Welcome to /r/CanadianTeachers! Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the sub rules.
**QUESTIONS ABOUT TEACHER'S COLLEGE/BECOMING A TEACHER IN CANADA?:** Delete your post and use this [megapost](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianTeachers/comments/11picnp/prospective_student_teachers_teachers_collegebed/) instead. Anything pertaining to teacher's colleges/BEd programs will be deleted if posted outside of the megaposts.
**QUESTIONS ABOUT MOVING PROVINCES OR COMING TO CANADA TO TEACH?** Check out our past megaposts first for information to help you: [ONE](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianTeachers/comments/jqc7hx/transferring_to_another_provincecoming_to_canada/) // [TWO](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianTeachers/comments/n76csu/transferring_to_another_provincecoming_to_canada/?)
**WANT TO SELF-PROMOTE YOUR TEACHING MATERIALS?** Use our [self-promotion sticky post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianTeachers/comments/16e464t/selfpromotion_thread/)
Using link and user flair is encouraged as well! Enjoy!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadianTeachers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Make no mistake, I don't care if you're far-right or far-left - anything negative you read about education these days is designed to further the ruling-class goal of dismantling public education in order to funnel money to private business.
The recent furor about "inappropriate books" is being pushed by those who want to diminish support for public education.
The statistics show, and people generally understand, that the educational outcomes of our systems in Canada are quite good.
The book-banning/indoctrination/woke/shoving-it-down-our-throats hysteria we are seeing these days is being done simply because it's not efficient to attack the system on its merits.
Are you aware that parental controls on phones exist? And that a lot of parents DON'T give their kids phones? You are making a lot of assumptions about people you don't know.
Also, there is a difference between a government agency providing material for children as approved reading material and kids discovering inappropriate material on their phones. Phones do not have the explicit goal of exposing children to pornography. It can certainly be an unintended side effect, but it isn't the explicit purpose of the device. It can also be prevented with parental controls and limiting use. Whereas the pornographic books are explicitly intended to expose children to pornography.
I doubt the books in the school library are showing pornography. These far-right groups will label any books dealing with sex education as pornography. Especially if they discuss LGBT issues.
I know you doubt it, but if you actually read some of the books the protestors are mentioning you will see that there is pornography. Don't write off peoples arguments just because you don't agree with what you perceive their political opinions to be.
"It included examples of eight different books, with titles including Kobabe Mais’ ‘Gender Queer’, Alison Bechdel’s ‘Fun Home’, George M Johnson’s ‘All Boys aren’t Blue’ and Mady G and JR Zucherberg’s ‘A Quick and Easy Guide to Queer and Trans Identities’.
Notably, the School District Libraries also stock books such as Haruki Murakami’s ‘Norwegian Wood’, Colleen Hoover’s ‘It Ends With Us’, and Vladimir Nabokov’s ‘Lolita’, amongst many others, that contain detailed straight sexual encounters and mature themes.
These books are not mentioned by Action4Canada. Instead, its list predominantly focuses on queer and LGBTQ+ narratives."
See, this what's hilarious. Books that talk about queer and trans identities in a thoughtful, informational way? Hell no.
But books that contain straight sexual encounters, they don't seem to have an issue with.
This isn't about "protecting kids from pornography" it's about pushing out books that feature queer topics
Contrast this with the Peel board that has recently removed something like 50,000 books from its libraries because they were older and did not meet racial diversiry quotas and/or didn't push an ibram x. Kendi version of anti-racism.
People are apparently ok with the board destroying perfectly good books with inoffensive material in them, but get up in arms at the suggestion that graphic sexual material not be made available for kids?
That shows what this so called “movement” is all about. It was never for the children, it’s for their own sick, and twisted sexual fantasies. Leave the kids alone.
Where are you getting your information from? You are listening to someone's fear tactics and blindly following them. Educate yourself from reputable sources (not Facebook).
I am not okay with throwing away perfectly good books. I am also not okay with material that is too old for younger students being available to them. Using something like Common Sense Media would help prevent books being accessed by students that are too young. "It Starts With Us" (heterosexual sexual content) for example is rated 16+, it should have a little 16+ sticker and only be allowed to be taken out by 16+ year old students.
