What are your thoughts on this?

[rjs330]

I was not objecting to them, merely providing evidence that parents are not necessarily the best judges in the raising of children. What I object to is the attitude that teachers don't do the best they can for their charges and that parents should automatically know best. They sometimes do not.

Teachers are not parents. If a kid is being abused then they should report it to the authorities. Yes there are bad parents out there, but ultimately it is the parents who raise the kids not the teacher. The teacher has no business teaching kids values that the parents object to. By and large the parents ARE the best judges at raising thier own kids. Parental rights must be paramount and should only be interfered with if the parent is abusing or neglecting the kids. Transing a 5 year old is abuse.

Teachers DON'T know what's best. They are there to reach the kids Math, English, Science, Geography, History etc. They are not there to raise the kid or instil their own value system into the kids.

 

[rjs330]

That is irrelevant to the business of education. children will hear about the issues arising from sexual dysphoria. It is all over the media. People on this forum obsess about it all the time. There will be children in the same school, perhaps the same class, who are worried about their sexuality - yes, at an early age. The time when children never heard about these things is long gone. They are social issues which cannot be simply erased.

That's the point isn't it. It's all over including schools, kids programming, tik tok and all those other social media sights. We are finding out now how much social media has an impact on kids who were not trans becoming trans. THIS is the agenda of the left and the whole CONVERSION thing that's happening. The schools of all places should stay out of it. They have no clue what's going on or they are part of the problem. The schools answer to all this should be to stay silent and tell the kids if the have questions about this they should talk to their parents about it. We as parents have no say what is on social media. We have no say in what the leftists put in the cartoons and children's programming. But we DO have a say in what our schools are teaching. And we want to put a stop to the propegandizing, indoctrination and grooming in in the schools.

This is why we are fighting back. Because the left has pushed this upon us. Kids would not be concerned about any of this if it weren't for the left. It's the lefts fault. And we are working to put a stop to this.

 

[ozso]

Yes, that is what it is.

Do you prefer to keep children in ignorance of these aspects of the society they live in? You will fail if that is your aim. Children will learn the facts somehow. Better to learn it in a calm, informative way than to pick up scraps in the playground or through inappropriate sources.

Why is it all of a sudden little kids need so much LGBTQ immersion their lives as you say? It's not like there's anything new about it. It's just lately it's become so prevalent where children are concerned. And not because of Fox news. Reporting on a craze doesn't create one. It's not really about just teaching kids to be nice to each other. It's not about keeping kids from receiving misinformation from other kids on the playground. Those are just flimsy ways of trying to gloss over what's really going on.

Why are you and others so keen on little kids being so immersed in LGBTQ? What's the real reason?

 

[rjs330]

disagree. It should be in a safe, controlled environment - across the kitchen table or in the classroom, but in a proper moral setting. It is when families cannot or will not discuss these matters that children get the wrong end of the stick.

Another poster wrote elequently about teaching kindness, understanding and the avoidance of hate. Everybody here seemed to agree that there should be no hate, but how do parents control that when they have taken a decision not to teach about these things and not to allow anybody else to?

A school classroom is not the place to teach some of these things. There is NO reason to teach kids about touching yourself and how to do it. Self pleasure or pleasuring others sexually. Kids have been masturbating forever on their own without being taught all about it in school.

I've got no issues with sex education as long as it is done at a proper age. Like around 12. Before that kids have no need to learn all about it. They are kids. And sex ed ought to be the science of sex. What sex is, what happens when you have sex. How babies are created. The severe dangers of having sex too soon. STDs ought to have a prominent role in sex ed. Hammered into the kids heads on what it does to you,compete with graphic photos of the problems. I love the programs where kids have to take care of a baby for a while. That needs to be instilled in them that that will be their life as a teen mom. Quite frankly I think they ought make girls where a pregnancy suit as well so they know what it feels like. They ought to be told that sex is no joke cause this is what happens when you have sex as a teen. It's a biological reality. It's science.

They ought to be taught how sex is an emotional connection to the person. It's not just a physical act. It's a deep emotional act that has emotional consequences. That's science.


What they don't need to be taught at any age is gender ideology. If they are they should be taught the facts that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. That's a fact. It's not mean any more than stating ANY mental illness is a mental illness.

I've got no problem with teaching the nerve endings of sex. Including the nipple. Expressing that if you remove your genitals and remove your breasts you are removing your sexual pleasure points. You will no longer experience sexual pleasure by doing so. We need to teach facts. Not ideology. There are only two genders. Kids do not need to be educated that there are more. That is not education that indoctrination.

 

[Lukaris]

All of society is a risk and it seems doubtful that putting government institutions over families raising their kids will solve anything. It also seems that just focusing on religious school abuses neglects abuses elsewhere.

Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?

NRO: Why Haven't Teachers Received Same Scrutiny As Catholic Priests?

web.archive.org

Red Flags in the Classroom

A new report finds that the problem has become rampant over the last decade-plus.

www.city-journal.org

 

[Bradskii]

Because that's how the gtdz agenda talks about supporting them and that's where the lie is.

Here it is again below. Maybe it would help if you pointed out the phrase or the sentence with which you have a problem.

'Yes, you're certainly correct, in this school we teach children that tolerance and fairness is to be expected. Let's face it, with the access to the internet these days they'll find all sorts of views that promote just the opposite. And it's our responsibility, for us as teachers, to ensure that they get the information they need to make informed decisions. So we'd welcome your child and we'd look forward to helping to ensure that she grows into the sort of person of whom you'd be proud. And to be honest, I find that the children here can often teach us a thing or two about how we should treat others.'

 

[Whyayeman]

A school classroom is not the place to teach some of these things. There is NO reason to teach kids about touching yourself and how to do it. Self pleasure or pleasuring others sexually. Kids have been masturbating forever on their own without being taught all about it in school.

I've got no issues with sex education as long as it is done at a proper age. Like around 12. Before that kids have no need to learn all about it. They are kids. And sex ed ought to be the science of sex. What sex is, what happens when you have sex. How babies are created. The severe dangers of having sex too soon. STDs ought to have a prominent role in sex ed. Hammered into the kids heads on what it does to you,compete with graphic photos of the problems. I love the programs where kids have to take care of a baby for a while. That needs to be instilled in them that that will be their life as a teen mom. Quite frankly I think they ought make girls where a pregnancy suit as well so they know what it feels like. They ought to be told that sex is no joke cause this is what happens when you have sex as a teen. It's a biological reality. It's science.

They ought to be taught how sex is an emotional connection to the person. It's not just a physical act. It's a deep emotional act that has emotional consequences. That's science.


What they don't need to be taught at any age is gender ideology. If they are they should be taught the facts that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. That's a fact. It's not mean any more than stating ANY mental illness is a mental illness.

I've got no problem with teaching the nerve endings of sex. Including the nipple. Expressing that if you remove your genitals and remove your breasts you are removing your sexual pleasure points. You will no longer experience sexual pleasure by doing so. We need to teach facts. Not ideology. There are only two genders. Kids do not need to be educated that there are more. That is not education that indoctrination.

I agree with almost everything after the first sentence. Where we disagree:

I think there is a place for school and other formal educational settings in children's personal development. That most definitely includes sex education.

We disagree about age appropriateness. Many children know a great deal about these issues long before the age of twelve. That may be regrettable but it is a fact of modern life and we should adapt to it by providing real information in a secure setting and not allow the spreading of half truths and outright ignorance.

I agree entirely with you that ideologies have no place in school. I am not quite sure what the term 'gender ideology' means but I think you mean something proselytising. I would be as much against that as I would be against promoting political ideologies or violent revolution.

On the matter of gender: I see that genie is out of the bottle too. Many young children (below your threshold of 12 years) know - or think they know - about the concept of people feeling they are in the wrong body. I say that they are better off with some facts instead the rubbish the media is apt to spout on the issue or the ignorant tales of the playground.

This has been my position throughout this discussion.

 

[Bradskii]

That's what you said.

Here's exactly what you said:

'It's exactly what they are doing and I proved it. You even admitted it and then went on to say that it was good they were doing it cause they are teaching kids to be good and accepting of others. '

The 'it' is referring to, as you say, what I said: teaching kids to be good and accepting of other. And, yes, I said it's good that it is being done. And apparently you have proved it.

This really is your problem. Take out the satire and state the facts as they are without any trigger words (which are intended to get you riled so we can all watch the usual reactions) and the message is exactly as I said. And as you agreed: 'It's exactly what they are doing'.

I guess if you're not going to do it, then someone has to.

 

[Bradskii]

Really? A kid at twelve days she thinks she might be a boy and so the parents and teacher, counselors and clinicians all jp on that and push the girl into becoming a boy, feed her drugs change her pronouns and names eventually encouraging her to cut off her breasts and you think beauty pageant parents need help?

The tone of that frantic hyperbole only serves one purpose. To maintain that high level of righteous indignation needed. Rational discourse appears to be a bridge too far for some in this thread.

It's not that you can't see the difference. It's that you will not accept it. You need to have things black and white. There are no grey areas in your world view. Things are either right or wrong. Good or bad.

It's a simplistic and naïve outlook. And it does a lot of harm.

