Republicans of Reddit, why shouldn't kids be taught about LGBT people? How is this akin to grooming? Are you embarrassed this is even being claimed?
[removed]
Posted Apr 6, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC
0130
I’m apolitical but is it really appropriate to be talking about changing a 7 year olds gender when kids spout nonsense all the time? Or any kind of romantic relationships? I think save the subject when they’re old enough to understand it.
6
You're framing the argument incorrectly. They need to be educated about the different types of people they may meet in society, especially those who are in minority groups who have been the recipients of systemic racism/bigotry. Understanding that these are just other people too deprograms bigotry and gives the child the opportunity to not grow up to be Hee Haw Hitler like their parents.
9
Thanks for enlightening me, expert, I had no idea marginalized people struggle. I’ll make sure to spit my Coppenhagen out and put down the banjo. Next stop, the big trip to Walmart so I can preach to the Jesus Rocks crowd.
-8
I work in schools, and it might sound strange to you, but there are kids questioning if they are a boy or a girl, and identifying as something they weren't born as who are younger than 7.
6
I work in schools, and it might sound strange to you, but there are kids questioning if they are a boy or a girl, and identifying as something they weren't born as who are younger than 7.
And guess what, its not your job to teach them about that. Stick to the ABC's, Reading, maybe toss in some math or geography. When your school starts churning out literate kids with math skills then maybe you will have proven you are competent enough to be trusted not to fuck up a kids sexuality. Till then, leave it to the parents and concentrate on academics. Kids that age dont need more sex in their lives they need less.
1†
This comment in itself is why our parents should have absolute zero say in what we teach. Completely unintelligible line of thought.
3
That was a really gross comment he posted. My school district is in a high socio economic area, and our students have a higher cognitive percentile overall compared to (I think it was 75%) of the state.
So his argument is that our kids our stupid, which is the exact opposite. They're intelligent and recognize their feelings. When I have LGBTQIA+ kids crying to me because of bullying, parents that reject them, it makes me hate people like this guy who commented.
Thank you for your response
2
I'm not a teacher, I'm a psychologist. It's my job to keep them from self-harming when assholes like you tell them they are wrong for having feelings.
Gender identity has nothing to do with sex. You should be ashamed of how you talk to people.
1
You should be ashamed of yourself for what you are doing to young kids.
1
Regardless of age, but you think that’s old enough to change their whole life? That’s a big decision for anyone to make let alone a child.
0†
Nobody thinks that.
1
Who’s speaking here? Is somebody speaking?
-2
The post was asking about sharing information/educating kids. As a heterosexual biological female, learning what a lesbian is doesn't make me suddenly feel sexual interest in a female. Same as learning what transgender means doesn't make me suddenly identify as a male.
Knowledge is just information. I can't choose to be attracted to women, because I'm just not, same as I can't choose to feel like I should be male, because I don't.
Telling a kid what something means/is doesn't make the kid be like, "oh, I'm trans now". All education does is give kids words to express what they might already be feeling inside
1
You're not apolitical if you carry an inherently political opinion.
6
Either way I don’t buy into either party’s bullshit. I’ll still have my opinions.
0
Most people with serious political convictions Don't actually buy into either political party. You can't avoid being a political person if you have opinions.
1
No one, in the history of the universe, has ever said that statement and sounded like they actually had the slightest clue about the subject they are commenting on.
In that regard you are truly keeping traditions alive.
0
[removed]
4
[removed]
0†
[removed]
0
[removed]
-1
Question; out of curiosity even. Do people get defined by their sexuality even before they hit sexual maturity? Op this is not to you only, but the people who replied as well. I'm curious to know how a child can define their sexual identity before they even discover what sexuality is.
2
I really don’t know how to answer that. So I’ll tell a story instead.
When I was in k-4th grade, I was in class with a set of twins. One girl was into dresses, pink, makeup, dolls, the works. Her sister refused to answer to her traditionally feminine name. She would only answer to a masculinized nick name. Think Alexis to Alex. She wore only pants, had very short hair, loved rough and tumble sports, you get the idea. We all knew Alex was different (even from the average tomboys), we just didn’t know how to say it.
