California will be the first state to use LGBT-inclusive history textbooks in schools
52 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megadave;52888097]I think this should be an introductory lesson for a bigger LGBT History studies class, there is just too much out there to fit in a tiny lesson.[/QUOTE]
There’s too much non-LGBT history to fit in one lesson, whilst I don’t agree with what could happen (ie the James Buchanan Example), teaching it alongside “regular” history, where it’s relevant (I.e in relation to the civil rights movements) could do no harm, the risk is you overshadow larger achievements in the name of pointing this out if you do a dedicated LGBT History Class.
Give me one good reason it shouldn’t be just taught in a regular class, instead of a special class.
Honestly, I don't think the lessons taught to kids in grades lower than 5th, maybe 6th grade should even mention sexuality in the first place.
Don't leave out important LGBT figures, but don't make mention of their sexuality either.
I'm all for teaching about more LGBT figures, and even having classes to focus on them in High School if someone wants to make them.
But in my opinion this teaching isn't useful unless the students understand both the nature of sexuality and the historical discrimination faced by LGBT people, two things that kindergartners really shouldn't be learning about.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52888535]"School rejects textbooks that don't accurately reflect history"
Your objection is entirely unfounded given the fact that we don't know the contents of the textbook.[/QUOTE]
I've already covered this. I may or may not object to what the book is, but I definitely object to what it has the possibility to be.
remember like 12 posts up from yours where I said "cautionary"? I don't know how much simpler I can put it.
[QUOTE=butre;52888054]the fact that they rejected textbooks specifically because they didn't cover it is what has me so apprehensive.
I have no objection to them covering it, I just have an objection to them covering it for the sake of covering it, especially since in most cases it'll add nothing to the point the book is trying to get across.[/QUOTE]
They're putting up a new standard and rejecting books which don't apply to this standard. It's not something you should consider to be scary at all.
That latter paragraph makes no sense. Things such as homosexuality, gender identity and disabilities are core aspects of our society, so talking about them is really important. One of the first reasons why conservatives tend to be antagonistic towards homosexuals and transgenders is because of the notion that it is a brand new thing, which is inaccurate and part of the reason people would think that is because until now most textbooks would completely gloss over that part leading people to believe it simply wasn't a thing before.
[QUOTE=Dumpus;52888603]Honestly, I don't think the lessons taught to kids in grades lower than 5th, maybe 6th grade should even mention sexuality in the first place.
Don't leave out important LGBT figures, but don't make mention of their sexuality either.
I'm all for teaching about more LGBT figures, and even having classes to focus on them in High School if someone wants to make them.
But in my opinion this teaching isn't useful unless the students understand both the nature of sexuality and the historical discrimination faced by LGBT people, two things that kindergartners really shouldn't be learning about.[/QUOTE]
...Why? Do we really need to pretend to children that sex doesn't exist even more than we already do?
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52889192]...Why? Do we really need to pretend to children that sex doesn't exist even more than we already do?[/QUOTE]
Sex is clearly not at all a cornerstone of our society that defines many aspects of our lives and we should absolutely not teach its existence to anyone so that way when they find out about people having active sex lives they'll be like dear in headlights and we'll maximize their chances of reacting negatively to people having a different approach to their sexuality than they do. This cannot backfire whatsoever /s
Honestly the only reason anyone would be scared of this is that it would challenge their perception of what history actually was
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52889587]Sex is clearly not at all a cornerstone of our society that defines many aspects of our lives and we should absolutely not teach its existence to anyone so that way when they find out about people having active sex lives they'll be like dear in headlights and we'll maximize their chances of reacting negatively to people having a different approach to their sexuality than they do. This cannot backfire whatsoever /s[/QUOTE]
It's not like I'm against teaching children about sex, just not so early. There really shouldn't be a risk that a 10-year old is going to find out others his age have active sex lives.
[QUOTE=Dumpus;52890449]It's not like I'm against teaching children about sex, just not so early. There really shouldn't be a risk that a 10-year old is going to find out others his age have active sex lives.[/QUOTE]
Again I ask, why not? Sex exists, do we really need to pull the wool over children's eyes, potentially fucking up their future sex lives?
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52890697]Again I ask, why not? Sex exists, do we really need to pull the wool over children's eyes, potentially fucking up their future sex lives?[/QUOTE]
Teaching sex to children when they can't fully understand the risks and consequences isn't healthy, in my opinion. It can serve to confuse them on the issue, making the problem worse .
[QUOTE=Dumpus;52890765]Teaching sex to children when they can't fully understand the risks and consequences isn't healthy, in my opinion. It can serve to confuse them on the issue, making the problem worse .[/QUOTE]
But that's exactly why they need to be taught. Not teaching them about it is exactly what makes them not understand the risks and consequences. Then they hit an age where sex is something they want with no education on it and lo and behold, they take stupid and unnecessary risks because we were too busy saying "won't somebody think of the children?". If we were really thinking of the children we'd be teaching them to not make stupid mistakes
Why would sex education in any way confuse a kid about sex?
[QUOTE=killerteacup;52890807]But that's exactly why they need to be taught. Not teaching them about it is exactly what makes them not understand the risks and consequences. Then they hit an age where sex is something they want with no education on it and lo and behold, they take stupid and unnecessary risks because we were too busy saying "won't somebody think of the children?". If we were really thinking of the children we'd be teaching them to not make stupid mistakes
Why would sex education in any way confuse a kid about sex?[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of children can't fully comprehend of the idea of long-term consequences. And teaching them about sex while they can't fully understand how things like pregnancy and stds can affect them later in life is dangerous. Not to mention on how sex can impact their interpersonal relationships.
