Page 13 of 14 [ 223 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Mar 2022, 12:50 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I used to feel….definitely….SOMETHING when I would read my older brother’s Playboy around the age of 9 or so.

I also “felt something” when I kissed a little girl during a puppy-love thing when I was 9. To clarify, she was 8 when I was 9.


And had your brother been "reading" a gay "Playboy", what then?
We will never know, presumably. 8)

And no, I am not suggesting you would have turned gay. :mrgreen:



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,483
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

21 Mar 2022, 12:52 am

Pepe wrote:
txfz1 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
txfz1 wrote:
I think I understand your point and basically agree with it. I don't have an issue with "Heather has Two Mommies" as explaining to children parenting/relationships. "My Princess Boy" which was designed to tell five year olds they can change their gender is pushing the limits, imo.


Disagree.

Children at 5 can experience gender dysphoria due to being Transgendered.


Sounds like a fallacy to me.
Let me think about that.
Nope, still doesn't sound right.


In which way do they experience gender dysphoria at 5?

goldfish21 wrote:
Why shouldn't they have an age appropriate education of it's existence so that they know what they're experiencing is an actual known thing and they're not crazy and there's nothing wrong with them?


Just my opinion, but gender dysphoria wouldn't be experienced/known at 5.
Do you mean they might prefer to play with dolls?
*I* "play" with action figures, btw. :oops:

goldfish21 wrote:
Withholding basic facts like this is damaging to Trans kids and serves no purpose except to enforce some adult decision makers' bigotry.

Why is the subject even brought up with a 5 year old in the first place? :scratch:


Did you know your gender at 5 years old?

I certainly knew mine. (As well as my sexual orientation for that matter.)

Why wouldn’t a 5 year old know if they were male or female identifying at 5yo?


Yes I did but this is anecdotal evidence. I had no clue of my sexual orientation tho and no need to know about trangendering. The reality of the world may vary. If the suicide rate after transforming wasn't a lot higher than the norm, I wouldn't think twice about the sex ed program.


People seem to be confused about the difference between "Gender Identity" and "Sexual attraction".
I doubt many 5 year olds would be masturbating while fantasising about a sexual partner.


Just because I wasn’t jerking off doesn’t mean I didn’t know which kids (boys) I was attracted to and thought were cute etc.

You’ve been told by at least 3 different people in this thread that we had these realizations at 5 years old. Just because you didn’t/don’t remember doesn’t mean others don’t. And since obviously it happens naturally, there’s no reason not to have appropriate discussions about it. Full stop.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Mar 2022, 12:55 am

goldfish21 wrote:
txfz1 wrote:
I'm reversing my ^statement, I would still be against a sex ed program for a five year old. You cannot change from xx to xy chromosomes thru medical procedures today. I do not agree and think it's wrong to change into a deformed, infertile, non-sexual body. I'm non-judgmental to those that have as it's your body.


Umm, there have been age appropriate sex ed classes for 5 year olds for decades. I’m 39 years old. We had appropriate curriculum taught to us about private parts and that they’re not to be touched by others/adults/strangers and about “the No feeling,” should someone do those things. It’s important to teach children about genitalia & not being molested and what to do about it if it happens or someone attempts it.


But this has nothing to do with sexual orientation classes. 8)



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,483
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

21 Mar 2022, 12:58 am

Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
txfz1 wrote:
I'm reversing my ^statement, I would still be against a sex ed program for a five year old. You cannot change from xx to xy chromosomes thru medical procedures today. I do not agree and think it's wrong to change into a deformed, infertile, non-sexual body. I'm non-judgmental to those that have as it's your body.


Umm, there have been age appropriate sex ed classes for 5 year olds for decades. I’m 39 years old. We had appropriate curriculum taught to us about private parts and that they’re not to be touched by others/adults/strangers and about “the No feeling,” should someone do those things. It’s important to teach children about genitalia & not being molested and what to do about it if it happens or someone attempts it.


But this has nothing to do with sexual orientation classes. 8)


But it is sex education. And sex education doesn’t need to stop at preventing child abuse. It’s okay to discuss the realities of same sex attraction and gender identity - in fact, it’s very beneficial for lgbt kids to hear and know As Well As for CIS gendered heterosexual kids - so that they grow up knowing that variations of humans exist and that’s Okay. Far less chance of society churning out more hateful bigots that way.