Well, 30 years later Alex is a butch lesbian with a wife.
Us kids never once considered that she liked girls rather than boys at that age.
But we fucking knew and so did she. We just didn’t have the words.
Kids already know a lot of things.
What’s wrong with giving them the words for them?
2
That is honestly beautiful.. I'm so glad that the kids had such a supportive upbringing. I've never experienced it first hand so only wanted to learn. I'm sorry if I ended up offending you.
2
It’s cool.
Honestly, if I hadn’t had that experience I’m not sure I’d even think it was possible. I mean, this was in the 80’s at a rural school. No one ever talked about being gay, yet somehow everyone knew she was. And guess what? The only reason it was ever talked about was because we couldn’t put our fingers on what exactly was different about her. Curiosity, that’s all. No one gave a fuck otherwise so far as I know.
Kids. Fucking. Know. Things.
It’s weird, and I have no explanation. But it’s true.
I just don’t understand the problem with giving them proper vocabulary.
2
Most of it is rooted in misunderstanding and misinformation. My mother (an educator for 35+ years) agrees kids shouldn’t see it because “Being gay and transgender is a choice.” And refuses to see otherwise. This was what we taught our educators thirty years ago. She has a PhD in psychology and is a school psychologist and believes this still.
I as an educator, own board books for toddlers about loving anyone you please. People of many colors and cultures. No one will ever stop me from showing my students that the world is a big place with enough love for all of us no matter who you are.
5
My first thought in this whole debate is Ina Friedman's How My Parents Learned to Eat. It was a children's book that I remember reading in first grade more than 30 years ago. In it, a child describes the early days of courtship between her American father and her Japanese mother.
In the '60s, plenty of states had laws against interracial marriage. But as those laws were rescinded, interracial marriage became more common. The book was absolutely a cute story about tolerance and learning other people's cultures, but it also gave children a reflection of the world around them. It told them, "Sometimes people from different cultures fall in love and get married." Which is a thing a lot of the children probably know, but some do need that explicitly spelled out to help them understand how the world works or why their one friend's family doesn't look exactly like their own.
And this isn't new. Children's entertainment has worked to normalize societal shifts since forever. No one threw up their arms when Toy Story portrayed a single mother providing for two children because one-parent households were much more common.
No one is out here trying to teach 7 year-olds what sex is or how to feel about their gender identity. It's about showing them a world where it's totally normal that one kid in class has two dads. Because, regardless of how parents may feel about LGBT issues, children do live in a world where some kids have two dads.
3
That was an excellent analysis. And I know for a fact that the same people that just REFUSE to see how simple this "issue" really is are the same people who won't read it. It is absolutely maddening.
2
[removed]
1
I believe that schools should only teach children facts and skills that are relevant and appropriate to their stage in life. They shouldn't teach children about morals, ethics, emotions and beliefs, unless they are firmly rooted in law and policy. Children learn about these topics throughout their lives from all aspects of society, and it is not appropriate for a single teacher to control these topics.
3†
That is literally an insane belief. Teachers are just one person in 9 months of a child life. Schools should absolutely teach emotional control, morals (do unto others at the very least), empathy, ethics, etc. It will complement what the child's family teaches. We let my in-laws teach some religion ideas to our children even though we're atheist and now at 16 and 18, our children are firmly atheist, but they've at least been exposed to how religious people think. We weren't afraid of them learning different ideas. From the time they were old enough to understand the idea, we've taught them to question everything, even us.
3
Those 9 months involve an incredibly amount of brain development. The overwhelming majority of teachers are shit, and aren't smart and responsible enough to teach emotions.
"Do unto others" is firmly rooted in law and policy, so some aspects of this can be taught in school as long as it's factual. I'm okay with schools teaching children not to steal, lie (perjure), and commit acts of violence, since these are based on actual laws that society punishes people over.
However, teachers should not teach children to respect and accept other people's beliefs and values systems. These are very personal, and there is no right or wrong system unless dictated by law and policy within a society.
Your in-laws aren't teaching your children in school, so it's not the same thing. Also, I have no problem with teachers teaching students about religion and culture. Their existence and their customs are facts, but I don't think teachers should provide any opinion or pass any judgement of religion and culture. However, since most teachers suck, I don't trust that they have the skill to do this without passing judgment.
