Teacher reads book about acceptance to class, gets fired

[Sannyamathland]

If I turn around this point of yours and claim that people who are engaging in homosexual acts don't know what they are doing and are addled by misinformation and therefore their views should not be taken into consideration, will that make a compelling argument? No, because it is a bad faith argument. Just because you believe in something does not automatically translates to 'everyone else should believe this fact and if they aren't ready to do so then they are misinformed'

Feel free to point me to the scientific evidence (or logical argument, even - I have yet to even see that) that serves your point, then.

I just said that I do not believe in the said argument. I have underlined the part where I have said so. Please, read my arguments carefully before posting a reply.

Also, scientific evidence on sex and gender are more often than not, biased. You visit a liberal leaning website and they're gonna claim that teaching children sex ed is okay. You got to a conservative website and they are gonna say, using scientific evidence, that teaching children sex ed is wrong. None of the above websites are wrong by the way, since they both used scientific rationale. If even science is not free from biases then simply claiming that one opinion is correct and the rest is misinformation is a faulty line of argument.

[Necroghastia]

Childhood innocence does exist, and it seems to be a preoccupation with some sections of the liberals to continually deny that it does. Forcing gender issues down their throat is just one plan to destroy their innocence. I merely pointed this out to you.

H O W
O
W

There is nothing explicit or innocence destroying whatsoever about this. It boggles the mind to even attempt to fathom what you could possibly mean, excepting the lone possibility that, again, you think LGBT people are by nature a pornographic subject - and again, that is patently ludicrous and a denial of basic reality.

[Neutraligon]

Where. Because not once is sexuality mentioned. Hell not once is gender mentioned, and that is far closer to what this book talks about. You may disagree all you want, that does not mean that what you think has any basis in fact. When I was 7 I knew the difference between male and female in far more depth because my parents taught me about it. When I was 7 I knew that gay people existed. I did not know the term for trans, but I knew about trans people. At 7 I knew I was not a girl, nor was I a boy. That you link a children's book and sexuality to fucking is a you problem. Oh, by the way by 7 I also knew that sometimes adults touch children in bad places and I should talk to an adult if they did. I knew that not every adult was to be trusted, and that stranger danger is a thing. I knew that some parents hurt their children.

You seem attached to this childhood innocence thing that simply does not exist. You seem so attached that you are dismissing children who are going through issues you insist children should not know about, and by doing that you are forcibly excluding them from talking about their situations and preventing them from asking their questions. That you wish to ignore the real world that children live in is a you issue, it is not something I am willing to do.

The book literally deals with themes of gender and sexuality even if the terns 'sex' and 'gender' are not explicitly mentioned.

The fact that you were exposed to overt sexual issues at such an young age is simply a you problem. Maybe our parents had different parenting styles. Also my parents did not feel the need to teach me about bad touch stuff because they always kept a watchful eye on me until I was atleast 10 years old. That was when I was taught those stuff. I do not believe that children as young as six or seven years old should be taught about bad touch or good touch, because it is the duty of the parents at that age to ensure that no such unwanted incidents occured to their child.

Childhood innocence does exist, and it seems to be a preoccupation with some sections of the liberals to continually deny that it does. Forcing gender issues down their throat is just one plan to destroy their innocence. I merely pointed this out to you.

No the book deals with themes of being forced to conform. Nope, not a me problem considering that my doctor of a mom new exactly how to teach children about males and females. Especially since I had a younger brother who I used to take baths with. The differences where kinda obvious and I had questions. Not an issue to want to know why your brother and you are physically different. Not an issue to want to know where babies come from, not an issue to want to know mommies can breast feed bad daddies can't. These are all things that most children are exposed to at some point or another. Or have you never seen a young kid running around naked because they want to? I did when I was young, hell I was one of those kids. Did your parents ever allow you a babysitter? Did your parents ever let a daycare worker take care of you? Did they ever let the other parent take care of you alone? What about an aunt, an uncle, a cousin. Teaching about bad touch tells kids that are going through it that what they are experiencing is not ok and that it is a good thing to tell an adult. It helps a child to defend themselves. Childhood innocence does not exist at all. What does exist is naivety.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

what maintains these sorts of malicious misconceptions?