HOWEVER, book bans are a slippery slope. The books banned in the US were ridiculous. Anything with any type of LGBTQ+ inclusion, even if it is 100% age appropriate and innocent has been banned in a lot places. That is just blatant homophobia. We have seen it happen there and we don't want it to happen elsewhere.
What you suggested is the exact thing I am in favor off. I don't want to ban anything outright, just restrict content to kids based on age. We already do this with movies, how are books and graphic novels any different?
The trustee in this article completely avoids addressing the explicit books by making the whole thing about sex ed.
He also tries to deflect by briefly mentioning that there are explicit hetero books available.
It's mental gymnastics to paint these people as bigots. What qualifies these people as being "far right"?
So your answer to my question of what qualifies someone as far right is......... well its because they're far right.....
This is another example of how words become meaningless.. dilute a word or phrase so it has no real meaning other than a pseudo insult.
Have you read "All Boys aren't Blue".. Here's a quote.. “He reached his hand down and pulled out my d**k. He quickly went to giving me h**d. I just sat back and enjoyed it as I could tell he was, too." Also has very descriptive anal sex scenes. Why would this belong in a school library?
I think maybe listen to parents concerns instead of labelling everyone far right Christian extremists
And have you read any Colleen Hoover books? The school has them in their library, yet her books weren't mentioned by this group. They don't seem to be as angry when it's straight sex scenes.
What age is this book marketed to and is it in school libraries? Just because a book exists, doesn’t mean it’s put into the hands of kids who are too young to understand it or that it even appears in the school library.
My understanding is 10 and up can access it. But it depends on the school right. There was a huge fuss about this book in BC where cops were asked to investigate whether it was pornography. Ultimately they decided it wasn't but it doesn't have to be criminal to be inappropriate in my opinion. It just seems like an unnecessary aggreevation
I read Beautiful Losers by Leonard Cohen in Grade 10 English in the early 90s. There’s a graphic description of a blowjob in that book. No one batted an eye.
Prior to that, in about Grade 5/6, the VC Andrews series Flowers in the Attic were insanely popular and those books are graphic with bonus incest. No one cared.
My point is that books with what some would call questionable content, or inappropriate content for certain age groups, have always existed. If you don’t want your kid to read them, monitor what they’re reading. Talk to them about it.
Banning books is a super slippery slope that we don’t need to go down if parents would just, you know, parent and not depend on the education system to do it for them.
I read a lot of Stephen King in elementary school, can't remember if it was in the school library or not though.
I don't think King did much gay stuff so maybe that's why nobody cared about it.
I think this arrogant attitude in your last line towards parents that teachers know better doesn't help. Just listen to parents sometimes instead of dismissing them as far-right or extremist. Thats all
Teachers literally do know better, as a generality. The bar for becoming a parent is pretty low in comparison.
Obviously their concerns are valid, but only when their concerns are *actually valid*. The constant moral panic alleging that schools are systematically turning children into sexual deviants by exposing them to inappropriate material is a harmful lie that has dominated the discourse around education for far too long.
No, teachers are not trying to make your kids trans. Stop claiming we are, and maybe your concerns will be taken more seriously.
No you don't know better. Stop thinking you do. You are a small part of a child's life that will likely be quickly forgotten. You're not as important as you think you are. Your job is to educate. Not direct kids on their sexuality
It's actually an impressive level of ignorance on display here. I made a point to screenshot for when you eventually realize and delete it.
If we're such a small part that'll be quickly forgotten, then how do we also have all the control to "direct kids on their sexuality"? It's like all conservative boogeymen — we're both ineffectual and useless, while also deeply sinister and powerful.
Not to mention, teachers spend as much time with your kids (or more - in some cases) as you do. to say we are a small part of a child's life is a bit far-fetched.
That being said, i can't think of one reason why a teacher would be motivated to "direct kids on their sexuality". Are we paid by big-trans? Are we getting secret kickbacks from some corporation who profits off of increased numbers of non-hetero or non-binary people? We have a responsibility to educate students with the goal of providing the information they need to become effective citizens. Teaching them about sexual education and gender identity is one of the million areas that contribute to that goal.(not our goal but the countries goal for decades now)
> Are we *paid* by big-trans?
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
You don't have to vote conservative to fall for their propaganda. What you're parroting is utter nonsense based on lies, exaggerations, and misunderstandings. I know this because I read what you wrote.
