[Tom Bishop]

You apparently have not met many 6 year olds.

Have you? Why are you hanging around 6 year olds?

But yes, of course kids are impressionable. But a male teacher saying they have a husband simply tells the children that some men are married to other men. It's not "hyping it up", what kind of nonsense is that? It's simply a reality of the world we live in, and it's true whether bigots like it or not. Children need to understand the reality of the world they live in.

That is simply not how children work. They aren't just going to say "oh okay" to a new concept. They are going to want to discuss it at length and decide if they think it's great or not. Here is a man who came out to his fifth grade classroom. He says that the children were fascinated with it and "instead of teaching social studies today they just asked me a whole bunch of questions about being gay". If you think that he wasn't promoting being gay to children or hyping it up you are kidding yourself.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1510840044247998468

What was your sexuality at 6? I don't even think I consciously had one, who thinks about stuff like that at that age?

Correct, 6 year olds generally do not think about their sexualities. Hence the absurdity of allowing the LGBTQ to accost children with their ideologies they discovered as adults and encourage the children to "question".

Here a 3rd grade teacher is guiding and encouraging 8 year olds to explore their own gender identities.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1509280070711476226

[Action80]

I can call to mind a number of occasions when my teachers stepped out from the standard curriculum to, you know, actually TEACH us something. Did me no harm.

Considering that you are here arguing in favor of sexual orientation and gender identity LGBTQ education for K-3, I question that.

Tumeni and AATW advocate starting with the wee little kids as early as possible.

[garygreen]

tom is right. santa claus is a thing, therefore children will instantly become gay if they hear about same-sex partnerships in school.

[honk]

Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.

[Action80]

... therefore children will instantly become gay if they hear about same-sex partnerships in school.

Who said kids will become gay if they talk to gay people?

My kids will just beat the hell out of a faggot if the faggot chooses to make it a topic of conversation out in public.

[AATW]

That is simply not how children work. They aren't just going to say "oh okay" to a new concept.

At 5 or 6 they pretty much do. Your last tweet was one about Santa and how kids just accept it. And they do at a young age. When they're older sure, they start to question - the example you gave was of 5th graders, I had to look that up as that means nothing to me in the UK, but that's 10 or 11 year olds, right? So sure, at that age they'll have questions.

If you think that he wasn't promoting being gay to children or hyping it up you are kidding yourself.

I have no idea how he handled it, nor do you. People on the right do seem to like to be permanently furious and outraged about everything.
I like to think he handled things in an age appropriate way, I doubt he started talking to them about anal sex.
This idea that bigots have that gay people are actively trying to promote and encourage being gay is just ludicrous. I'm sure you'll now cherry pick some examples of people doing just that, but I'd suggest they are outliers. The gay people I know barely mention it - I went to a leaving do of a girl at work recently and her girlfriend came along. That was the first I knew of her sexuality. The idea that gay people mince around trying to recruit is nonsense. At best it's rare. And how's that going to work anyway? People don't choose their sexuality, they can't just change it because a gay person says how great cock is. Does this make you want to turn gay:

6 year olds generally do not think about their sexualities. Hence the absurdity of allowing the LGBTQ to accost children with their ideologies they discovered as adults and encourage the children to "question".

What the actual fuck are you talking about? "accost children"? Holy shit.
I'm talking about a male teacher mentioning they have a husband - maybe in response to a question about what they did for the holidays.
Again, kids knowing that gay couples are a thing and that it's OK is a million times better than kids growing up with that being hidden, thought shameful or even illegal.
Suddenly in their teens they start developing feelings for people of the same sex as them. In your world they should be taught that how they feel is wrong, that how they are is wrong, that they should be ashamed.
No-one chooses their sexuality, so you're trying to make kids feel ashamed because of feelings they have no control over.
Do I really have to explain how harmful that is?

Here a 3rd grade teacher is guiding and encouraging 8 year olds to explore their own gender identities.