It just feels that nowadays, especially among younger crowds, being in the LBGT community is the cool, new, trendy thing to do now. Obviously, it's age-old, but I guess it is still fresh for teens and young adults.

Do people choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

[Neutraligon]

Feel free to point me to the scientific evidence (or logical argument, even - I have yet to even see that) that serves your point, then.

I just said that I do not believe in the said argument. I have underlined the part where I have said so. Please, read my arguments carefully before posting a reply.

Also, scientific evidence on sex and gender are more often than not, biased. You visit a liberal leaning website and they're gonna claim that teaching children sex ed is okay. You got to a conservative website and they are gonna say, using scientific evidence, that teaching children sex ed is wrong. None of the above websites are wrong by the way, since they both used scientific rationale. If even science is not free from biases then simply claiming that one opinion is correct and the rest is misinformation is a faulty line of argument.

So then you compare the two scientific studies and have scientists study them and determine which actually fits the evidence as well as which ones are actually rigorous studies. I have yet to see a rigorous study supporting teaching that teaching sex ed is not ok.

[Neutraligon]

There are some topics that a child is better off not knowing. And gender issues is not of one of those topics.

It is. Gender should not be something ever-changing day to day, and young children are not equipped nor intelligent enough to make a permanent decision. When their minds are capable of understanding what gender is and what their options are, they should be free to explore those interests when they are cognitively developed adults.

So what you are saying is that children should not be allowed to explore who they are as a person until they are an adult. You realize this right?

[Necroghastia]

Feel free to point me to the scientific evidence (or logical argument, even - I have yet to even see that) that serves your point, then.

I just said that I do not believe in the said argument. I have underlined the part where I have said so. Please, read my arguments carefully before posting a reply.

How about you read mine. I do not care that you don't believe my argument. You haven't done the bare minimum of making any logical arguments yourself.

Also, scientific evidence on sex and gender are more often than not, biased. You visit a liberal leaning website and they're gonna claim that teaching children sex ed is okay. You got to a conservative website and they are gonna say, using scientific evidence, that teaching children sex ed is wrong. None of the above websites are wrong by the way, since they both used scientific rationale. If even science is not free from biases then simply claiming that one opinion is correct and the rest is misinformation is a faulty line of argument.

You say this, but you cannot actually show what scientific evidence there is that this (not even sex ed, really - just that LGBT people are a subject that kids can understand fine) ruins 'innocence' or whatever.

[Neutraligon]

I just said that I do not believe in the said argument. I have underlined the part where I have said so. Please, read my arguments carefully before posting a reply.

How about you read mine. I do not care that you don't believe my argument. You haven't done the bare minimum of making any logical arguments yourself.

Also, scientific evidence on sex and gender are more often than not, biased. You visit a liberal leaning website and they're gonna claim that teaching children sex ed is okay. You got to a conservative website and they are gonna say, using scientific evidence, that teaching children sex ed is wrong. None of the above websites are wrong by the way, since they both used scientific rationale. If even science is not free from biases then simply claiming that one opinion is correct and the rest is misinformation is a faulty line of argument.

You say this, but you cannot actually show what scientific evidence there is that this (not even sex ed, really - just that LGBT people are a subject that kids can understand fine) ruins 'innocence' or whatever.

They have yet to define this innocence either so there is that. I wonder, does Sanny support removing all mentions of gender in society? because that is the only way to "protect children's innocence" from discussions on gender.

[Inner Albania]

Hmm... I really hope this thread doesn't devolve to homophobic rhetoric.