1
"Most" teachers do not suck. I've run 5 kids through various public school systems in the last almost 30 years. Exactly two teachers in all that time "sucked." If you think that, for all that is good, do not enroll your kids in public schools.
0
The insane belief is thinking the US Government is the apt way to navigate this particular subject. I call upon the VA and other government health programs and their lack of compassion or quality.
0
So when a 5 year old has an emotional meltdown, as 5 year olds sometimes do, what does the teacher do? If they can't teach about emotions they obviously can't talk about the feelings the child had and what the child can do to control those feelings in the future other than having a meltdown?
It is not the US government teaching these things. It is usually empathetic adult humans who have chosen to help guide the next generation of our citizens through the morass of childhood into becoming adults. They do not have evil intent. They WANT these children to learn and succeed. If you don't believe that, don't put your kids in public school.
4
Comparing temper tantrums to complex physiology and psychological matters is disingenuous at best. Are the teachers certified therapists? Are they qualified to make those discernments? They’re teachers. They’re job is to teach. I have no problem expanding their role, but they will need the additional certifications.
It is the US government. They’re paid by the government. They teach approved material. Now, they absolutely can be empathetic and want these kids to truly succeed. But at the end of the day, they’re teachers. Not therapists. Not doctors. Not family members. Teachers hold power over their students. Using that power beyond educating the facts of society is an abuse.
I’m perfectly fine with sending any kids I will have to private school. Worked fine for me growing up.
1
[removed]
0
Schools should absolutely teach emotional control, morals (do unto others at the very least), empathy, ethics, etc.
So teachers to you, who make if they're lucky $50k a year, you think should be; sex therapists, emotional therapists, teachers in multiple subjects, experts in morals and ethics?
Like are you fucking kidding me? Each one of those things I described is difficult to teach on their own.
-1
Don't be an idiot. Of course they already teach all of these in context, not in lessons. When a child gets in trouble for bullying, what do you think happens? There is a discussion about "how would you feel if" which, newsflash, is teaching empathy. When Tommy is touching Sally's hair when waiting in the lunch line, there is a discussion of "don't touch other people without their consent" which is teaching ethics. Do you even have children? Do you even know how school goes?
2
I have two children and none of that happens.
Have you ever heard of zero tolerance? If anything like this happens the kids get sent straight to the office. Teachers don't have enough time to sit aside with a kid having a meltdown, and give them individual attention and be their therapist, while all the other kids in the class just sit there. Teachers have a job to do, and they have to get through their lessons.
There is no discussions like that with teachers. If Tommy is touching Sally the teacher will say "keep your hands to yourself" and give them a warning. If the warning doesn't work the kid is out of the class.
0
Gay people exist, that is a fact. Some of the kids might be feeling a certain way and they think it’s makes them “weird” or the other kids make fun of them, that is also a fact. Preventing teachers from having honest conversations with these kids or mandating them to tell their parents if they confess possible homosexual feelings is not about teaching facts, it is about trying to force gay people to stay in the closet and maybe just kill themselves young like they used to.
2
Ah, I see the disconnect here. You have a bad understand of what a teacher is.
The reality is, the overwhelming majority of teachers are complete shit. They are glorified babysitters. This is why we, as a society, agreed to pay them what they deserve. Teachers aren't considered to be community leaders. They're not expected to be highly intelligent and rational. They are expected to perform a series of actions and reactions as prescribed by an instructional book that a society agrees upon.
Teachers aren't smart or responsible enough to have "honest conversations" with kids. Therapists and psychiatrist are the only people that should be allowed to have those conversations with kids, and they need to have licenses and certifications. The child's guardian also gets to determine which therapist and psychiatrist they want for their child.
There are many places where a child can learn about sexuality that isn't their teacher. They should go to their parents, family, friends, various forms of media, and licensed mental health professionals.
Also gay children aren't the only ones struggling with depression and thoughts of suicide. There are many reasons why children go through this, and a teacher is not the right person to address these issues with any child.