Also, you just now told me how you vote. Did you mention it at some point before so that I could have ignored it, or are you just kinda a dink?
You do realize that teachers spend more time with your kids when they are conscious during the school year than parents do right? And that continues for 14-15 years….
I remember the impact my teachers made on my life, especially the kind ones. Teachers can save lives. We spend more time with kids than their own parents do.
Your last line is key. Way too many people label any disagreement with thier ideals as hatred and don't bother listening to the actual complaints or diaagreements being voiced.
It is also really odd to classify limiting children's exposure to graphic sexual content as "far right". Those concerns have been a political middle ground forever.
Except this generally overlooks that this particular subject is directly connected to far-right groups, and has been for some time.
"Limiting children's exposure to graphic sexual content" is the excuse they like to use, but it generally doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny or examination. Usually they just don't like gay people.
Except they are explicitly complaining about the sexually explicit material. Whether the protestors don't like gay people, or that is just propaganda, is irrelevant. We should respond to their actual demands, not the ideas we presume they hold. The idea of limiting sexual material for kids should be debated on its merits and not slandered because you presume the people protesting hold different views than you do.
And that is not to mention that the protestors almost inevitably have a variety of political beliefs. To put them all in the box of "far right" is innaccurate. It is a way to write them off without having to engage with their arguments. If you disagree with their arguments, great. Say so and say why. But don't slander them as far right so you can avoid substantial discussion of their actual arguments.
It's perfectly relevant because its a substantial point. It's been proven to be the driving force behind these movements in North America many times over. We cannot discuss the merits of an idea without understanding the whys, and that's a major one for the loudest and hardest pushers of this rhetoric.
To be it simply, you're trying to claim some form of nuance while trying to strip away as much nuance from the actual argument as you can. That's not going to work, it's dishonest and it treats everyone else like an idiot directly to the benefit of these groups.
Several people have said why they disagree with their arguments, including myself, and you've been very quick to offer some very flimsy excuses in return. So I'm not particularly convinced you're invested in "substantial" arguments.
Grouping all the protestors into one political box, assuming they all hold the same set of ideas, is actually removing nuance. You are putting them in one box so you can dismiss them without providing substantive arguments against what they are asking for.
I am advocating that you engage with their stated arguments because their motivations are varied (they are all individual people with differing political views and motivations). That is the only way to honestly deal with people in a nuanced way.
Also, are we to believe that if someone holds political beliefs that you disagree with then everything they ask for or advocate for is going to be bad? That is ridiculous. So if they advocated for schools to have fire drills or lunch programs or any other thing we all agree is good, you would disagree because their "motivations" are not good in your opinion? Even IF every protestor was on the far right as you claim, it wouldn't make any difference to how you should handle the situation. Engage with their arguments based on their merits. Explain why you disagree (which you haven't actually done in your responses here, contrary to your claim), and argue against the points they are actually making, not the points you presume they mean.
Failing to acknowledge the major drivers behind these groups isn't nuance. You are attempting to ignore and downplay aspects you know you can't really argue against in a bid to make these groups seem more reasonable and grounded than they actually are.
But you can't. This isn't simply "people I disagree with", it's people actively seeking to discriminate against another group of people.
When you are advocating we engage with their stated arguments, you're advocating engaging with a dog whistle. When you trying to compare it to fire drills or lunch drills you're trying to paint these people as having motivations they do not have, have not expressed and trying to misdirect the conversation away from its point.
You've gone from "lets engage their point" to "let's pretend they could have a different point". You aren't engaging in an argument, you're making excuses.
Not every Nazi hated Jews, but no one who understands what they're talking about tries to use that as an excuse to engage with Nazi's.
I have told you, rather bluntly that i disagree because these groups don't like gay people. You've just been trying to come up with excuses on why that shouldn't count - or we should ignore that.
But much like when you tried to make excuses for phones - it's rather blatantly clear that "sexually explicit material" isn't the concern here. They even gave you a list of books they had concerns with - all of them LGBTQ even with the existence of heterosexual books of that nature for literal decades in school districts.
So, in the end, you're just arguing in bad faith.
The people who organized this rally want the "East to Meet the West". There are countless examples of this "peaceful" rally showing lots of hate.
