Parents call police on teacher over LGBT book.

[Subduction Zone]

The closest I can come to an objection is that most of the books dealing straightforwardly with LGBT+ sexuality seem geared towards adults -- there are precious few that address school-age LGBTs at their level...

... but that seems more likely because authors and publishers are reluctant to write/promote such works, for fear of being labeled "groomers." There's a dearth of decent straight sex-ed materials as it is...

It has already been called "grooming" by at least some. I think that the target audience would be mature enough to understand this book. It is meant for people well into puberty that know that they are gay. But yes, if you try to educate elementary level students about homosexuality you will be accused of grooming instantly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It has already been called "grooming" by at least some. I think that the target audience would be mature enough to understand this book. It is meant for people well into puberty that know that they are gay. But yes, if you try to educate elementary level students about homosexuality you will be accused of grooming instantly.

It's a tricky situation because any sex-ed lesson plan on any level must at least address the existence of homosexuality... even at the most basic levels teaching about consent, kids need to learn that a "bad touch" can come from Uncle Ernie or Aunt Bernice.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Parents file a police report after teacher offers LGBTQ-themed book to her middle schoolers

“The notion that I was putting children in danger because of books ... I knew I couldn’t go back," said teacher Sarah Bonner.

www.nbcnews.com

What can we do as a country to reign in this rightwing redneck rampage against liberty, rights, equality, justice, science, education, etc.? It's a serious problem that will see our nation become a 3rd world theocracy if not resolved.

What a bunch of snowflakes we are in this country. Sheesh.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Would it be wrong to teach children about heterosexual love and romance?

If you're going to be consistent, yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Psychologists say that children should learn love first.
And then, later on, they can be taught sex. There is no hurry for that.

I fail to understand why they are dying to teach them sex first.

Psych isn't your field either. It emphasises that children need a stable, supporting environment. A child needs positive examples for behavior models.
Amd evem young kids know what sex is. They aren't usually aren't as naive and unaware of things as you are.

 

[Kathryn]

All books are available outside of school -- but perhaps not for long if the GOP gets its way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/08/30/barnes-and-noble-virginia-book-ban/

This attempt failed, but there's always the next one... and the next... and the next...

When it comes to banning books, both the left and the right are guilty.

When It Comes to Banning Books, Both Right and Left Are Guilty

The truth is, there is a moral panic on both sides when it comes to books.

www.newsweek.com

 

[SomeRandom]

But what is happening is that some priests of wokeism are pushing educators to tell children: homosexuality is cooler, it's much better to be a LGBT than to be outside of that spectrum.

Dude. Homophobic propoganda has literally been saying that for generations at this point.
Bet they said the same thing when interracial couples were becoming a thing too (about mixing races.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a tricky situation because any sex-ed lesson plan on any level must at least address the existence of homosexuality... even at the most basic levels teaching about consent, kids need to learn that a "bad touch" can come from Uncle Ernie or Aunt Bernice.

The right wants to pretend it is Leave it to Beaver Land out there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude. Homophobic propoganda has literally been saying that for generations at this point.
Bet they said the same thing when interracial couples were becoming a thing too (about mixing races.)

There is a classic YouTube video out there were a pastor does that. He starts out arguing against gay marriage and then breaks off saying that he got his argument from the wrong decade. When people were debating mixed marriages in the 1960's they did use those same arguments. He showed how biased people were today by referring to bias in the past.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Separate out the cant, snark and hyprbole
and all you've left is a comma and two periods.

@Audie, you must remember what the US (and especially the Republican party) claims to be all about -- personal liberty. Now, as far as I know, that does NOT include the government setting up lists of books that you may and may not read, nor telling parents how they must raise their children (no matter what their orientation).

@Father Heathen is quite right in saying that those liberties are under direct and sustained attack by the very party that says they value them. This is the very apex of hypocrisy.

