Psaki Says "Gender Affirming Care" for Kids Is 'Best Practice'

Children should be taught about all things - why is it so scary to the right to teach children the facts and let them think for themselves?

I think the American Indian culture had like 5 or 6 types of personality, from gay, to trans to straight.

This is how GOD made them not sure why the right is trying to cancel out god's plan.


DD

 

that's a pretty big generalization

 

You left out a very important word, "working". LoTT is 100% "working" to get teachers fired. Now the school board, HR, etc are those ultimately responsible for doing the firing. Now you have gone off on rants about LoTT not firing anyone, but HR when no one claimed LoTT was firing people. They claimed LoTT was "working" to get people fired.

 

Kids have access to more information than ever and kids are naturally curious.

 

Ah, there it is. The cause and the effect.

 

It's settled. God says it so therefore teaching kids empathy towards groups that have been historically marginalized to the point of significantly disproportionate suicide rates is wrong. Man I wish my brain could work so simply. Imagine seeing moral issues so simply.

 

We pretty much agree on the combination of factors involved here. Except that not talking at an in-depth level about this to K-2 children is a neutral path.

It's different. I'm sure acceptance did cause more people to enter mixed race relationships. That was the point. However, marrying or being with someone of a different race does not change the identity of a person or the gender of a person or the sexual orientation of a person and, most importantly for this discussion, it isn't something a person decides in K-2.

That is what makes it cheap to me. Instead of discussing what is appropriate for kids in grades K-2 to be taught, we're talking about mixed-raced marriages.

I think schools should definitely censor content that could alter the sexual orientation or gender expression of a student.

 

"alter" or just come out rather than repress because fear of being bullied? If "alter" than I'm assuming they were bisexual ?

 

So apparently teaching young children that lgbtq exist and go through harsh struggles and doing lesson plans to teach empathy makes kids gay... Hmm, this is definitely interesting.

 

Cowards afraid that their own kids might turn out to be GASP - Gay.......lol.....

I mean being an Ostrich and burying your head in the sand doesn't make difficult topics go away.

DD

 

Not saying there should be discussion at an in-depth level. But I don't think it's neutral to block out the existence of sexual/gender minorities in the view of the world that is presented to kids in the classroom. Just as it wouldn't be neutral to block out the existence of racial minorities.

I thought the concern you were raising was about how classroom content at the K-2 age can result in a chain reaction that affects the decisions they make later in life.

If I wasn't clear enough about it before, I'll just say that I don't think the sort of classroom content I'm talking about has much of a chance of changing the gender identity or sexual orientation of a kid at the K-2 age. How comfortable they are with their sexual orientation or gender identity as it becomes more established later in life, and their willingness to be open about it, might be altered if they grow up in an environment in which it is not stigmatized. I think, on the whole, that's probably a positive thing.

 

Then you should talk to them more and listen to their struggles. I grew up frankly being a homophobe. I didn't like F@gs, thought trannies were freaks and I'm not proud of it did bully people who I believed to be gay or other boys who I and others considered overly effeminate. The truth was I was ignorant, fearful and insecure about who I was and also about trying to fit in. It was only getting to know people who were LGBT to understand what they went through. To hear the stories of how many of them struggled with who they were. Even from an early age how they didn't feel right about the social roles they were in. How they were bullied and rejected by friends, authority figures and even their own family. How many of them contemplated suicide. What's really opened my eyes is as a coach of college age students and having students who were LGBT and trans.

It was becoming more empathetic on my part towards their struggle and why just not talking about LGBT but recognizing they exist and have as much right to exist and be happy as a straight male like me was important. And given that we live in a diverse society it is important we let even young children know this. If I had know that from a younger age I might not have hated or treated LGBT as badly as I did as teenager and a young adult.

So just saying "these people should be loved." but not talked about is just skirting the problem.

Of the attitude that will lead to acceptance of pedophilia? So you are still considering that not caring if more people are LGBT will lead to pedophilia. IN other words even though you say they aren't connected you are still making the connection.

And you really think just not talking about it further won't confuse them? Tell me this when a child ask about something difficult and unpleasant like "why do people die?" or "why is there war?" do you think we should just say it's because that's what God has intended and leave it at that?

How do you know it's not their reality?

I think there is some very compelling evidence that homosexuality has a basis in biology. Very likely in utero environment plays a big issue. That said though if we believe that love is love then it shouldn't matter whether it is a matter of biology or not. That's why I say "so what" if more people are LGBT. That's not a slippery slope towards pedophilia anymore than saying "so what" if more people are dieting is a slippery slope towards Anexoria.

The problem that I see is that you're arguing that mere acknowledgement is the same as encouragement. So if I tell a child it is OK to be LGBT that is actually encouraging them to do so. Let me put it in terms by using a different example.

Some people like to eat pork, some don't and some can't for religious reasons. Most Americans though eat pork. Let's say a child came up to me and asked me why some people don't eat bacon even though they do. I would say, "You can eat bacon but there are many people who don't because that is what their religion tells them. Some also don't eat bacon because it is bad for their health. Some don't eat bacon because they don't like to eat animals. It is OK though for them not to just like it is OK for you to eat bacon. If you decide that you don't want to eat bacon because of religion or because you don't want to eat animals that is OK. That will be a very important decision in your life and it's one you shouldn't do without thinking about it a lot and you should talk to your parents about. "

Now would that be turning a kid Jewish or a Vegan? That would be acknowledging that Jewish people and Vegans exist and there is nothing wrong with that. Whether they decide to become one of those they should think about it a lot and talk to their parents about.

 

I don't think the law will block out the existence of LGBT people. That would be like trying to cover a rainbow with a finger. We'll have to see how it is applied in the future.

Correct.

The classroom content matters a lot. What do you mean by that?

Crystal clear. And I agree.

 

I meant that describing situations or presenting stories that feature gay characters or transgender characters in a classroom setting will not convert children to be gay or transgender. As they grow up, their sexual orientation and gender identifies will become more established according to their biological pre-disposition and unique environment factors. I doubt shared environmental factors (like stuff they are exposed to in a classroom) will have an impact. How comfortable they are with who they are, and their comfort level in being open about it rather than hiding it like it is a dark secret, might be affected by those shared environmental factors, however.

 

Open ended laws are the best laws. Authoritarians love them. They are amazingly flexible and are very great at maximizing efficiency in ****ing over as many people as possible.