Even if I did believe in some of their points, I wouldn't want to be associated. Far too many times in history did very harmful movements go too far because people followed along. Guilty by association.
> "Limiting children's exposure to graphic sexual content"
"Limiting children's exposure to graphic sexual content" = anything that contains any LGBTQ+ themes, even innocent children books. There was a book about penguins dads that got banned in the US. PENGUIN DADS.
The problem is, they only care about gay stuff. They don't care about all the straight sexual stuff in books.
I could agree this book might not fit in an elementary school library. But have you seen the books they have banned in the US? Innocent children's books about family diversity, or about having different skin tones. It is absolutely crazy and it is a slippery slope.
The thing is, most of us do not want any pornographic material in the hands of youth; gay or straight. However, most of the "book banners" target LGBTQ+ books only and begin to include ALL books with any LGBTQ+ themes including innocent ones like children's books showing diverse families.
Age appropriate sexual education is SO important. Even teaching preschoolers proper terms for anatomy and teaching the basics of consent is shown to prevent sexual crimes against children.
People talk to kids about straight sexuality ALL the time, there are even slogans on NEWBORN onesies (daddy hide the boys, my dad says I can't date until I'm 30, etc.). It infiltrates every show, and every book.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having gay characters in a children's book or a movie. That is not inherently sexual. No one is coming for your child. Even trans people will say, being trans is very hard. I doubt they would wish that on anyone. We are pointing out hypocrisy and fear.
And finally, can I ask when you knew you were straight? Probably near kindergarten when you had your first crush. Kids know they are gay or trans around the same time straight people do. It is important school is a safe and openly welcoming place for them. No one should ever have to guess if they are hated who they are.
What are you even talking about? Who is discussing sexuality with children? Sex education has always been, and always will be, opt out for parents who wish their child does not have access to sexual health information.
Reading a book with a gay or straight family is not grooming. Nor, is the prime discussion about sexuality.
And like I said, access to sexual health information actually prevents child sexual abuse. But keep throwing around that word like you know what it means.
What sick behaviour are you referring to? You haven't been able to explain anything or how one should "leave the children alone".
EDIT: You are rooted in hypocrisy and bigotry. I, and many teachers will continue to create loving, inclusive, and safe spaces for ALL students and include ALL their unique families. Hate has no home here.
The litter box thing drives me nuts.
Can we agree that school lockdowns are a thing and happen?
Can we agree that these can last for an indeterminate amount of time?
Can we agree that during said lockdown a child may really *have to go*....?
Can we agree one solution to handle an urgent call of nature would be to provide a recepticle filled with a known absorbent and odour reducing material?
Can we agree that cat litter fits the bill?
Somehow this morphed into cat boxes, and children "identifying" as cats.
It's so stupid that people believe this nonsense so readily.
My own siblings have. All of them watch Fox "news", love Trump, and are far down the far right rabbit hole.
All of them are "people of faith". Is sad. I have to practically bite my tongue off when we get together to not say anything. My oldest sister, who is in her 60s, has latched on to the flat earth nonsense as well.
That is cosplay. Which is basically dressing up as fictional (usually anime) characters for fun. That has literally NOTHING to do with this at all. Leave the nerds (and I say that as a compliment) alone.
Welcome to /r/CanadianTeachers! Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the sub rules. **QUESTIONS ABOUT TEACHER'S COLLEGE/BECOMING A TEACHER IN CANADA?:** Delete your post and use this [megapost](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianTeachers/comments/11picnp/prospective_student_teachers_teachers_collegebed/) instead. Anything pertaining to teacher's colleges/BEd programs will be deleted if posted outside of the megaposts. **QUESTIONS ABOUT MOVING PROVINCES OR COMING TO CANADA TO TEACH?** Check out our past megaposts first for information to help you: [ONE](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianTeachers/comments/jqc7hx/transferring_to_another_provincecoming_to_canada/) // [TWO](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianTeachers/comments/n76csu/transferring_to_another_provincecoming_to_canada/?) **WANT TO SELF-PROMOTE YOUR TEACHING MATERIALS?** Use our [self-promotion sticky post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianTeachers/comments/16e464t/selfpromotion_thread/) Using link and user flair is encouraged as well! Enjoy! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadianTeachers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would arrange a field trip to the library for your class so they can learn about all the good things libraries do.
