three percent of the population require the rest to use their preferred name when said name does not match them physically? Why does three percent of the population get to inject gender confusion to everyone else?

No. Kids have enough to deal with their own role confusion issues to add this topic to it. This is the baby of the far left not of the rest of us.

Why do kids need to know? Because they may be part of that three percent, and would need to know what that means.

-- A2SG, and no one's forcing pronouns on you....feel free to use any pronouns you like, if if the person you're talking to prefers different ones....who cares what they prefer, right?

 

[rjs330]

I’m sorry are you saying that when a child is diddled it is the child that has sinned?

No, the child is being forced to participate in the sin of the adult which harms the child.

We know that sexual abuse often causes psychological damage to tge point where later the child becomes an offender themselves.

 

[rjs330]

What’s wrong with that? If a kid’s gay they need to know that they are not monsters.

Homesexual experimentation can cause psychological damage to a child leading then to believe they are gay when they may not be.

 

[rjs330]

What's the harm? What drag queens are teaching is that how we dress is only cultural convention and it's OK to have fun with it sometimes. No harm in that at all.

Nope drag queens are trying to queen the kids.

Drag, is typically a sexual perversion. Men getting their jollies by dressing up in womens clothes and acting out their perversion on stage.

 

[rjs330]

Because you don't want them taught that? OK. But do you have to take them out of school to avoid it? Why not just teach them that while other people can have fun with clothing and costumes, it's not OK for Christians.

Why are you so keen on exposing children to perversion?

 

[rjs330]

Just what LGBT issues have you actually witnessed? I've seen none. I've seen no indoctrination of kids. I've heard charges by right wingers but seen nothing to back that up.

Ive seen a lot of it including curriculum from the schools. I've seen the books and whats in them. I've read the material. It does NOT belong in the schools. There is no reason for it except to expose children to indoctrination. Kids are not psychologically prepared to deal with that kind of sexual influences.

The left is so determined to introduce kids to this younger and younger. Its unconscionable.

 

[rjs330]

I glad that you agree that rage in many far right wingers should be challenged. They need understand their sin.

Huh?....checking..... can't find where you said that and where it tied into what I said and agreed with you on anything.

 

[rjs330]

If you're referring to drag, you might have a point. But if you're referring to the historic comedic trope of "haha male character in women's clothes" then your point falls flat, since the source of the mockery is the absurdity of a man in women's clothes not some ribbing of a stereotype. As drag is a recent phenomena belonging to a particular subculture, it hardly can be said to be a source of normality.

Well said. Tie that with the total depravity and perversion in the drag culture and you see how abnormal it is.

 

[rjs330]

1. I will posit that if the patient is informed and willing and the results are positive it really doesn't matter exactly what the treatment is (I imagining the 60s and 70s the thought of putting radiation in your body to fight cancer was a distasteful option).
2https://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610(24)00238-1/abstract#:~:text=Regret after gender affirming surgery is less than 1 %.


lowest regret rate of any plastic surgery. Improvements in all facets of mental health too.

Why shouldn't people be able to feel better?

The research is not reliable. It cannot be posited that it is effective.

And when it comes to children specifically even WPATH has admitted they are not giving informed consent and neither are the parents.

I think we've been over this more times than once. The above conclusion is extremely biased and unreliable. I reiterate the problems not for you because you've been told, but there maybe others who don't. Tge problems are:
Inadequate follow up.
High rates of loss of subjects
Imprecise measurements of detransition and regret
Reliance on biased samples or samples with poor generalizability.

 

[rjs330]

Why then is all of Europe and Australia shutting down their "gender affirming care" clinics for children?

And there's a friend of mine who's "transitioned" Female to "Male" about 7 years ago now. I've ever only known her (biological female) as her current "male" presentation. She's on a locked psych ward at a VA facility and she's been there for nearly 3 months now. She's there so she doesn't kill herself! She has multiple mental health diagnosis. And "gender affirming care" has not fixed her psychological struggles! Myself and several other vets have been praying for her.

This is true. There is no evidence tha people who transition are actually better off after a number of years. The Cass Review proved that.

Also a recent Oxford study showed those who undergo transition are more likely to have more mental health issues, not less.

 

[rjs330]

You can be trans with out that. In fact most trans individuals never do get the surgery.

That doesn't mean they are not mentally ill. If you believe you are the opposite sex you have a mental health issue.

Although public schools will not be allowed to provide it

Good because they will follow affirmative care. Which encourages the kid to transition instead of exploring the reasons why.

But there are a number of people who don't want it to be allowed in the presence of their children

So? Why do perverts who are trying to queen kids, need to be in the presence of children?