I agree that kids should be taught about sex before they hit puberty and it becomes a real issue in their lives, but I maintain that kindergarden is too early.
[QUOTE=Dumpus;52890911]I think a lot of children can't fully comprehend of the idea of long-term consequences. And teaching them about sex while they can't fully understand how things like pregnancy and stds can affect them later in life is dangerous. Not to mention on how sex can impact their interpersonal relationships.
I agree that kids should be taught about sex before they hit puberty and it becomes a real issue in their lives, but I maintain that kindergarden is too early.[/QUOTE]
Sex education does not have to result in the kinds of things you're worried about.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52891130]Sex education does not have to result in the kinds of things you're worried about.[/QUOTE]
That is true, but there's always bad teachers and lessons that are badly taught.
And I think especially for kids that haven't hit puberty yet, teaching them about sexuality can be difficult.
In my opinion, teaching a child about history or math badly is less detrimental to them than teaching them about sex badly.
And then you could get into the point of whether parents should be teaching their kids this, and if what the parents teach lines up with what the teachers teach.
It can get complicated, and I don't think kids should have to worry about that stuff when they're so young.
I would rather Sex Education be taught to kids before they discover porn.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52891668]I would rather Sex Education be taught to kids before they discover porn.[/QUOTE]
This is an excellent point, kids are discovering sex earlier and earlier anyway and there's no way to shelter them from that. So we should, quite literally, talk to our kids about sex before porn does.
[QUOTE=Dumpus;52888603]Honestly, I don't think the lessons taught to kids in grades lower than 5th, maybe 6th grade should even mention sexuality in the first place.
Don't leave out important LGBT figures, but don't make mention of their sexuality either.
I'm all for teaching about more LGBT figures, and even having classes to focus on them in High School if someone wants to make them.
But in my opinion this teaching isn't useful unless the students understand both the nature of sexuality and the historical discrimination faced by LGBT people, two things that kindergartners really shouldn't be learning about.[/QUOTE]
you don't have to talk about sex to talk about someones sexuality
kids understand love and they understand attraction, even if it's in a very basic childlike way
to tell them about people who are attracted to the same gender doesn't really require anything explicitly sexual
[QUOTE=Camdude90;52892079]you don't have to talk about sex to talk about someones sexuality
kids understand love and they understand attraction, even if it's in a very basic childlike way
to tell them about people who are attracted to the same gender doesn't really require anything explicitly sexual[/QUOTE]
Things can get very confused from this kind of teaching, though.
To a child who doesn't have any sexual desires, they could conflate many of their personal relationships with a sexual relationship or desire.
Like a boy saying, "I really like my best friend, and he's a guy too, so I must be homosexual!"
Or a girl saying, "I'm not popular with any girls my age, I only hang out with guys, so I must be straight!"
These are real issues because when a kid with this belief hits puberty and they find that they are attracted to people other than who they thought they were, this part of their lives becomes much more complicated for them as far as relationships are concerned.
[QUOTE=Dumpus;52892659]Things can get very confused from this kind of teaching, though.
To a child who doesn't have any sexual desires, they could conflate many of their personal relationships with a sexual relationship or desire.
Like a boy saying, "I really like my best friend, and he's a guy too, so I must be homosexual!"
Or a girl saying, "I'm not popular with any girls my age, I only hang out with guys, so I must be straight!"
These are real issues because when a kid with this belief hits puberty and they find that they are attracted to people other than who they thought they were, this part of their lives becomes much more complicated for them as far as relationships are concerned.[/QUOTE]
As someone who literally went through that process you just described (thinking I'm attracted to different gender then what I actually was attracted to), there's nothing problematic about it. At all. It's literally you over certain period of time realising that things aren't what you thought they were which is actually quite common for kids which you should know if you were ever one. Santa ain't real, you are not that special, being adult actually really fucking sucks, you get nervous around girls instead of guys etc.
[editline]15th November 2017[/editline]
Kid thinks he's attracted to [X GENDER] because of not properly understanding what it means. And I have a question for you.
So?
[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;52892773]Kid thinks he's attracted to [X GENDER] because of not properly understanding what it means. And I have a question for you.
So?[/QUOTE]
So if kids don't have an accurate or meaningful understanding of sexuality at that age, what's the point of talking about it in school?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52892852]So if kids don't have an accurate or meaningful understanding of sexuality at that age, what's the point of talking about it in school?[/QUOTE]
It's guidance and context to help kids to figure themselves out.
Like, instead of "I feel this way and I have no idea why. Is something wrong with me?" it's "I feel this way and it could mean this thing that I've been taught about and I know ahead of time it doesn't mean something is wrong with me."
[QUOTE=sgman91;52892852]So if kids don't have an accurate or meaningful understanding of sexuality at that age, what's the point of talking about it in school?[/QUOTE]
Kids lack an accurate or meaningful understanding of fucton of issues but we still talk to them about it so I don't understand why sexuality shouldn't be one of them?
How about to introduce them to the concept through official and safe ways so if they happen to be of different sexuality, they understand why they feel the way they do and let them know it's ok?
It would've been nice to know that my sexuality wasn't evil before 6th grade. It was a different time back then.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.