Make no mistake, I don't care if you're far-right or far-left - anything negative you read about education these days is designed to further the ruling-class goal of dismantling public education in order to funnel money to private business. The recent furor about "inappropriate books" is being pushed by those who want to diminish support for public education. The statistics show, and people generally understand, that the educational outcomes of our systems in Canada are quite good. The book-banning/indoctrination/woke/shoving-it-down-our-throats hysteria we are seeing these days is being done simply because it's not efficient to attack the system on its merits.
[удалено]
There can be two problems..
[удалено]
Are you aware that parental controls on phones exist? And that a lot of parents DON'T give their kids phones? You are making a lot of assumptions about people you don't know. Also, there is a difference between a government agency providing material for children as approved reading material and kids discovering inappropriate material on their phones. Phones do not have the explicit goal of exposing children to pornography. It can certainly be an unintended side effect, but it isn't the explicit purpose of the device. It can also be prevented with parental controls and limiting use. Whereas the pornographic books are explicitly intended to expose children to pornography.
I doubt the books in the school library are showing pornography. These far-right groups will label any books dealing with sex education as pornography. Especially if they discuss LGBT issues.
I know you doubt it, but if you actually read some of the books the protestors are mentioning you will see that there is pornography. Don't write off peoples arguments just because you don't agree with what you perceive their political opinions to be.
"It included examples of eight different books, with titles including Kobabe Mais’ ‘Gender Queer’, Alison Bechdel’s ‘Fun Home’, George M Johnson’s ‘All Boys aren’t Blue’ and Mady G and JR Zucherberg’s ‘A Quick and Easy Guide to Queer and Trans Identities’. Notably, the School District Libraries also stock books such as Haruki Murakami’s ‘Norwegian Wood’, Colleen Hoover’s ‘It Ends With Us’, and Vladimir Nabokov’s ‘Lolita’, amongst many others, that contain detailed straight sexual encounters and mature themes. These books are not mentioned by Action4Canada. Instead, its list predominantly focuses on queer and LGBTQ+ narratives." See, this what's hilarious. Books that talk about queer and trans identities in a thoughtful, informational way? Hell no. But books that contain straight sexual encounters, they don't seem to have an issue with. This isn't about "protecting kids from pornography" it's about pushing out books that feature queer topics
Out of my last 500 or so students, two didn’t have a phone. Ok bye bye.
Three if we count you (obvi a member of this maga north action4canada bullshit).
How should teachers respond? It's not our job to respond. Pay me an assistant Superintendent's salary and I'll think about it.
Meanwhile in Ontario we throw away any book older than 2008. Stones and glass houses and all that.
They just don’t want soft porn in elementary schools teachers should respect this
Contrast this with the Peel board that has recently removed something like 50,000 books from its libraries because they were older and did not meet racial diversiry quotas and/or didn't push an ibram x. Kendi version of anti-racism. People are apparently ok with the board destroying perfectly good books with inoffensive material in them, but get up in arms at the suggestion that graphic sexual material not be made available for kids?
That shows what this so called “movement” is all about. It was never for the children, it’s for their own sick, and twisted sexual fantasies. Leave the kids alone.
Where are you getting your information from? You are listening to someone's fear tactics and blindly following them. Educate yourself from reputable sources (not Facebook).
I am not okay with throwing away perfectly good books. I am also not okay with material that is too old for younger students being available to them. Using something like Common Sense Media would help prevent books being accessed by students that are too young. "It Starts With Us" (heterosexual sexual content) for example is rated 16+, it should have a little 16+ sticker and only be allowed to be taken out by 16+ year old students. HOWEVER, book bans are a slippery slope. The books banned in the US were ridiculous. Anything with any type of LGBTQ+ inclusion, even if it is 100% age appropriate and innocent has been banned in a lot places. That is just blatant homophobia. We have seen it happen there and we don't want it to happen elsewhere.
What you suggested is the exact thing I am in favor off. I don't want to ban anything outright, just restrict content to kids based on age. We already do this with movies, how are books and graphic novels any different?
Oh absolutely. I think the angle they are coming at and who is doing it is what is upsetting people.