It's interesting you focus on gender when the first screenshot talks about all kinds of aspects of identity. And of course one of your fellow perma-furious friends shouts that the teacher:

“wonders if anyone [students] will change their minds” presumably about their gender.

But the tweet it's responding to says:

students are continuing their study of gender by discussing their schema, adding to each other's thinking and determining which identity parts are visible and invisible

And that's the context in which the teacher wonders if anyone will change their mind. How can that possibly be talking about gender? That doesn't even make sense.
Like sexuality, no-one spends the first 10 years one gender and then suddenly "changes their mind". When did you consider being female and then decide not to?

TL;DR - children need to understand the world around them and feel accepted. No one here is suggesting children should be groomed or that being gay should be "promoted".

[scomato]

Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.

 

What does it even mean to be heterosexual then, to you?

Talking to kids about gay/trans people doesn't make them gay, by that logic teaching kids about Dinosaurs causes them to mutate into reptilian monsters.

[stack]

Is being gay what you would consider a "non-standard" lifestyle? If so, where can I find the lifestyle standards manual you go by so I can see where the line is.

It's not appropriate to teach or encourage very young children to decide how gay they are either.

I didn't ask about teaching or encouraging. I asked, "Is being gay what you would consider a "non-standard" lifestyle? If so, where can I find the lifestyle standards manual you go by so I can see where the line is."

So, is it?

[stack]

Being gay is sexual. Being straight is...not sexual.

 

What does it even mean to be heterosexual then, to you?

Talking to kids about gay/trans people doesn't make them gay, by that logic teaching kids about Dinosaurs causes them to mutate into reptilian monsters.

[Sarcasim]

[Pete Svarrior]

One side believes it is the state's job.

I'd relax that a little. One side believes that the state should not move to restrict free speech without a particularly good reason.

Teachers get away with some wild shit, mentioning that they have a partner is a drop in the ocean. Consequently, it seems fair to assume that the concern is not with the children's wellbeing, but rather with suppressing a group that the state doesn't like.

We can see that being at least partially true in the small glimpses into Tom's character that he's revealed so far. One of his sources openly states:

Any teacher who comes out to their students should be fired on the spot.

We're not talking about ThE sTaTe pushing the gAy AgEnDa onto the impressionable youth by force. We're talking about a guy who got asked if he was gay and chose to say "yes". According to Tom's character troll, that should be grounds for firing someone on the spot.

Another one of Tom's sources openly invites people to harass a teacher due to a discussion about the visible and invisible parts of one's identity. Not gender identity, just identity - exemplified in one of the images as "gender, race, religion, language, family, [ability?]". Of course, once again, they call for the teacher to be fired, because somehow that's "grooming". It's pretty cut-and-dried. We're talking about people with no experience with education trying to generate faux outrage because they don't like a certain group of people.

Also, none of this seems to have anything to do with "Trans atheletes" and I'm tempted to split the entire debate into a separate thread.

I support this.

[Rushy]

I'd relax that a little. One side believes that the state should not move to restrict free speech without a particularly good reason.

Teachers get away with some wild shit, mentioning that they have a partner is a drop in the ocean. Consequently, it seems fair to assume that the concern is not with the children's wellbeing, but rather with suppressing a group that the state doesn't like.

We can see that being at least partially true in the small glimpses into Tom's character that he's revealed so far. One of his "sources" openly states:

Any teacher who comes out to their students should be fired on the spot.

We're not talking about ThE sTaTe pushing the gAy AgEnDa onto the impressionable youth by force. We're talking about a guy who got asked if he was gay and chose to say "yes". According to Tom's character troll, that should be grounds for firing someone on the spot.

Another one of Tom's "sources" openly invites people to harass a teacher due to a discussion about the visible and invisible parts of one's identity. Not gender identity, just identity - exemplified in one of the images as "gender, race, religion, language, family, [ability?]". Of course, once again, they call for the teacher to be fired, because somehow that's "grooming". It's pretty cut-and-dried. We're talking about people with no experience with education trying to generate faux outrage because they don't like a certain group of people.