 

[BPPLEE]

I agree with almost everything after the first sentence. Where we disagree:

I think there is a place for school and other formal educational settings in children's personal development. That most definitely includes sex education.

We disagree about age appropriateness. Many children know a great deal about these issues long before the age of twelve. That may be regrettable but it is a fact of modern life and we should adapt to it by providing real information in a secure setting and not allow the spreading of half truths and outright ignorance.

I agree entirely with you that ideologies have no place in school. I am not quite sure what the term 'gender ideology' means but I think you mean something proselytising. I would be as much against that as I would be against promoting political ideologies or violent revolution.

On the matter of gender: I see that genie is out of the bottle too. Many young children (below your threshold of 12 years) know - or think they know - about the concept of people feeling they are in the wrong body. I say that they are better off with some facts instead the rubbish the media is apt to spout on the issue or the ignorant tales of the playground.

This has been my position throughout this discussion.

That’s reasonable. I disagree with you on some points but that’s a reasonable position

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

The tone of that frantic hyperbole only serves one purpose. To maintain that high level of righteous indignation needed. Rational discourse appears to be a bridge too far for some in this thread.

It's not that you can't see the difference. It's that you will not accept it. You need to have things black and white. There are no grey areas in your world view. Things are either right or wrong. Good or bad.

It's a simplistic and naïve outlook. And it does a lot of harm.

There are grey areas in some areas, do you mind if I ask what your opinion is on kids regretting changing or transitioning? I mean haven't we all had imaginations as a kid? What if they permanently changed us. I mean this falls under the category of tattoos for example. What do you think about a kid getting a permanent tattoo. I sincerely want to know.

 

[BPPLEE]

The tone of that frantic hyperbole only serves one purpose. To maintain that high level of righteous indignation needed. Rational discourse appears to be a bridge too far for some in this thread.

It's not that you can't see the difference. It's that you will not accept it. You need to have things black and white. There are no grey areas in your world view. Things are either right or wrong. Good or bad.

It's a simplistic and naïve outlook. And it does a lot of harm.

The same can be said for you. You think you are right and no other option has any merit. You dress it up in language that no one can object to and think you’ve trapped everyone. But you’re just putting lipstick on a pig

 

[Bradskii]

The same can be said for you. You think you are right and no other option has any merit. You dress it up in language that no one can object to and think you’ve trapped everyone. But you’re just putting lipstick on a pig

Well, why wouldn't I put it in a way to which no-one would object? A way in which we'd all agree. A way that proposes we teach our children to be kind and respectful. I'm sure you'd agree. But then I guess it depends for you on who is saying it.

 

[BPPLEE]

Well, why wouldn't I put it in a way to which no-one would object? A way in which we'd all agree. A way that proposes we teach our children to be kind and respectful. I'm sure you'd agree. But then I guess it depends for you on who is saying it.

That’s not the only thing they are trying to teach them. Making jokes about it just exposes the agenda

 

[Bradskii]

There are grey areas in some areas, do you mind if I ask what your opinion is on kids regretting changing or transitioning? I mean haven't we all had imaginations as a kid? What if they permanently changed us. I mean this falls under the category of tattoos for example. What do you think about a kid getting a permanent tattoo. I sincerely want to know.

A good question.

If my kid was having a serious problem in not having a tattoo, then my wife and I would certainly discuss it with each other and with our daughter (or son) to see what the problem was and what was causing it. I might first propose that it might be peer pressure and that she wanted one to look cool to her friends (Jenny has one, why can't I?). If that was not the cause and it went deeper than that (I have no idea how that might manifest itself), then we'd need to treat it more seriously.

If it was really causing her distress then we'd look for some way to alleviate that. I would probably suggest a semi permanent tattoo that she could have and see if it helped. We could then see if it was a passing phase or it was some other need that we'd need to investigate further.

Disclosure: Both my children have tattoos, which were done when they were in their twenties (Welsh themed because of their heritage). Nothing you can see in normal circumstances. I don't have any. (except for a small dot on my calf where I jabbed myself with some dividers and some Indian ink to see what happened when I was 15).

 

[Bradskii]

That’s not the only thing they are trying to teach them.

We're discussing that song. That's all there is. Seriously.

Can I ask if you know any gay people? I'd assume that you obviously do. Do you think that any of them are out to recruit your children to the 'dark side' in some way.

 

[ozso]

I agree with almost everything after the first sentence. Where we disagree:

I think there is a place for school and other formal educational settings in children's personal development. That most definitely includes sex education.

We disagree about age appropriateness. Many children know a great deal about these issues long before the age of twelve. That may be regrettable but it is a fact of modern life and we should adapt to it by providing real information in a secure setting and not allow the spreading of half truths and outright ignorance.