Did you know, a Florida mother gave birth a day or so ago to a child that died (as everybody knew that it would) struggling to get a breath, 99 minutes into its life -- because Florida doctors would not perform an abortion even though they knew the outcome. And why wouldn't they? The threat of legal action against them. This tortured not only the newborn infant, but the parents, and their 4-year old son who couldn't cope with what happened. And why? Because Republicans DO NOT BELIEVE IN PERSONAL LIBERTY. They believe in doing what Republicans tell you to do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...rtion-ban-unviable-pregnancy-potter-syndrome/

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Would it be wrong to teach children about heterosexual love and romance?

No, of course not. It's a natural and important part of human life.

Now, if you can make the argument that homosexual love and romance are NOT a natural and important part of human life, then perhaps we might ban it. I await your argument.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Books are dangerous...to their ideology.

The more informed and educated someone is, the less susceptible they are to it.

Yes. I am often reminded of Christopher Hitchens remarking that the most fearful thing to a Muslim is a woman reading a book. How can you control her if she can't read? (And I remember the film Yentl, with Barbara Streisand, where her father taught her to read -- and look how much trouble that caused!)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It does raise the question as to why the book title itself was intentionally selected.

It's a shame other parents of other children are not included in this to express their view pro and con to garner more perspective as to appropriateness.

Because there are gay students that need that sort of help. That should be rather obvious. The teacher is just offering a resource for those that need it. This should not be that hard to understand.

It never fails to amaze me that some people (one quoted above) never seem to figure out that there are people who are different from them, have different needs -- and yet are still people worthy of our respect.

And it gladdens me that there are others (one quoted above) who understand exactly that, and are comfortable and even happy to provide whatever help we can -- especially to those who are young and living in a world fraught with teenage anxieties that lead to all sorts of bullying.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if some parents were racist and demanded a pro white nationalist curriculum? Should the school be obligated to oblige them?

So everyone is now somehow racist? How does that relate here?

Why don't you say right out they are all homophobic instead of always making insanely ridiculous comparisons all the time?

@Father Heathen said absolutely nothing of the kind, and it is most disingenuous of you to make such a suggestion. You cannot turn "some parents" into "everyone" and expect anybody to respect your post.

 

[Twilight Hue]

@Father Heathen said absolutely nothing of the kind, and it is most disingenuous of you to make such a suggestion. You cannot turn "some parents" into "everyone" and expect anybody to respect your post.

Bs.

 

[Audie]

@Audie, you must remember what the US (and especially the Republican party) claims to be all about -- personal liberty. Now, as far as I know, that does NOT include the government setting up lists of books that you may and may not read, nor telling parents how they must raise their children (no matter what their orientation).

@Father Heathen is quite right in saying that those liberties are under direct and sustained attack by the very party that says they value them. This is the very apex of hypocrisy.

Did you know, a Florida mother gave birth a day or so ago to a child that died (as everybody knew that it would) struggling to get a breath, 99 minutes into its life -- because Florida doctors would not perform an abortion even though they knew the outcome. And why wouldn't they? The threat of legal action against them. This tortured not only the newborn infant, but the parents, and their 4-year old son who couldn't cope with what happened. And why? Because Republicans DO NOT BELIEVE IN PERSONAL LIBERTY. They believe in doing what Republicans tell you to do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...rtion-ban-unviable-pregnancy-potter-syndrome/

A list of books you may or may not read?
Don't be simple.

 

[Father Heathen]

Bs.

How is it "bs"? Anyone here can simply read what my post said to verify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it "bs"? Anyone here can simply read what my post said to verify.

For some odd reason people often get angry when their strawman arguments are pointed out.

 

[We Never Know]

What if some parents were racist and demanded a pro white nationalist curriculum? Should the school be obligated to oblige them?

Don't cater to any of them... gay, straight, trans, racist, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

Don't cater to any of them... gay, straight, trans, racist, etc.

So you agree that accomodations shouldn't be made for parents with irrational and unjustified demands?