What the supporters say is irrelevant. The law is not worded as such to be specifically against homosexuals; if it were, it'd be struck down remarkably easily. The idea that it is against homosexuals is the moral pitfall you have chosen to leap into along with various other factions. Don't like a law? Just label something irrelevant like "Don't Say Gay" then rally your forces against around your strawman. It's a fallacy of such proportion there are a great many people who think it simply must be true.

Does it prevent teachers bringing up their homosexual partner? It seems to do so. Does it prevent teachers bringing up their heterosexual partner? It seems to do that, too. I don't think State employees deserve free speech while operating in a state position. In much the same way, the military does not have free speech. The police should not have free speech while operating as a police officer.

Teachers, police officers, and military personnel represent the state and the interest of the tax payer. They should absolutely not represent themselves, hetero, homo, or otherwise.

[Pete Svarrior]

What the supporters say is irrelevant.
[...]
The idea that it is against homosexuals is the moral pitfall you have chosen to leap into along with various other factions.

Not at all. I'm arguing against Tom. I haven't even read the law, nor do I care about laws in some state whose name eludes me.

What Tom says is the only thing that's relevant when it comes to me ripping into him for abandoning basic logic. He used to be good at this. He can do better.

[Rushy]

What the supporters say is irrelevant.
[...]
The idea that it is against homosexuals is the moral pitfall you have chosen to leap into along with various other factions.

Not at all. I'm arguing against Tom. I haven't even read the law, nor do I care about laws in some state whose name eludes me.

What Tom says is the only thing that's relevant when it comes to me ripping into him for abandoning basic logic. He used to be good at this. He can do better.

How is that 'not at all' when it seems your problem with Tom is his moral argument. Now, instead of it being The Law vs You, it's The Law vs Tom/You because it turns into "Man With Only Half The Facts in Heated Debate with Man Who Doesn't Have Any At All".

[Pete Svarrior]

How is that 'not at all' when it seems your problem with Tom is his moral argument.

Tom's moral argument is irrelevant to the law. However, the law is irrelevant to the discussion we're having. Saying that Tom's position is irrelevant is "not at all" applicable here, because the discussion is not tethered to the law.

Similarly, the idea that the law is against homosexuals is "not at all" a moral pitfall I have chosen to leap into, because I'm not discussing the law. I haven't even looked at it.

[Tom Bishop]

We're not talking about ThE sTaTe pushing the gAy AgEnDa onto the impressionable youth by force. We're talking about a guy who got asked if he was gay and chose to say "yes". According to Tom's character troll, that should be grounds for firing someone on the spot.

Actually he said that he spent the class answering questions about it instead of teaching Social Studies. This is unaccredited education on sexuality outside of the structure of education and it is disturbing that you are choosing to ignore what occurred.

At 5 or 6 they pretty much do. Your last tweet was one about Santa and how kids just accept it. And they do at a young age. When they're older sure, they start to question - the example you gave was of 5th graders, I had to look that up as that means nothing to me in the UK, but that's 10 or 11 year olds, right? So sure, at that age they'll have questions.

You think that children do not start asking questions until they are 10 or 11? Wrong. Here is a comment from an early child eduator:

https://www.quora.com/At-what-age-do-children-usually-start-asking-why-questions

have no idea how he handled it, nor do you. People on the right do seem to like to be permanently furious and outraged about everything.

We shouldn't need to worry about he handled it. This is the purpose of licensure, certification, standardization, accreditation and educational oversight. So we don't need to be concerned as much about something like a gay man spending the class promoting his gay lifestyle to impressionable minds instead of teaching Social Studies.

Again, we see that you are turning a blind eye to unaccredited instruction on sexuality outside of the structure of education.

In your world they should be taught that how they feel is wrong, that how they are is wrong, that they should be ashamed.

