Gender distinction in Canada's schools

JimiTime · 15-10-2011 1:44am #1

Interesting issue raised in Canada. Thought it may be of interest to the forum.

From here

Article wrote:

On September 24th, the National Post, considered to be one of the most conservative mainstream media outlets in Canada, ran a compelling ad featuring the face of a little girl (perhaps four or five years old) with this caption: “Please! Don’t confuse me.” Beneath her photo the text continued: “I’m a girl. Don’t teach me to question if I’m a boy, transsexual, transgendered, intersexed or two spirited.”

As reported by Thaddeus Balklinski of LifesiteNews.com, the ad, which was sponsored by The Institute for Canadian Values, argued “that the Toronto District School Board’s pro-homosexual curriculum [was] corrupting and confusing children.”

Balklinski reported that the ad pointed to the school board’s “Equity curriculum, called ‘Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism,’ [which] instructs teachers to encourage boys and girls ‘to play opposite roles.’”

“‘At times boys may play girls and rely on sexist stereotypical behaviour with which they are familiar,’ states the curriculum.”

“The curriculum also encourages teachers to ‘search Images of Pride Week’ and to make posters for the school board float in the Pride Parade. ‘Additionally, students could have their own Pride Parade in their school,’ it says.” Yes, this is part of the Ontario school curriculum. Six days later, on September 30th, to the shock of many of its readers, the Post apologized “unreservedly” for running the ad. The Post noted that the ad, which had “caused some controversy . . . argued against aspects of the Ontario school curriculum . . . . Specifically, it objected to teaching young children — those between junior kindergarten and Grade 3 — about transsexual/transgender/intersexed/two-spirited issues.”

Are you rubbing your eyes? Checking your glasses? Well, your eyes did not deceive you. These subjects are being taught to kids as young as four, and yet it is the ad, not the curriculum, that is controversial. What planet are we living on? (For those unfamiliar with the “two-spirit” concept, it is found among the native populations of North America, where a person is believed to be both male and female and is often highly venerated rather than rejected.

Zombrex · 15-10-2011 1:53am

Meh, nothing to see here, the ICV are a typical nut job right wing Christian group, trying to get homosexual relations made illegal, protesting museums housing Darwinian exhibits, complaining about various conspiracy theories (apparently Canadian mobile companies are selling your private data to North Korea).

This is the curriculum referenced in the ad

http://word.ca/TDSB%20Equity%20%20Inclusive%20Curriculum%20-%20See%20page%2010%20!.pdf

all pretty harmless stuff trying to teach empathy and understanding.

Keaton · 15-10-2011 1:57am

That's a new form of child abuse. So cruel to play social experiments using innocent kids as material. I read a story earlier about the UK Passport Agency referring to Parent 1 and Parent 2 rather than father and mother. Here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15150526

Manach · 15-10-2011 2:13am

On the other hand, (I was reading up on their legal system a few days ago - fun times), the Canadian legal system historically has been very even handed in terms of education and has allowed religious education to be state-funded. Their supreme court has upheld challenges to this topic on a number of occasions.

alex73 · 15-10-2011 1:14pm

Trying to teach small children want Gay/Transsexuals are is confusing. The "normal" yes I used the word. The Normal path for a boy is to become a man, with male sexual drive and an girl to become a woman with woman's sexual drive.

I don't groom my kids for a possible future where the could be gay. I

wolfsbane · 15-10-2011 7:38pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Interesting issue raised in Canada. Thought it may be of interest to the forum.

From here

Canada seems to be the leader in enforced acceptance that homosexuality is morally OK. The criminalization of the Bible and those who adhere to its teaching can't be far off.

************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

JimiTime · 15-10-2011 7:52pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Meh, nothing to see here, the ICV are a typical nut job right wing Christian group, trying to get homosexual relations made illegal, protesting museums housing Darwinian exhibits, complaining about various conspiracy theories (apparently Canadian mobile companies are selling your private data to North Korea).

This is the curriculum referenced in the ad

http://word.ca/TDSB%20Equity%20%20Inclusive%20Curriculum%20-%20See%20page%2010%20!.pdf

all pretty harmless stuff trying to teach empathy and understanding.