Knowledge is power. Ridiculous to advocate for raising ignorant children for it benefits no one and harms many.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Mar 2022, 1:44 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Indeed, instructors should present ideas dispassionately.

However, I don't believe "intelligent design," say, should be taught alongside "evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "evolution"---but "intelligent design" is based on religious faith.


Religion is taught to children these days to primarily give them a sense of comfort, imo.
Later on, when they are more intellectually capable of coping, the horrors of our existence can be tackled better.

"The Garden of Eden" is a metaphor for the childish state of mind.
The discovery of sexuality casts them out of that naive paradise.
Some continue to clutch onto the fantasy of a benevolent creator, however.
C'est la vie. :shrug:


No one is teaching children religion with the intent that they will later grow out of it.

Besides, there's plenty of stuff in the Bible that could give it an AO rating.


There is no way you can support that statement.
It is self-evidently faulty.
I know of people who have used religion to teach their children a moral code.
The question is, how prevalent is it?
I dare say more so here in Australia than in a more religious country like Ammmuuuria.

And the "AO" section in the Bible is generally devoted to the Old Testament, which is largely ignored these days.


Go into any church, mosque or synagogue and ask them if their beliefs are for children only. They want lifelong adherents.


The parents I am talking about wouldn't be going to church since they aren't committed Christians, as I thought I made clear.
As I said, the parents I am talking about are only using religion as a means of instilling a moral code in their child.
This is the primary purpose of the Bible.
Ask Moses.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Mar 2022, 2:05 am

goldfish21 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
txfz1 wrote:
I'm reversing my ^statement, I would still be against a sex ed program for a five year old. You cannot change from xx to xy chromosomes thru medical procedures today. I do not agree and think it's wrong to change into a deformed, infertile, non-sexual body. I'm non-judgmental to those that have as it's your body.


Umm, there have been age appropriate sex ed classes for 5 year olds for decades. I’m 39 years old. We had appropriate curriculum taught to us about private parts and that they’re not to be touched by others/adults/strangers and about “the No feeling,” should someone do those things. It’s important to teach children about genitalia & not being molested and what to do about it if it happens or someone attempts it.


But this has nothing to do with sexual orientation classes. 8)


But it is sex education. And sex education doesn’t need to stop at preventing child abuse. It’s okay to discuss the realities of same sex attraction and gender identity - in fact, it’s very beneficial for lgbt kids to hear and know As Well As for CIS gendered heterosexual kids - so that they grow up knowing that variations of humans exist and that’s Okay. Far less chance of society churning out more hateful bigots that way.

Knowledge is power. Ridiculous to advocate for raising ignorant children for it benefits no one and harms many.


Most people would agree that discussions should be age-appropriate.
A 4 year old doesn't even know what sexual attraction is.
Introducing concepts that are confusing to young minds are confusing to young minds.

I think we two need to agree to disagree.
Or don't I have the option of having my own conceptual considerations? :scratch:



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,483
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

21 Mar 2022, 2:18 am

Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
txfz1 wrote:
I'm reversing my ^statement, I would still be against a sex ed program for a five year old. You cannot change from xx to xy chromosomes thru medical procedures today. I do not agree and think it's wrong to change into a deformed, infertile, non-sexual body. I'm non-judgmental to those that have as it's your body.


Umm, there have been age appropriate sex ed classes for 5 year olds for decades. I’m 39 years old. We had appropriate curriculum taught to us about private parts and that they’re not to be touched by others/adults/strangers and about “the No feeling,” should someone do those things. It’s important to teach children about genitalia & not being molested and what to do about it if it happens or someone attempts it.


But this has nothing to do with sexual orientation classes. 8)


But it is sex education. And sex education doesn’t need to stop at preventing child abuse. It’s okay to discuss the realities of same sex attraction and gender identity - in fact, it’s very beneficial for lgbt kids to hear and know As Well As for CIS gendered heterosexual kids - so that they grow up knowing that variations of humans exist and that’s Okay. Far less chance of society churning out more hateful bigots that way.

Knowledge is power. Ridiculous to advocate for raising ignorant children for it benefits no one and harms many.


