you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]dramasexual 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

My whole deal is do we need discussion of gender and sexual orientation in schools before third grade?

People talk about this like nobody can talk about gay people all the way through high school. It's literally only for very young children and I would argue sexuality discussions from a non-parent with that age group are inappropriate anyway.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

No, we don't NEED any discussion of sexuality with literal children (3-8 year olds). Most people aren't doing that though. What they're doing is discussing gender identity.

The groomer-coomers have been making this happen, and reasonable and rational people are speaking out about it finally.

Straight people were dismissed as "conservative nazis" along the way, so now LGB is trying to jump in and fight it. But we're also the scapegoats, both the aggressors and the unwilling victims. Because it was all done in our name.

So we're kinda fucked unless we just shut this down hard.

[–]dramasexual 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Is there a good way to shut this down that helps us, though? It's part of a bigger wave of coming backlash, but the bill itself looks reasonable enough that us jumping on board with the obviously hyperbolic opposition will just make us look unreasonable in the eyes of the sane straights.

I want to say the best way to fix this mess in general is to break the forced-teaming with the T, but how would we do that with this issue? Campaign for sexual orientation to be removed from the bill but leave gender identity? I feel like your average het would go "why do these people want to talk about fudgepacking with little kids so bad?"

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The problem is that the Republicans have played this game well. I would wager that it's not even mostly the LGBT themselves that are teaching this stuff. It's just that Education Departments these days are über-woke and churn out ideologically-committed functionaries to carry out The Agenda. And they have handed Republicans mountains of evidence of what they are doing. For that matter, Republicans are not wrong in saying that Education these days is dominated by the far-left.

It's going to be difficult to impossible to disentangle the LGB from the T on this. Hell, even a lot of gay people don't understand that the gender identity stuff is the real target of this bill.

I'm not sure that the smart thing to do isn't just to let the Republicans have this victory because, like you say, fighting it tooth and nail makes it look like we want to discuss gay sex with 5-9 year olds.

The real lesson we should learn is that you should never even give the appearance of going after people's kids. I was a teacher, and I knew NEVER to do that. It was just sheer arrogance that led teachers to teach this stuff to young kids, and we know that arrogance is a primary TRA trait.

[–]dramasexual 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah that's kind of where I'm leaning. We really don't need to be talking about sexual orientation with kids younger than 3rd grade anyway.

The real lesson we should learn is that you should never even give the appearance of going after people's kids. I was a teacher, and I knew NEVER to do that.

Remember when the SF gay men's chorus made that We're Coming for your Children song and then acted all shocked that people didn't find that a hilarious joke? Good times.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Remember when the SF gay men's chorus made that We're Coming for your Children song and then acted all shocked that people didn't find that a hilarious joke? Good times.

Don't forget "Drag Queen Story Hour," which was a bad idea to begin with, and then they didn't vet the people they had reading and ended up having drag queens with sex offender and other criminal histories reading in front of kids. That's just HANDING conservatives ways to bash us. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I don’t see the problem with talking about families in primary schools, like families with two dads or families raised by two aunts. But this bill is silent about talking about families. A 6-year-old in Florida can still mention in class that his two gay uncles have guardianship over him until he’s 18 and talk about his uncles. Worst case scenario, the child might get asked what happened to his parents.

The child doesn’t need to know why his uncle is married to another man, and he also doesn’t need to know what the word gay means. I didn’t know what the word heterosexual meant until I was 12 or 13, and I was raised by a dad and a mam who are married to each other. This bill takes nothing from gay teenagers (gay children don’t exist) or the children of gay people.

[–]hufflepuff-poet 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

This bill takes nothing from gay teenagers (gay children don’t exist) or the children of gay people.

More and more, I'm starting to think this is true. I've had a handful of students (IN MY THIRD GRADE CLASS?!) "come out" to me. I try very hard to be a safe person for my students and listen to what they have to say, but I have a hard time believing they actually know their LGB at that age and not just kids who have alot of emotions, social struggles and a desire for connection/solid social group. Sexual orientation requires sexual desire and feelings and an ability to process that (even as clumsily as teens try, atleast they can fumble their way through a consensual sexual/romantic experience with peers; a child cannot)

I'm not out at school (with my students) and I'm single rn so no pictures of a gf at my desk. And I'm increasingly weary of ever mentioning my orientation to kids for fear that they'll see me as another example of a "queer person" and inspire more "trans kids" 🙄

Had one of my students decide to get a "boy haircut" (her own words) and start going by "Jack" after we read "Jackie to Jack" a story about a tomboy who becomes a trans kid. This girl struggles socially, academically and has home life issues, ofc she wants to escape her life. So obvious this is a social contagion, sadly the area I work in is Wokesville and we actually do teach the gender crap to 3rd graders (with options for parent opt out)

[–]dilsencySame-sex community 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

(gay children don’t exist)

More and more, I'm starting to think this is true. [...] Sexual orientation requires sexual desire and feelings and an ability to process that

While I didn't know I was gay at the time, or what gay was, I remember being very interested in the older boys when I was in 3rd grade (so around 8–9 I guess). And showing no such interest in the girls. I don't think sexual desire is the only component of being same-sex attracted, all I wanted was a hug.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was drawn to boys before puberty as well. Not in a sexual way, obviously, but not in a just friend way.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is a good point. There are indicators of what sexual orientation a child would have when he or she grows up. When I was a small boy, I preferred sitting on my dad's lap than my mam's lap, and I stopped sitting on my mam years before I stopped sitting on my dad. But I was closer to my mam because she stayed at home and also took my grievances more seriously than dad did. Also when I was small, I liked being picked up and carried by my uncles and male older cousins, than by my aunts and female older cousins.

When I was child and we had guests come over, I got more attention from female guests than from male guests. But if a female guest ignored me, I ignored her as well. I was close to a lot of my aunts and older female cousins, but those women made a lot of effort to bond with me, so they easily won me over. Male guests would also seek my attention, but they didn’t have to. An uncle or older male cousin would visit the house and walk right pass me to talk to my dad or my mam, and I would follow him and sit next to him. He’d let me sit on his knee but he still focused on my dad or mam and otherwise ignored me. Which was still fine by me. I could remember being five or six and my aunt and uncle coming over to visit my parents. I played with and talked to my aunt, but I was leaning towards her while I was sitting on my uncle's knee, and my uncle was talking to my parents.

Maybe my parents knew I was gay all along.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Children have no sexual orientations whatsoever. They’re not gay, not bi, not straight. They simply cannot process sexual feelings or desires. They also have a shallow understanding of the differences between the sexes. It makes sense that groomers use the LGBT movement to prey on children, so that liberals won’t have a clue what is happening and will think that anyone speaking up against it is a homophobe.

I’m glad that parents can at least opt their out of these insidious lessons. But they should not be taught at all. No wonder you don’t want to come out to your pupils. It will confuse them. Which is incredibly sad, because before kids did not care about this stuff, but now they do but they cannot process it because woke activists have made this confusing on purpose.