Appreciate the digging up the curriculum doc. TBH, its far from harmless. It is a strategic framework for breaking down a childs natural insticts towards gender divide, family and sexuality. It also makes no apologies for the fact that it cares not a jot for the moral position of parents etc. I have no issue with an anti-homophobe part of a curriculum aimed at an age appropriate class. However, this framework sets out to quash the natural instincts of growing Children, and break up any traditional family values etc. From Kindergarten up.

Some may see it as encouraging inclusivity, but myself and many others see it as distorting gender, sexuality and family to very young children. As you know, I'm no trumpet bearer for Catholicism, but Its things like this that make me shudder at the prospect of secular education.

wonderfulname · 15-10-2011 10:58pm

Actually it's pretty well known now that you can't screw with someone's perception of their gender, it just is what it is, you aren't merely brought up and trained into your genitalia. We do enforce gender roles on kids, but that isn't actually a good thing, as any well meaning feminist will tell you, and stepping outside these roles is not harmful, in fact nearly everyone does it to a degree and preventing this would be likely to cause some level of internal strife, after all not all men are rugged lumberjacks and not all women are damsel housewives.

A bit of light reading for you guys to muse over. The introduction is especially relevant, quite a famous case study on nature vs. nurture.

All this thing in Canada will do is increase the likelihood of the vast majority of kids which grow up conforming to their assumed gender respecting those who don't, and also increase the likelihood of those that don't being able to confront the fact, hence reducing suicide and depression rates in those few.

Just an example from that curriculum document, an extract from what is being taught to the youngest of children on gender;

8. Identify, as a class, the discrimination that occurs due to gender stereotyping. Refer to the
following suggested questions: (Note: With younger students, this section is most appropriate
with the teacher facilitating a whole-class discussion. Older students may work in small
groups.)
• What kinds of name-calling do you hear when girls and boys don’t follow gender rules?
(e.g. sissy, fag, gaylord, batty man, poofta, tomboy, lezzy, lezbo, dyke, homo, queer, etc.)
• Who gets called these names? Which boys and which girls?
• How do these hurtful actions affect the boy or girl?
• Do you think children need to change their behaviour in order to not be bullied or harassed?
(e.g., boy may feel he needs to act more “macho” to prevent being targeted)
• Is this fair? Students can produce their own ideas of the reasons why stereotyping is
harmful. Although they may to some extent buy into these assumptions, children often have
a strong sense of justice and will see the unfairness in the ways people are treated.
9. Generate and record a list of reasons why stereotyping based on rules of gender is not a good
thing:
• It hurts people’s feelings.
• Girls and boys will stop doing what they really want to do.
• Everyone would be the same and that would be boring.
• Boys and girls should have the opportunity to make their own choices and not be afraid of
being ridiculed.

Now does anyone actually have a problem with this? It more counters bullying than anything, who here went to school where there were one or two lads who didn't like, or were bad at sports? Or where there were girls who were tomboys? Everyone I'd wager, do you not think it good that children are taught that this is no reason to bully someone?

lmaopml · 15-10-2011 11:18pm

wonderfulname wrote: »

Actually it's pretty well known now that you can't screw with someone's perception of their gender, it just is what it is, you aren't merely brought up and trained into your genitalia. We do enforce gender roles on kids, but that isn't actually a good thing, as any well meaning feminist will tell you, and stepping outside these roles is not harmful, in fact nearly everyone does it to a degree and preventing this would be likely to cause some level of internal strife, after all not all men are rugged lumberjacks and not all women are damsel housewives.

A bit of light reading for you guys to muse over. The introduction is especially relevant, quite a famous case study on nature vs. nurture.

All this thing in Canada will do is increase the likelihood of the vast majority of kids which grow up conforming to their assumed gender respecting those who don't, and also increase the likelihood of those that don't being able to confront the fact, hence reducing suicide and depression rates in those few.