[Ineva]

It just feels that nowadays, especially among younger crowds, being in the LBGT community is the cool, new, trendy thing to do now. Obviously, it's age-old, but I guess it is still fresh for teens and young adults.

Do people choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

No. But believe it or not, suppressing certain urges is not bad. It is an exhibition of willpower and a rejection of dangerous temptation. While I understand children may be more vulnerable to following certain desires, the issue is that they never learn to say "no." They are not progressing; they are regressing.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Hmm... I really hope this thread doesn't devolve to homophobic rhetoric.

We're already there, what with "teens choose to be lgbt because it's obviously a fad"
Or this drivel:

Do people choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

No. But believe it or not, suppressing certain urges is not bad. It is an exhibition of willpower and a rejection of dangerous temptation. While I understand children may be more vulnerable to following certain desires, the issue is that they never learn to say "no." They are not progressing; they are regressing.

[Ineva]

Hmm... I really hope this thread doesn't devolve to homophobic rhetoric.

I'm not trying to be homophobic, and I try my best to respect people regardless of their sexuality. I apologize if I am coming off that way; I am not here to disparage.

[Ifreann]

Yes, people identify as transgender so people will treat them as cool and call them slurs or suicide bait them. Makes sense.

Or even worse, actually commit crimes towards them. I've seen many stories of transgender people being assaulted or even straight-up killed.

The trial of two teenagers who murdered a transgender classmate, Brianna Ghey, recently concluded in the UK. And since then there has been an apparent attempted murder of a nineteen year old trans woman, who was stabbed at a skate rink by an 18 year old woman.

When children are murdering other children, fucking nobody is identify as trans to be cool.

[Ineva]

Hmm... I really hope this thread doesn't devolve to homophobic rhetoric.

We're already there, what with "teens choose to be lgbt because it's obviously a fad"
Or this drivel:

No. But believe it or not, suppressing certain urges is not bad. It is an exhibition of willpower and a rejection of dangerous temptation. While I understand children may be more vulnerable to following certain desires, the issue is that they never learn to say "no." They are not progressing; they are regressing.

There is a difference between being homosexual and being part of the LGBT community. That difference is continuing to gape. Teens do not choose to be homosexual, but they can choose not to partake in a community built around it.

[Necroghastia]

Do people choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

No. But believe it or not, suppressing certain urges is not bad. It is an exhibition of willpower and a rejection of dangerous temptation. While I understand children may be more vulnerable to following certain desires, the issue is that they never learn to say "no." They are not progressing; they are regressing.

"Certain urges" like being gay or transgender? No, suppressing who they are is what's bad for them.

[Neutraligon]

Do people choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

No. But believe it or not, suppressing certain urges is not bad. It is an exhibition of willpower and a rejection of dangerous temptation. While I understand children may be more vulnerable to following certain desires, the issue is that they never learn to say "no." They are not progressing; they are regressing.

That would depend on the urge. What urge are you talking about here? What exactly makes you think that being LGBT is the hip new thing for teens? And why does that mean that students should not be taught that it is ok not to conform and be forced into specific boxes?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

We're already there, what with "teens choose to be lgbt because it's obviously a fad"
Or this drivel:

There is a difference between being homosexual and being part of the LGBT community. That difference is continuing to gape. Teens do not choose to be homosexual, but they can choose not to partake in a community built around it.

Lol.
Wew lad even.
"I'm not a homophobe but I totally think those ppl doesn't deserve self-actualisation or love and belonging."

[Ineva]

There is a difference between being homosexual and being part of the LGBT community. That difference is continuing to gape. Teens do not choose to be homosexual, but they can choose not to partake in a community built around it.

Lol.
Wew lad even.
"I'm not a homophobe but I totally think those ppl doesn't deserve self-actualisation or love and belonging."