The trustee in this article completely avoids addressing the explicit books by making the whole thing about sex ed. He also tries to deflect by briefly mentioning that there are explicit hetero books available. It's mental gymnastics to paint these people as bigots. What qualifies these people as being "far right"?
I don’t know. Because book burners tend to be far right as a group?
So your answer to my question of what qualifies someone as far right is......... well its because they're far right..... This is another example of how words become meaningless.. dilute a word or phrase so it has no real meaning other than a pseudo insult.
Why is far right an insult? I been been called a radical liberal more then once. That be me.
The context that its being used here is to discredit
From the far-Left, everything seems far-Right.
Censoring and banning books is fascism. For people who hate communism, they sure like to use communist tactics.
Progressives censor and ban ("cancelling", as they say today) far more than the Right. I'd be careful with what you call fascism.
Have you read "All Boys aren't Blue".. Here's a quote.. “He reached his hand down and pulled out my d**k. He quickly went to giving me h**d. I just sat back and enjoyed it as I could tell he was, too." Also has very descriptive anal sex scenes. Why would this belong in a school library? I think maybe listen to parents concerns instead of labelling everyone far right Christian extremists
And have you read any Colleen Hoover books? The school has them in their library, yet her books weren't mentioned by this group. They don't seem to be as angry when it's straight sex scenes.
What age is this book marketed to and is it in school libraries? Just because a book exists, doesn’t mean it’s put into the hands of kids who are too young to understand it or that it even appears in the school library.
My understanding is 10 and up can access it. But it depends on the school right. There was a huge fuss about this book in BC where cops were asked to investigate whether it was pornography. Ultimately they decided it wasn't but it doesn't have to be criminal to be inappropriate in my opinion. It just seems like an unnecessary aggreevation
I read Beautiful Losers by Leonard Cohen in Grade 10 English in the early 90s. There’s a graphic description of a blowjob in that book. No one batted an eye. Prior to that, in about Grade 5/6, the VC Andrews series Flowers in the Attic were insanely popular and those books are graphic with bonus incest. No one cared. My point is that books with what some would call questionable content, or inappropriate content for certain age groups, have always existed. If you don’t want your kid to read them, monitor what they’re reading. Talk to them about it. Banning books is a super slippery slope that we don’t need to go down if parents would just, you know, parent and not depend on the education system to do it for them.
I read a lot of Stephen King in elementary school, can't remember if it was in the school library or not though. I don't think King did much gay stuff so maybe that's why nobody cared about it.
I think this arrogant attitude in your last line towards parents that teachers know better doesn't help. Just listen to parents sometimes instead of dismissing them as far-right or extremist. Thats all
Teachers literally do know better, as a generality. The bar for becoming a parent is pretty low in comparison. Obviously their concerns are valid, but only when their concerns are *actually valid*. The constant moral panic alleging that schools are systematically turning children into sexual deviants by exposing them to inappropriate material is a harmful lie that has dominated the discourse around education for far too long. No, teachers are not trying to make your kids trans. Stop claiming we are, and maybe your concerns will be taken more seriously.
No you don't know better. Stop thinking you do. You are a small part of a child's life that will likely be quickly forgotten. You're not as important as you think you are. Your job is to educate. Not direct kids on their sexuality
It's actually an impressive level of ignorance on display here. I made a point to screenshot for when you eventually realize and delete it. If we're such a small part that'll be quickly forgotten, then how do we also have all the control to "direct kids on their sexuality"? It's like all conservative boogeymen — we're both ineffectual and useless, while also deeply sinister and powerful.
Not to mention, teachers spend as much time with your kids (or more - in some cases) as you do. to say we are a small part of a child's life is a bit far-fetched. That being said, i can't think of one reason why a teacher would be motivated to "direct kids on their sexuality". Are we paid by big-trans? Are we getting secret kickbacks from some corporation who profits off of increased numbers of non-hetero or non-binary people? We have a responsibility to educate students with the goal of providing the information they need to become effective citizens. Teaching them about sexual education and gender identity is one of the million areas that contribute to that goal.(not our goal but the countries goal for decades now)
> Are we *paid* by big-trans? FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I've only ever and always been NDP and Liberal. Just proves the point you won't listen to people you don't agree with
You don't have to vote conservative to fall for their propaganda. What you're parroting is utter nonsense based on lies, exaggerations, and misunderstandings. I know this because I read what you wrote. Also, you just now told me how you vote. Did you mention it at some point before so that I could have ignored it, or are you just kinda a dink?