Just an example from that curriculum document, an extract from what is being taught to the youngest of children on gender;Now does anyone actually have a problem with this? It more counters bullying than anything, who here went to school where there were one or two lads who didn't like, or were bad at sports? Or where there were girls who were tomboys? Everyone I'd wager, do you not think it good that children are taught that this is no reason to bully someone?

I would agree that calling anybody, no matter what - whether it is gender discrimination orientated, or whether it is 'class' discrimination or race, religion etc. should be taught..

That's a basic surely? ..and most schools and teachers are more than aware of these things - or at least should be.

However, I think it should be 'age' appropriate too - School is about learning in very many ways, and children are only on loan to their teachers, as much as they are to their own parents too - the very young should be concentrating on the very basics...language and reading, and numeracy....along with self worth and our value and opening the door to the world, - that doesn't necessitate an overload of how every body 'self identifies'...in my experience, mere 'kids' get along just fine, better than adults and 'that' doesn't need any adjustment or interferement, or even over anxious protection..

...but an 'ethos' is valuable too imo, like everything in life.

Let them find their way, whatever 'ethos' - but don't put too much on them while they are only five and six etc. Life is too long and too short. They will inevitably grow up and cut out a path.....no need to over do weeding the pitfalls of the journey...some things aren't taught, but learned by experience...let them learn and grow.

wonderfulname · 15-10-2011 11:30pm

I would agree that there is too much emphasis being put on this element of the curriculum, but I suppose getting the message across that kids can be themselves and that's okay is important enough at that age, then again is it really the schools job to instil that ethos?

In my opinion all this stuff is assimilated as you grow, not learned in a concrete fashion, I don't understand the necessity to teach it to the kids, at the same time it is not harmful to do so, as is being suggested, unless you count taking time away from learning the things you traditionally go to school for but that's a different matter and I have no idea of whether or not it would actually do harm there anyway.

Manach · 15-10-2011 11:41pm

So long as the Parents can get a preview of this type of orientation and choose to have their children either opt out or else provided with counter-balancing tradationist norms.

lmaopml · 15-10-2011 11:52pm

wonderfulname wrote: »

I would agree that there is too much emphasis being put on this element of the curriculum, but I suppose getting the message across that kids can be themselves and that's okay is important enough at that age, then again is it really the schools job to instil that ethos?[/qoute]

I think you are overestimating the ability of the school and it's teachers and ethos in crossing those bounds - 'kids' of a certain age seem to mostly get on just fine without any baggage...but they will pick up the baggage and be written on eventually - the school can only emphasise the value of the person, the student, the individual and nothing more.

[qoute]In my opinion all this stuff is assimilated as you grow, not learned in a concrete fashion, I don't understand the necessity to teach it to the kids, at the same time it is not harmful to do so, as is being suggested, unless you count taking time away from learning the things you traditionally go to school for but that's a different matter and I have no idea of whether or not it would actually do harm there anyway.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think it is a 'growing' thing....It's the same as people giving out about any 'ethos' or what particular subject they see as most valuable to their children - it's hard to strike a balance -

- but it is true, that even little ones learn more than literacy and numeracy in school, it's important as a parent to know that they are being given a sense of self worth too, and not self recrimination, that is a good teachers 'forte' - or an overload of gender roles or boxing in of same, no need to use a 5b pencil on a five year old- give them room, the basics, and hope it sticks with them into adulthood is the best a parent can hope for, or a teacher for that matter..

wonderfulname · 15-10-2011 11:52pm

What do you mean "traditionalist"? What do you think is being taught?

wonderfulname · 16-10-2011 12:01am

lmaopml wrote: »

- but it is true, that even little ones learn more than literacy and numeracy in school, it's important as a parent to know that they are being given a sense of self worth too, and not self recrimination, that is a good teachers 'forte' - or an overload of gender roles or boxing in of same, no need to use a 5b pencil on a five year old.

Indeed they do, and it is as important a skill to learn, to be confident and to communicate, to interact with society etc etc, what we are discussing here is even an element of that same branch of education, but what is the correct weighting of educational to social and personal? And how much of the social and personal should be in how we teach and interact rather than what we teach?