Most people would agree that discussions should be age-appropriate.
A 4 year old doesn't even know what sexual attraction is.
Introducing concepts that are confusing to young minds are confusing to young minds.

I think we two need to agree to disagree.
Or don't I have the option of having my own conceptual considerations? :scratch:


4 year olds sure know what relationships are, love, marriage etc. most of them have two parents that they’ve seen together their entire lives. It’s not unreasonable to teach them that other kids’ parents may be in relationships that look different than the one they know. Etc.

Age appropriate properly designed and delivered education should not be confusing. Children aren’t stupid and can easily understand these concepts.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


HeroOfHyrule
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2020
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,247

21 Mar 2022, 2:32 am

Pepe wrote:
Most people would agree that discussions should be age-appropriate.
A 4 year old doesn't even know what sexual attraction is.
Introducing concepts that are confusing to young minds are confusing to young minds.

I think we two need to agree to disagree.
Or don't I have the option of having my own conceptual considerations? :scratch:

Can I ask why you keep talking about sexual attraction when referring to children? It's disingenuous to purposely ignore romantic and other forms of attraction. Everyone knows that small children aren't concerned with sexual attraction, but they still experience other forms of it and even develop "crushes" towards other children all the time, including ones of the same gender.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Mar 2022, 2:43 am

goldfish21 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Most people would agree that discussions should be age-appropriate.
A 4 year old doesn't even know what sexual attraction is.
Introducing concepts that are confusing to young minds are confusing to young minds.

I think we two need to agree to disagree.
Or don't I have the option of having my own conceptual considerations? :scratch:


4 year olds sure know what relationships are, love, marriage etc. most of them have two parents that they’ve seen together their entire lives. It’s not unreasonable to teach them that other kids’ parents may be in relationships that look different than the one they know. Etc.


Well, I tried, magz. :shrug:

I have never suggested age appropriate things shouldn't be explained to young children.
I have stated that it would be preferable if the parents were involved.
I have also said, on many occasions, that it shouldn't be part of the curriculum for kindergarten children.

If a child asks a question, is it wrong to refer them to their parents?
The teacher could even write a note to the parents explaining what the child was interested in.
If the parent has given permission for a teacher to answer these sorts of questions, there is no problem.
If a parent hasn't given permission to the teacher, that teacher should respect the parent's rights.

The "Parental Rights Bill" is a bill for parent's rights.
Why do you want to take those rights away from parents?
I am listening. :nerdy:

goldfish21 wrote:
Age appropriate properly designed and delivered education should not be confusing. Children aren’t stupid and can easily understand these concepts.


Once again, it should be up to the parents.
If need be, separate classes could be created for those children whose parents have agreed.

Why do you have such a problem with parental rights?
Were you in an abusive family environment?

Give me your *reasons* for your position.
I am listening. :nerdy:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Mar 2022, 3:10 am

HeroOfHyrule wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Most people would agree that discussions should be age-appropriate.
A 4 year old doesn't even know what sexual attraction is.
Introducing concepts that are confusing to young minds are confusing to young minds.

I think we two need to agree to disagree.
Or don't I have the option of having my own conceptual considerations? :scratch:

Can I ask why you keep talking about sexual attraction when referring to children? It's disingenuous to purposely ignore romantic and other forms of attraction. Everyone knows that small children aren't concerned with sexual attraction, but they still experience other forms of it and even develop "crushes" towards other children all the time, including ones of the same gender.


From memory, others inspired the direction of the discussion involving "sexual identity/attraction".
And some people seem to be refuting the self-evident Truth that it doesn't exist, in regard to kindergarten children.
As I said a couple of times, I think some people are confusing "Gender Orientation" and "Sexual Orientation".
I'm not one of them. 8)

But, no, not everyone is convinced that small children aren't concerned about sexual attraction.
You should read the parts of this thread where there was a discussion about young (male) children having erections.
I proposed that there is no sexual attraction involved in regard to very young children and that it is simply a reflex action.
I have given supportive articles on this.