They deserve love and belonging when they reject what is unhealthy. Sex in general as a form of deriving pleasure is unhealthy. It just seems that with this new awakening of accepting sexuality, sex for pleasure is becoming corrupting normality rather than being treated as a threat. Self-indulgence should not be revered, gay, straight, or anything in between.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Lol.
Wew lad even.
"I'm not a homophobe but I totally think those ppl doesn't deserve self-actualisation or love and belonging."

They deserve love and belonging when they reject what is unhealthy.

Who are you to define what love and belonging is for other people?
Some real fucking chutzpah here.

[Ineva]

No. But believe it or not, suppressing certain urges is not bad. It is an exhibition of willpower and a rejection of dangerous temptation. While I understand children may be more vulnerable to following certain desires, the issue is that they never learn to say "no." They are not progressing; they are regressing.

"Certain urges" like being gay or transgender? No, suppressing who they are is what's bad for them.

I disagree. If you have an addiction to gambling, it would be in your best interest to suppress it. It brings out a different side in you that should not be embraced. In the case of open homosexuality and transgender-ness (for lack of a better term), I see little difference.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

"Certain urges" like being gay or transgender? No, suppressing who they are is what's bad for them.

I disagree. If you have an addiction to gambling, it would be in your best interest to suppress it. It brings out a different side in you that should not be embraced. In the case of open homosexuality and transgender-ness (for lack of a better term), I see little difference.

Seeking love and belonging is not fucking comparable to fucking gambling lmfao
like lord in heaven the moment you start pull away the surface...

[Ineva]

They deserve love and belonging when they reject what is unhealthy.

Who are you to define what love and belonging is for other people?
Some real fucking chutzpah here.

Do you love and respect murderers? If not, why don't you? Who are you to define what love and belonging are for other people?

To clarify, I'm not equating murderers to LGBT people. I'm simply showing that we all determine when and where love and belonging are deserved.

[Neutraligon]

Lol.
Wew lad even.
"I'm not a homophobe but I totally think those ppl doesn't deserve self-actualisation or love and belonging."

They deserve love and belonging when they reject what is unhealthy. Sex in general as a form of deriving pleasure is unhealthy. It just seems that with this new awakening of accepting sexuality, sex for pleasure is becoming corrupting normality rather than being treated as a threat. Self-indulgence should not be revered, gay, straight, or anything in between.

the science very much disagrees with you about sex as a form of pleasure being unhealthy. There are numerous health benefits to sex, regardless of if it is for pleasure or to have children.

Again, the book was bout not forcing yourself to fit into a specific box. What exactly is the problem of teaching children they do not have to do so, whether that involves their gender or anything else?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Who are you to define what love and belonging is for other people?
Some real fucking chutzpah here.

Do you love and respect murderers? If not, why don't you? Who are you to define what love and belonging are for other people?

To clarify, I'm not equating murderers to LGBT people. I'm simply showing that we all determine when and where love and belonging are deserved.

Are you confused or do you earnestly believe that you personally get to decide with whom other people are to have a relationship with?

[Ineva]

They deserve love and belonging when they reject what is unhealthy. Sex in general as a form of deriving pleasure is unhealthy. It just seems that with this new awakening of accepting sexuality, sex for pleasure is becoming corrupting normality rather than being treated as a threat. Self-indulgence should not be revered, gay, straight, or anything in between.

the science very much disagrees with you about sex as a form of pleasure being unhealthy. There are numerous health benefits to sex, regardless of if it is for pleasure or to have children.

Again, the book was bout not forcing yourself to fit into a specific box. What exactly is the problem of teaching children they do not have to do so, whether that involves their gender or anything else?

It is an unhealthy lifestyle to have sex for pleasure. Not saying it is going to cause you morbid obesity or anything, but it is an unfulfilling, dangerous desire to distract your mind with.

Had this book not gone into gender or sexuality, the teacher would probably have still been working. Additionally, I do not feel kids need to be taught by teachers that rulebreaking and non-conforming is a stellar ideal to follow.