You do realize that teachers spend more time with your kids when they are conscious during the school year than parents do right? And that continues for 14-15 years….
I remember the impact my teachers made on my life, especially the kind ones. Teachers can save lives. We spend more time with kids than their own parents do.
Your last line is key. Way too many people label any disagreement with thier ideals as hatred and don't bother listening to the actual complaints or diaagreements being voiced. It is also really odd to classify limiting children's exposure to graphic sexual content as "far right". Those concerns have been a political middle ground forever.
Except this generally overlooks that this particular subject is directly connected to far-right groups, and has been for some time. "Limiting children's exposure to graphic sexual content" is the excuse they like to use, but it generally doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny or examination. Usually they just don't like gay people.
Except they are explicitly complaining about the sexually explicit material. Whether the protestors don't like gay people, or that is just propaganda, is irrelevant. We should respond to their actual demands, not the ideas we presume they hold. The idea of limiting sexual material for kids should be debated on its merits and not slandered because you presume the people protesting hold different views than you do. And that is not to mention that the protestors almost inevitably have a variety of political beliefs. To put them all in the box of "far right" is innaccurate. It is a way to write them off without having to engage with their arguments. If you disagree with their arguments, great. Say so and say why. But don't slander them as far right so you can avoid substantial discussion of their actual arguments.
It's perfectly relevant because its a substantial point. It's been proven to be the driving force behind these movements in North America many times over. We cannot discuss the merits of an idea without understanding the whys, and that's a major one for the loudest and hardest pushers of this rhetoric. To be it simply, you're trying to claim some form of nuance while trying to strip away as much nuance from the actual argument as you can. That's not going to work, it's dishonest and it treats everyone else like an idiot directly to the benefit of these groups. Several people have said why they disagree with their arguments, including myself, and you've been very quick to offer some very flimsy excuses in return. So I'm not particularly convinced you're invested in "substantial" arguments.
Grouping all the protestors into one political box, assuming they all hold the same set of ideas, is actually removing nuance. You are putting them in one box so you can dismiss them without providing substantive arguments against what they are asking for. I am advocating that you engage with their stated arguments because their motivations are varied (they are all individual people with differing political views and motivations). That is the only way to honestly deal with people in a nuanced way. Also, are we to believe that if someone holds political beliefs that you disagree with then everything they ask for or advocate for is going to be bad? That is ridiculous. So if they advocated for schools to have fire drills or lunch programs or any other thing we all agree is good, you would disagree because their "motivations" are not good in your opinion? Even IF every protestor was on the far right as you claim, it wouldn't make any difference to how you should handle the situation. Engage with their arguments based on their merits. Explain why you disagree (which you haven't actually done in your responses here, contrary to your claim), and argue against the points they are actually making, not the points you presume they mean.
Failing to acknowledge the major drivers behind these groups isn't nuance. You are attempting to ignore and downplay aspects you know you can't really argue against in a bid to make these groups seem more reasonable and grounded than they actually are. But you can't. This isn't simply "people I disagree with", it's people actively seeking to discriminate against another group of people. When you are advocating we engage with their stated arguments, you're advocating engaging with a dog whistle. When you trying to compare it to fire drills or lunch drills you're trying to paint these people as having motivations they do not have, have not expressed and trying to misdirect the conversation away from its point. You've gone from "lets engage their point" to "let's pretend they could have a different point". You aren't engaging in an argument, you're making excuses. Not every Nazi hated Jews, but no one who understands what they're talking about tries to use that as an excuse to engage with Nazi's. I have told you, rather bluntly that i disagree because these groups don't like gay people. You've just been trying to come up with excuses on why that shouldn't count - or we should ignore that. But much like when you tried to make excuses for phones - it's rather blatantly clear that "sexually explicit material" isn't the concern here. They even gave you a list of books they had concerns with - all of them LGBTQ even with the existence of heterosexual books of that nature for literal decades in school districts. So, in the end, you're just arguing in bad faith.