-1
[deleted]
1
Just look at OP's comment history. OP only made this post to argue since they got emotionally charged up by a different sub. OP is also ignoring the rules as this post violates rules 3, 5 and 8. It'll get deleted eventually.
1†
[removed]
1
[removed]
0
So what is your point?
Not OP. I think their point is that the question is being asked in bad faith. They're not looking for answers or discussion, they're looking for personal validation to justify holding an unpopular viewpoint. However, they're manipulating validation by asking a narrow-scope loaded question, which violates the subreddit's rules.
2
6 day old account that posts only about political stuff. Lots of walls of texts. Probably have a habit of getting banned. Lol.
2
[removed]
0
Would you agree the root of the argument is if sexual desire is inherent or molded in adolescence?
Because I am assuming that most parents would want their children to be as vanilla as possible when it comes to the subject of sex/sexual preferences.
I don't care either way but it is not really hard to see both sides of the argument, anything beyond safe sex and std's in sex ed is going to give parents the willies.
The "grooming" thing comes down to if you believe that sexuality can be molded.
In jail there is a saying "gay for the stay, straight at the gate." - so in this case people can mold sexuality in certain environments. As people get grommed in jail.
Are you embarrassed that you are simplifying a very complicated subject, sexual desire, to win some political points?
1
But homosexuality is a vanilla desire that sex ed could benefit from including, for the same health purposes people discuss STIs and the like.
0
that is debatable, and you are in the small minority that would believe this and it is alarming that you don't see how this is a controversial take.
I do agree in a more general inclusive program where you dance around the specifics and focus on broader topics like bullying, and learning how to deal with people that are different.... if we can teach kids to just have a general sense of decency all others should play out.
I dont think we need to have a gay class, racism class, trans class, womens right class.....
1
Specifically focusing on homosexuality - I never brought up any of the other stuff, although a 'racism' class is in basically every education system - there is no debate that there would be a measurable improvement on health if homosexuality topics were included in sex ed..
1
yea everyone is narrow minded pushing some specific agenda in our schools, you know what I really want in schools, more math, english, science, tech schools. ---
-not sex, not religion, not life skills classes.
1
Would you agree the root of the argument is if sexual desire is inherent or molded in adolescence?
No? I've been crazy about girls since I was in pre-school? And I'm certainly not alone?
There have always been boy crazy preschool girls and girl crazy preschool boys.
And guess what, there are queer kids too. It's true.
Because I am assuming that most parents would want their children to be as vanilla as possible when it comes to the subject of sex/sexual preferences.
You think that's not grooming because.. because they don't want to fuck them? It's grooming if you try to shape your kids sexuality period.
0
so you cant shape someone sexuality because it is inherent.
but grooming is when you shapes someone sexuality.
ok got great talk.
0
You're only embarrassing yourself.
0
also it is not grooming if you go to gay class.
It is only grooming if you dont go to gay class
1
[deleted]
1
It's not something that belongs in curriculum for 5-8 year Olds. They can be taught but by their parents when parents think it is appropriate. School curriculum will not include it until 3rd grade.
1
I read the other day that all that was being taught is that some families have two dads, some two mom's, some one of each, and some only one and that there are many types of families.
2
If a student in the class has same sex parents then it should be mentioned but since that is a very small percentage of K-3 students it doesn't need to be part of state curriculum. Class by class circumstances need to be addressed.
-1
So you think different kids should get a different education based on who's in the class?
6
Not at all,what I said.
0
Saying it’s a small percentage at a whole doesn’t stop my class from having three separate same-sex parent units. It is more common, and most classrooms I know are dealing with this. It should be mentioned because it’s normal and a part of life. It shouldn’t be criminalized to the point that reading a children’s book about gay penguins in the New York zoo is a gay manifesto meant to harm our next generation.
0
Then in your class teach kids that same sex parents are one type of family. It does not. Need to be part of the state curriculum, for k-3.
-1
Ok, but why?