Do we really have to sit down and discuss how and why we shouldn't bully Paul because he has a thing for barbies or should we just imply that Paul should be treated decently by our interactions, if you get my drift?

lmaopml · 16-10-2011 12:18am

wonderfulname wrote: »

Indeed they do, and it is as important a skill to learn, to be confident and to communicate, to interact with society etc etc, what we are discussing here is even an element of that same branch of education, but what is the correct weighting of educational to social and personal? And how much of the social and personal should be in how we teach and interact rather than what we teach?

Do we really have to sit down and discuss how and why we shouldn't bully Paul because he has a thing for barbies or should we just imply that Paul should be treated decently by our interactions, if you get my drift?

I would imagine that we should teach empathy and a sense of community among students. A small group of so many individual spirits is bound to throw up a few Pauls ( as you put it ) Paul is part of the group, he grows with everybody else, he is not 'special', he is treated the very same as every other student who learns literacy and numeracy - and he is not belittled, but protected like everybody else..

However, a good teacher knows their students and will 'guide' them, no matter whether they are Paul or Mary, but encourage them to learn.....and nothing more than that..... outside of the reality of an 'ethos' that says a prayer to God at beginning of school and at lunch....but those things are valued by some and not by others....and most likely will become a thing of the past in education.

I'll be sad! but I won't be disillusioned..

wonderfulname · 16-10-2011 12:31am

But do we teach empathy and community or do we foster it?

As for the prayers in schools and similar, I believe it will remain a staple of schools with religious patronage if the church hands over enough schools so those who want a completely secular education can have it, if they remain patrons of the percentage of schools they currently oversee then the system as a whole will of course change in an effort to include those who aren't receiving their constitutional right to have their kids educated under the ethos they see fit, but that's for another thread.

lmaopml · 16-10-2011 12:35am

wonderfulname wrote: »

But do we teach empathy and community or do we foster it?

As for the prayers in schools and similar, I believe it will remain a staple of schools with religious patronage if the church hands over enough schools so those who want a completely secular education can have it, if they remain patrons of the percentage of schools they currently oversee then the system as a whole will of course change in an effort to include those who aren't receiving their constitutional right to have their kids educated under the ethos they see fit, but that's for another thread.

A good teacher will do both. It's only another skill that we pass on - ultimately the child will grow and make choices - the only thing a teacher can hope for, or a parent is that it's 'informed' choices...and that the student or child has an 'identity'....a solid foundation..that encourages empathy and community and a sense of self worth and place...

Keaton · 16-10-2011 10:25am

Gender identity is very much open to manipulation. Kids need to be guided and supported to develop a healthy gender identity which ought to match their biological sex! Messing around with it is wrong, as these programmes are. It's cruel.

wonderfulname · 16-10-2011 1:54pm

Keaton, do you have any proof to back this up? Did you read any of the links posted to this page? Including the actual curriculum?

Because you're just wrong keaton, think back to when you were a child, if someone had put you in a dress would you think you were a girl? Nope, the nurture theory on gender identity went out the window decades ago.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2011 8:52pm

wonderfulname wrote: »

Actually it's pretty well known now that you can't screw with someone's perception of their gender, it just is what it is, you aren't merely brought up and trained into your genitalia. We do enforce gender roles on kids, but that isn't actually a good thing, as any well meaning feminist will tell you, and stepping outside these roles is not harmful, in fact nearly everyone does it to a degree and preventing this would be likely to cause some level of internal strife, after all not all men are rugged lumberjacks and not all women are damsel housewives.

A bit of light reading for you guys to muse over. The introduction is especially relevant, quite a famous case study on nature vs. nurture.

All this thing in Canada will do is increase the likelihood of the vast majority of kids which grow up conforming to their assumed gender respecting those who don't, and also increase the likelihood of those that don't being able to confront the fact, hence reducing suicide and depression rates in those few.

Just an example from that curriculum document, an extract from what is being taught to the youngest of children on gender;Now does anyone actually have a problem with this? It more counters bullying than anything, who here went to school where there were one or two lads who didn't like, or were bad at sports? Or where there were girls who were tomboys? Everyone I'd wager, do you not think it good that children are taught that this is no reason to bully someone?