Actually, in my world a child's sexual education should be in the official structure of education and not from an adult man promoting his lifestyle to a classroom under the table.

It's interesting you focus on gender when the first screenshot talks about all kinds of aspects of identity. And of course one of your fellow perma-furious friends shouts that the teacher:

wonders if anyone [students] will change their minds” presumably about their gender.

But the tweet it's responding to says:

students are continuing their study of gender by discussing their schema, adding to each other's thinking and determining which identity parts are visible and invisible

And that's the context in which the teacher wonders if anyone will change their mind. How can that possibly be talking about gender? That doesn't even make sense.

It is definitely not interesting to me that you choose to avoid the fact that the screenshot shows that the class was studying gender.

[Pete Svarrior]

Actually he said that he spent the class time answering questions about it instead of teaching Social Studies.

Egads, conversation! How could this possibly happen in a classroom?!

This is unaccredited education on sexuality outside of the structure of education

lol.
lmao.

it is disturbing that you are choosing to ignore what occurred.

Disturbing to whom? I strongly suspect my credentials in education are stronger than yours, given your comments above. So, whose assessment are you basing this on? Twitter user @LibOwner69420?

[Lord Dave]

I loved social studies when we talked about current events.
Ya know, studying society.

[AATW]

ThE sTaTe pushing the gAy AgEnDa

What the hell is the gay agenda anyway. Is it something like:

1) Minutes from last meeting
2) Bumming
3) Any Other Business

I think gays just want equality and to not be oppressed, which seems fairly reasonable. The idea that they are trying to groom kids and won’t rest till they’ve converted everyone to gayness is obvious bullshit.

IF Tom et al had a general problem with teachers mentioning anything about their relationship status - so they’d be against a male teacher mentioning his wife as much as they’d be against him mentioning his husband - then ok. I mean, I think that’s ridiculous, but at least it’s logically consistent. But we all know that this is just bigotry.

All that said, the law as written doesn’t actually seem unreasonable. I’m just not sure it’s solving a problem that actually exists.

[Pete Svarrior]

What the hell is the gay agenda anyway.

People who fear what they do not know tend to think that the unknown is invasive.

As such, most arguments are slippery slope ones. For example: if we let gay people talk about how they're gay, there will be more gay children; not just because there will be fewer closeted gays, but because they will actively turn due to the evil influence. A more insidious conspiracy theory that rarely leaves /pol/, but with which Tom has been blatantly flirting here, is that LGBT people are paedophiles, and that they use sex ed to do more than just ed. The farthest extreme of that goes something along the lines of "first it was just about the gays, now it's about transgender people, paedophile tolerance will surely be next on the agenda!!!!1!!1!!"

[Rushy]

People who fear what they do not know tend to think that the unknown is invasive.

This doesn't make sense. Gays, transgenders, and pedos aren't 'unknown'. They aren't some mysterious force of nature that requires detailed study. This sort of talk is needlessly condescending people.

As such, most arguments are slippery slope ones. For example: if we let gay people talk about how they're gay, there will be more gay children; not just because there will be fewer closeted gays, but because they will actively turn due to the evil influence.

That's true, though. There's still no evidence that homosexuality is a trait set at birth. It's possible that sexual trauma or repeated exposure to 'degenerate' topics warps the brain to a point that causes homosexuality.

A more insidious conspiracy theory that rarely leaves /pol/, but with which Tom has been blatantly flirting here, is that LGBT people are paedophiles, and that they use sex ed to do more than just ed. The farthest extreme of that goes something along the lines of "first it was just about the gays, now it's about transgender people, paedophile tolerance will surely be next on the agenda!!!!1!!1!!"

That's not a conspiracy, there are absolutely individuals trying to make pedophile tolerance a thing. What we may disagree on is the scope of the movement or what scope that movement may eventually reach. It used to be socially acceptable to marry a nine year old. The pendulum may swing into that stance again. Human history and societal frameworks are mostly cyclical.