1
So what happens when a kid meets another kid at school who happens to have 2 dads. I guess if they go home and their parents say that this is ungodly and Not Proper , I guess it’s ok for the kid to go back and bully the kid with the 2 dads because they are different. Or it’s ok to bully the kid who happens to be gay because they are different. Or bully the Arab kid because he’s a terrorist. Or the Black kid because he’s a no good lazy thief. Parents don’t know everything and give bad advice. Schools are there to teach kids what the world is; not what Parents want to think it is.
1
Man and woman are gendered labels, and you don't inherently, biologically identify with gendered behaviour, just your sex. So I feel like a male, due to my sexual characteristics, and my gender identity has formed from my lived experiences.
1
Define "kid"
1
Democrat/independent here and I don't want my kids getting taught sex Ed before 3rd grade. Let kids be kids for God sake. The time for them to be little innocent kids flies so fast.
1
No one is talking about teaching sex ed though, we're talking about mentioning the fact that some families have two dads, or two moms.
3
If it in any way touches on the subjects of sex or sexuality, I'd prefer to handle those questions at home until middle school. I took sex Ed in 5th and 6th grade for the first time, and I think that's about right.
1
Literally nothing about such lessons would stop "kids from being kids" at all, in any way whatsoever. Absolutely nothing in these programs is going to end "the time for them to be innocent". What you're saying makes zero rational sense.
1
Respectfully I disagree. As stated in my response to another comment, I'd prefer the school system stay out of that discussion until middle school. 5th or 6th grade is about right. Not K-3
2
That's fine, but your statements weren't opinions. You made varifiable claims that are either factually right or factually wrong. Again, there is no evidence at all that shows early sex ed 1) "Prevents kids from being kids", or 2) Causes children to cease bing "innocent little kids".
Those aren't opinions. They are claims. And they do not have any basis in evidence. In fact the opposite is true. The Dutch have mandated sex ed at the age of four to five years old since 2012, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive across the board.
Again, you can feel however you want, but your feelings and reality absolutely do not match up. Furthermore, those feelings are ENTIRELY based in your own biased views of sexual education in a culture that outright devalues it--almost treating it as a necessary evil (an attitude that is flat out ridiculous).
If you actually sit down, abandon your bias, and decide to view the data objectively, then early sex ed is the obvious positive choice for the welfare of the child.
1
You should read the proposed legislation again. It doesn't require anything except to prohibit schools addressing these subjects for grades K-3.
1
Why should they be taught about it?
Your point is?
0†
If I was taught about it at a young age I might have avoided a miserable childhood, low self esteem, and a suicide attempt. Teaching kids how to find their identity is important in a child's happiness and development.
3†
Because it's important that children learn about the world and the people within it otherwise they may end up ignorant and even intolerant of others?
Wait.. did we just figured out why the GOP is afraid of kids learning about LGBT people?
I think we did.
-2†
Ok but why do those lessons need to start in kindergarten to third grade?
4
What if it's not lessons? What if it's just including representations of different families in the books young school children read? Two moms or two dads instead of always a mom and dad or a single parent?
0
You know the bill doesn't stop the teachers from talking with the kids in small groups on a one on one basis about this stuff right?
1
When I was in pre-school, I was girl crazy. I chased the girls and even would get kissed by them.
This is normal.
There have always been girl crazy preschool boys and boy crazy preschool girls and nothing about that strikes you as weird because... because why exactly?
Because they're straight? Why do these straight kids somehow know their sexual orientation at Age 4?
And why wouldn't an LGBT kid of the same age know their own orientation?
Oh wait, they do. But it's best that we pretend they don't exist so that... so that what? What specifically?
You realize that gay kids coming out of the closet in their teens to young adult hood is not normal right?
Being "in the closet" is a symptom of living in a hateful and bigoted society: they're hiding themselves.
We aren't letting LBGT people put themselves in the closet to begin with any longer.
If that upsets you, good.
-2
You do know this doesn't stop teachers from talking with students about LGBT stuff, right? It just can't be a part of the official curriculum.
1
Because it's important that children learn about the world and the people within it otherwise they may end up ignorant and even intolerant of others?
It's literally impossible for school, most notably elementary age, to fully prepare you for the world. This is something that should be put on the parents shoulders, not 1st grade teachers.