It's a good thing to teach kids not to bully others, even others who believe or act strangely. But it is evil to teach kids that deviant forms of sexuality are proper.

We can teach our kids that homosexuality is sinful; that heterosexual promiscuity is sinful - if we teach them also that people have a civil right to be sinful, as long as they do not harm the uninvolved by their practices.

How complicated is that for a democratic country? Why the resort to atheistic indoctrination?

****************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Manach · 16-10-2011 11:31pm

I don't personally think this is necessarily equated with atheistism as such. At best it is an honest intention to promote an inclusive civil society here, and would be backed by segments of the country's teaching unions and dept. of education. But even so, without counteracting voices such as Wolfbane's & Keaton's to present an alternative viewpoint it would create a distorted worldview.

wonderfulname · 17-10-2011 12:12am

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's a good thing to teach kids not to bully others, even others who believe or act strangely. But it is evil to teach kids that deviant forms of sexuality are proper.

We can teach our kids that homosexuality is sinful; that heterosexual promiscuity is sinful - if we teach them also that people have a civil right to be sinful, as long as they do not harm the uninvolved by their practices.

How complicated is that for a democratic country? Why the resort to atheistic indoctrination?

****************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

You teach your young children about the morals of adult sexual relations? To each their own... You'll find their world view doesn't include that, and they won't be reading anything more than "boys and girls can do the same stuff" of what is in that curriculum.

JimiTime · 17-10-2011 1:07am

wonderfulname wrote: »

You teach your young children about the morals of adult sexual relations? To each their own...

i don't think he was saying that, but ultimately (I'm using that word a hell of a lot lately), thats what this curriculum is grooming kids towards. It may have other things at its heart too, but it will ultimately lead to this inevitable topic.

You'll find their world view doesn't include that, and they won't be reading anything more than "boys and girls can do the same stuff" of what is in that curriculum.

But they can't. Boys can't have babies. Boys are physically stronger. There are certain things better suited to men, and others better suited to women. Men and women are different, mentally, emotionally, biologically and physically. Most of the time, these differences are complimentary. This curriculum wants kids to think things like, 'John has two daddies, thats perfectly normal'. This is absolutely NOT normal, but rather a very contrived situation which betrays the biological gender distinction, and the complimentary nature of having both a mother and a father to raise you. Now people may disagree with this, but it is abhorrent that parents are powerless to decide if this type of teaching is taught a) In schools in general, and b) If parents want it in schools, that certain parents can't request to have their child excluded from such a curriculum. Even in Irish Catholic schools, parents are usually accommodated in relation to religion class.

Wolfsbane's point about anti-bullying hits the nail on the head. Its wrong to bully, whatever its reasons, and teaching that is not an issue. This curriculum goes way beyond that and looks to cut natural instinct off at the pass.

Zombrex · 17-10-2011 10:43am

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's a good thing to teach kids not to bully others, even others who believe or act strangely. But it is evil to teach kids that deviant forms of sexuality are proper.

We can teach our kids that homosexuality is sinful; that heterosexual promiscuity is sinful - if we teach them also that people have a civil right to be sinful, as long as they do not harm the uninvolved by their practices.

How complicated is that for a democratic country? Why the resort to atheistic indoctrination?

The Canadian State is not a Christian theocracy, it shouldn't be teaching that anything is or isn't a Christian sin.

That is up to the person themselves to decide based on their own religious preferences.

The State education system should be teaching the current health and safety policy of the government, which at the moment sees a person engaging in homosexual relationships are perfectly legal and socially acceptable behavior.

What next, little Timmy the Mormon is going to hell and we should pray for him says the Minister for Education? :pac:

Monty Burnz · 17-10-2011 10:54am

Keaton wrote: »

Gender identity is very much open to manipulation. Kids need to be guided and supported to develop a healthy gender identity which ought to match their biological sex! Messing around with it is wrong, as these programmes are. It's cruel.