The "romantic" angle is relatively new, and a progression of the discussion, it seems.
However, I did say early on that young children can have "crushes".
I believe I used the words "not uncommon".
You can look for that comment yourself. 8)



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

21 Mar 2022, 4:01 am

Pepe wrote:
If a child asks a question, is it wrong to refer them to their parents?
Yes, I think it is wrong - and I am a parent. It would make a big-deal-taboo of the topic if the teacher was not allowed to respond. That's a lot more ideological than simply answering the question along with a million other questions kids ask at school.
Parents are not trained in talking delicate matters in child-appropriate manners.
Parents don't have to be trained in anything, actually. That's why schools exist.
Teachers should be trained in age-appropriateness - if they're not, that's a big fault that needs adressing.
Withholding knowledge is not what school should do.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

21 Mar 2022, 4:27 am

Pepe wrote:
As I said, the parents I am talking about are only using religion as a means of instilling a moral code in their child.
This is the primary purpose of the Bible.
Ask Moses.


MAGA christians cherry pick what suits them from the bible. The one scripture they avoid like a demon confronted with a sliver crucifix dipped in holy water and blessed by a saint is Matthew 19:24



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Mar 2022, 5:53 am

magz wrote:
Pepe wrote:
If a child asks a question, is it wrong to refer them to their parents?
Yes, I think it is wrong - and I am a parent. It would make a big-deal-taboo of the topic if the teacher was not allowed to respond. That's a lot more ideological than simply answering the question along with a million other questions kids ask at school.
Parents are not trained in talking delicate matters in child-appropriate manners.
Parents don't have to be trained in anything, actually. That's why schools exist.
Teachers should be trained in age-appropriateness - if they're not, that's a big fault that needs adressing.
Withholding knowledge is not what school should do.


Many in Ammuuuria disagree with you.
2 recent elections where parental rights were the major issue shows this, as an example.

We will have to agree to disagree. 8)



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

21 Mar 2022, 6:05 am

Many people in Amuurica oppose vaccines and teaching their children about evolution.
The only thing I can do about it is feel sad for them.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

21 Mar 2022, 6:12 am

Let me tell you….preschool kids play “house” and “doctor”—and that includes exploring each other’s bodies. And it’s perfectly normal.

There’s always boyfriends and girlfriends in Kindergarten.

You didn’t want mommy and daddy to find out, though! :P

There’s some sort of sexual feelings in children—but they’re not adult sexual feelings.

Kids start “adult” making out in middle school.

I should have pointed this out earlier.

And I say "A-mair-i-ca :) I don't know where this "Amurrica" thing comes from.....



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,483
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

21 Mar 2022, 9:51 am

Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Most people would agree that discussions should be age-appropriate.
A 4 year old doesn't even know what sexual attraction is.
Introducing concepts that are confusing to young minds are confusing to young minds.

I think we two need to agree to disagree.
Or don't I have the option of having my own conceptual considerations? :scratch:


4 year olds sure know what relationships are, love, marriage etc. most of them have two parents that they’ve seen together their entire lives. It’s not unreasonable to teach them that other kids’ parents may be in relationships that look different than the one they know. Etc.


Well, I tried, magz. :shrug:

I have never suggested age appropriate things shouldn't be explained to young children.
I have stated that it would be preferable if the parents were involved.
I have also said, on many occasions, that it shouldn't be part of the curriculum for kindergarten children.

If a child asks a question, is it wrong to refer them to their parents?
The teacher could even write a note to the parents explaining what the child was interested in.
If the parent has given permission for a teacher to answer these sorts of questions, there is no problem.
If a parent hasn't given permission to the teacher, that teacher should respect the parent's rights.

The "Parental Rights Bill" is a bill for parent's rights.
Why do you want to take those rights away from parents?
I am listening. :nerdy:

goldfish21 wrote:
Age appropriate properly designed and delivered education should not be confusing. Children aren’t stupid and can easily understand these concepts.


Once again, it should be up to the parents.
If need be, separate classes could be created for those children whose parents have agreed.

Why do you have such a problem with parental rights?
Were you in an abusive family environment?

Give me your *reasons* for your position.
I am listening. :nerdy:


You are promoting parents' rights to perpetuate bigotry against LGBT people. That's what I'm against. I was not in an abusive family environment At All - in fact, I'm smack in the middle of reading up on child protection laws to rescue a child from a (mentally/emotionally) abusive environment as I'm very pro healthy children and very anti child abuse.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.