When I was in 6th grade, a nurse would come in and teach us sex education, in order to take these courses I had to get a waiver signed by my parents. If they didn't sign the waiver, I was excused from the lesson. Why do you think this should be treated any differently? Do you think all teachers are even equipped to teach children about this extremely polarizing topic?
4
Why should kids be taught about human relationships?
Well, because kids are also human, and will encounter these relationships as they, you know, actually exist. Furthermore, not only do gay people exist, but there is also absolutely nothing wrong with them in any way whatsoever. And also, the repugnant bigotry of certain political circles is not a valid excuse to marginalize entire segments of American citizens.
-2
I thought the LGBT wants to be normal, not a subculture. Then why do teachers need to teach kids about them as such?
0†
In order to make it normal, you have to teach it as a normal part of life. These don't say gay bills are taking it out of the classroom entirely at the early ages and making it difficult to teach later on.
3
That would be the job of the parents. If the parents say LGBT is bad and school says LGBT is good, kids will think LGBT is bad.
0†
False. This is a civic matter, not a personal one. Civil rights and appropriate behavior in society cannot be left up to parents alone. This is entirely orthodox.
3
If a child goes to a school where there is a wide variety of ethnicities, but the child lives in a household where any ethnicity other than their own is deemed as bad and inferior, do you think the kid will be racist or not?
-1
Its a very delicate issue. I'm not saying teach kids that being LGBTQ is something to do or that you should question you sexuality. And it should go without saying that kindergarteners should not be taught how the LGBTQ community has sexual relations. What I'm saying is that at these ages, is it more detrimental to not validate a child of same-sex parents that their life is "normal" vs. allowing the normalcy of it in our world to just be present? What do you do with transgender students? Ignore their reality? How do you protect them from bullying?
But regardless of where you stand on these issues, we need to do away with the belief that all/the majority of members of the LGBTQ community are child sexual predators.
3
No?
1
[deleted]
1
[removed]
-1†
Do teachers need to teach children old people exist? No, because children will learn about them by growing up. It would be the same for the LGBT people, most people have never learned about them in school and are not discriminating against them.
2
Somewhere in the general circularium of any given education system, elderly people are probably discussed. Health issues, social services for them, etc. So it stands to reason that homosexuality should be acknowledged as a normal part of society and have subjects on that taught as well.
1
[removed]
-3
do children attend class with elderly people?
No. Do children attend class with kids old enough to understand and determine whether they're LGBT or not? Are their brains sufficiently developed for that?
I think it's just unnecessary because kids will learn about them enough through their parents. If school tells them LGBT is good, and their parents tell them LGBT is bad, the kids will think it's bad.
Let's talk about your point of view. Why do you think kids should be taught about them? What would happen to the kids if that doesn't happen? How is it possible that 99% of people are supporting of LGBT people if they were never taught about them in school?
3
First off, that point on old people is just plain idiotic. Children of this age group do not need to be taught that people age...because they are people who have aged. They are not so stupid that they can't figure out that such a process continues since they also have parents. Now, have all of those same children been exposed to less common sexual orientations in a normal, healthy context?
No. They haven't. Fucking DUH.
Either kids learn about subjects in school with guidance and instruction...OR...they learn about it from strangers on the internet. A genuinely curious kid is going to hop on Google and within about five minutes there are going to be porn ads coming his or her way.
All because you prudish fucking babies just refuse to accept that the world has moved forward away from idiotic bigotry.
Grow the fuck up and let the subject in the damn schools already.
-4
Read my point below. You said either kids learn from school or internet. What role do the parents play in their social development, in your opinion?
And I don't understand why a discussion on reddit always has to be agressive. No one hurt anyone. I was actually enjoying this conversation, as I am trying to get better at debating.
3
Uh... they should be taught about LGBT. I’ve never heard anyone claim that’s “grooming.”
I can’t be embarrassed on someone else’s behalf, especially when their existence is hypothetical.
0
Conservatives, if you call it "grooming" for the existence of homosexuals to even be acknowledged, then you are completely detached from reality. In fact, you're a blatant fraud and a liar (somewhat par for the course in those circles anyway, but I digress).
-4
Aren't republicans trying to push through a child marriage law in Tennessee right now?