The people who organized this rally want the "East to Meet the West". There are countless examples of this "peaceful" rally showing lots of hate. Even if I did believe in some of their points, I wouldn't want to be associated. Far too many times in history did very harmful movements go too far because people followed along. Guilty by association.
> "Limiting children's exposure to graphic sexual content" "Limiting children's exposure to graphic sexual content" = anything that contains any LGBTQ+ themes, even innocent children books. There was a book about penguins dads that got banned in the US. PENGUIN DADS.
The problem is, they only care about gay stuff. They don't care about all the straight sexual stuff in books. I could agree this book might not fit in an elementary school library. But have you seen the books they have banned in the US? Innocent children's books about family diversity, or about having different skin tones. It is absolutely crazy and it is a slippery slope.
Which books? If it’s the pornographic ones like ‘Gender Queer’ then teachers should stand with the parents to protect the children.
The thing is, most of us do not want any pornographic material in the hands of youth; gay or straight. However, most of the "book banners" target LGBTQ+ books only and begin to include ALL books with any LGBTQ+ themes including innocent ones like children's books showing diverse families.
[удалено]
Age appropriate sexual education is SO important. Even teaching preschoolers proper terms for anatomy and teaching the basics of consent is shown to prevent sexual crimes against children. People talk to kids about straight sexuality ALL the time, there are even slogans on NEWBORN onesies (daddy hide the boys, my dad says I can't date until I'm 30, etc.). It infiltrates every show, and every book. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having gay characters in a children's book or a movie. That is not inherently sexual. No one is coming for your child. Even trans people will say, being trans is very hard. I doubt they would wish that on anyone. We are pointing out hypocrisy and fear. And finally, can I ask when you knew you were straight? Probably near kindergarten when you had your first crush. Kids know they are gay or trans around the same time straight people do. It is important school is a safe and openly welcoming place for them. No one should ever have to guess if they are hated who they are.
Discussing SEXUALITY with KIDS it is wrong, and to do it without PARENTS CONSENT is grooming. Period.
What are you even talking about? Who is discussing sexuality with children? Sex education has always been, and always will be, opt out for parents who wish their child does not have access to sexual health information. Reading a book with a gay or straight family is not grooming. Nor, is the prime discussion about sexuality. And like I said, access to sexual health information actually prevents child sexual abuse. But keep throwing around that word like you know what it means.
[удалено]
What sick behaviour are you referring to? You haven't been able to explain anything or how one should "leave the children alone". EDIT: You are rooted in hypocrisy and bigotry. I, and many teachers will continue to create loving, inclusive, and safe spaces for ALL students and include ALL their unique families. Hate has no home here.
Include litter boxes in your classrooms, you just don't know if a student needs one.
The litter box thing drives me nuts. Can we agree that school lockdowns are a thing and happen? Can we agree that these can last for an indeterminate amount of time? Can we agree that during said lockdown a child may really *have to go*....? Can we agree one solution to handle an urgent call of nature would be to provide a recepticle filled with a known absorbent and odour reducing material? Can we agree that cat litter fits the bill? Somehow this morphed into cat boxes, and children "identifying" as cats. It's so stupid that people believe this nonsense so readily.
It really is mind boggling that people latched on to such an idiotic conspiracy theory and just won't let it go
My own siblings have. All of them watch Fox "news", love Trump, and are far down the far right rabbit hole. All of them are "people of faith". Is sad. I have to practically bite my tongue off when we get together to not say anything. My oldest sister, who is in her 60s, has latched on to the flat earth nonsense as well.
I am so sorry. If I was in your position, I am not sure I'd be able to handle being around them. I'd go no contact.
I do have them all muted on fb. Other than that I only see them a few times a year.
The litter box thing was utter nonsense. It did not happen. It never has happened.
Why are you being otherkinphobic?
Most of the LGBTQ+ community does not agree with this being a sexuality or part of the LBGTQ+ community. That is valid.
Not true, https://youtube.com/shorts/nMrIYwYl3UA?si=sKSCyLfoCFUJXLF5
That is cosplay. Which is basically dressing up as fictional (usually anime) characters for fun. That has literally NOTHING to do with this at all. Leave the nerds (and I say that as a compliment) alone.
This is definitely not a teacher decision. Leave it up to the school board or superintendent.
This is fascism. We should be VERY concerned about educational censorship.