I agree entirely with you that ideologies have no place in school. I am not quite sure what the term 'gender ideology' means but I think you mean something proselytising. I would be as much against that as I would be against promoting political ideologies or violent revolution.

On the matter of gender: I see that genie is out of the bottle too. Many young children (below your threshold of 12 years) know - or think they know - about the concept of people feeling they are in the wrong body. I say that they are better off with some facts instead the rubbish the media is apt to spout on the issue or the ignorant tales of the playground.

This has been my position throughout this discussion.

Even though LGBTQ has been around forever.

Even though the internet has been around for 30 years.

All of a sudden little kids need to be properly taught smut in schools, before they pick it up from the gutter.

All of a sudden little kids need explicit LGBTQ material and drag queen performances to teach them how to be nice to others.

That's pretty much been the repetitive argument in favor of LGBTQ + little kids for the last 25 pages.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

A good question.

If my kid was having a serious problem in not having a tattoo, then my wife and I would certainly discuss it with each other and with our daughter (or son) to see what the problem was and what was causing it. I might first propose that it might be peer pressure and that she wanted one to look cool to her friends (Jenny has one, why can't I?). If that was not the cause and it went deeper than that (I have no idea how that might manifest itself), then we'd need to treat it more seriously.

If it was really causing her distress then we'd look for some way to alleviate that. I would probably suggest a semi permanent tattoo that she could have and see if it helped. We could then see if it was a passing phase or it was some other need that we'd need to investigate further.

Disclosure: Both my children have tattoos, which were done when they were in their twenties (Welsh themed because of their heritage). Nothing you can see in normal circumstances. I don't have any. (except for a small dot on my calf where I jabbed myself with some dividers and some Indian ink to see what happened when I was 15).

Fair enough, I think the seeing if it is a phase approach makes sense but at the same time in this example if the thing that my children wanted to get was sinful in my view i wouldn't want to contribute to them getting it no matter how progressive people said i should be. I realize just because i don't want someone to get something won't convince someone like "oh you don't want me to, then ok" most cases they will still get it. So i guess the best thing i could do is love them as a parent if they did get it while at the same time not contributing to them getting a tattoo. Maybe someday they'll change their mind it would just be a shame for a kid to get something permanent if it was a phase.

I mean i remember being a kid and crawling on the ground speaking giberish to my little brother and we promised we would never stop acting like this and making up our own language. But if as a 31 year old I kept that up I would be pretty sad. I'm glad some phases are just that, phases brought on by whatever it may be. Some phases are brought on because they are normalized, I just don't want things to be normalized that are wrong because i want kids to have little influence in the way of things that are sinful.

I could go on but i don't want to bore. Sorry for talking so much.

 

[Bradskii]

Fair enough, I think the seeing if it is a phase approach makes sense...

It seems like the only logical option to me. And certainly in regard to the topic of this thread. Cases should be examined on an individual basis and a reasoned response made. Taking one extreme - do nothing, or the other - do whatever the kid wants, is simply wrong.

.....but at the same time in this example if the thing that my children wanted to get was sinful in my view i wouldn't want to contribute to them getting it no matter how progressive people said i should be.

Well, if you consider tattoos to be sinful, then I might as well tell you now, your kids are going to be doing a lot that you consider to be sinful as they grow up. And most you won't know about. How you gradually allow your children to start making their own choices in life and maintaining some degree of control is perhaps one of the hardest parts of being a parent.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

It seems like the only logical option to me. And certainly in regard to the topic of this thread. Cases should be examined on an individual basis and a reasoned response made. Taking one extreme - do nothing, or the other - do whatever the kid wants, is simply wrong.

Well, if you consider tattoos to be sinful, then I might as well tell you now, your kids are going to be doing a lot that you consider to be sinful as they grow up. And most you won't know about. How you gradually allow your children to start making their own choices in life and maintaining some degree of control is perhaps one of the hardest parts of being a parent.

i realize that after having a controlling mom if i do ever have kids (i want to be honest the kids in my example were theoretical i do not currently have any atm just want to be honest) i don't believe that if i were to be controlling it would help. I've seen a lot of kids from pastors grow up in the church to be really rebellious. With that said i want to be loving but honest because i would have to not care about my kids if i didn't at least explain what i believe and why but at the same time i would want my theoretical children to feel like they always have a home and a dad to go to.

With all that said since i don't have kids and as a resident of CA don't think i'll ever be able to afford them and that's if i ever get remarried after having been divorced, it's all too much for me. I respect actual parents because i can only imagine how much time energy and finances i would have to give to take care of them, and that's just from my thinking of what it would be like not even beginning to have any experience of my own.