Are you arguing that you could have been persuaded as a child that (assuming you are male) you were a girl and liked to play with dolls? Because I assure you that would not have worked on me.

Can you cite any scientific research that shows that boys or girls can be persuaded in a few classroom lessons about sensitivity to difference that they are of the other gender? (assuming, of course, that you accept the principle of science, I know some Christians don't

)

wolfsbane · 17-10-2011 7:56pm

Zombrex wrote: »

The Canadian State is not a Christian theocracy, it shouldn't be teaching that anything is or isn't a Christian sin.

That is up to the person themselves to decide based on their own religious preferences.

The State education system should be teaching the current health and safety policy of the government, which at the moment sees a person engaging in homosexual relationships are perfectly legal and socially acceptable behavior.

What next, little Timmy the Mormon is going to hell and we should pray for him says the Minister for Education? :pac:

OK, let me put it this way: the State may properly teach our kids that A,B and C are legal. But it is the 'socially acceptable' but that brings trouble. What is meant by your use of it? For example, anything legal may be said to be socially acceptable in the sense that it is permitted. OR we may use the term to describe activities that society as a whole views as within the bounds of decency. Some things can be legal, but not generally considered decent. Getting drunk every night of the week. Having sex with every man and/or woman one meets. Asset-stripping companies. Paying minimum wages when one could afford to pay better.

Homosexuality is legal - but many, including me - do not view it as decent. And we do not want our kids being told that it is.

Seems to me the problem arises because all states have to hold/teach some sort of morality. It's fine when there is no dispute on the specifics - all agree that theft and murder is immoral, wrong, indecent or however one wants to express it. But as modern states move away from their founding beliefs and further into atheism, divergence arises on the issue of sexual morality especially.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

wolfsbane · 17-10-2011 8:10pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you arguing that you could have been persuaded as a child that (assuming you are male) you were a girl and liked to play with dolls? Because I assure you that would not have worked on me.

Can you cite any scientific research that shows that boys or girls can be persuaded in a few classroom lessons about sensitivity to difference that they are of the other gender? (assuming, of course, that you accept the principle of science, I know some Christians don't )

It's not about persuading them they are of another gender. Just priming them with the idea that sexual thoughts of or approaches from one of their own sex is not wrong. That when they are of age, it will be good and proper for them to develop sexual relationships with either sex.

As to the power of enforced cross-gender dressing, I don't know the science, but I can see how it would mess with anyone's mind. And it has been told me by a man who experienced it as child - he gave it as a major factor in distorting his sexual development so that it expressed itself in later childhood and adulthood by attraction only to male children.

***********************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

wonderfulname · 17-10-2011 11:01pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Boys are physically stronger. There are certain things better suited to men, and others better suited to women. Men and women are different, mentally, emotionally, biologically and physically. Most of the time, these differences are complimentary.

No. This is a generalisation, ON AVERAGE these things are true, but the vast majority of the time a man or woman will have one or some attributes more usually attributed to the opposite sex, think of your empathetic priest, empathy is ON AVERAGE a character trait reserved for women, think of female engineers, male nurses, just because the majority of the people who have the attributes suitable for these careers are of the opposite sex does not mean these people don't.

JimiTime wrote: »

This curriculum wants kids to think things like, 'John has two daddies, thats perfectly normal'.

No, more "John has two daddies, lets accept that and move on"

JimiTime wrote: »

This is absolutely NOT normal, but rather a very contrived situation which betrays the biological gender distinction, and the complimentary nature of having both a mother and a father to raise you.

This is a very false position, but there is another thread for that matter...

JimiTime wrote: »

Now people may disagree with this, but it is abhorrent that parents are powerless to decide if this type of teaching is taught a) In schools in general, and b) If parents want it in schools, that certain parents can't request to have their child excluded from such a curriculum. Even in Irish Catholic schools, parents are usually accommodated in relation to religion class.

But are the young earth creationists exempt from science? Or the children of anarchists exempt from CSPE? You may have your opinions, but teaching people to be accepting and respectful of other people regardless of their views on how those people live their lives is not a bad thing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's not about persuading them they are of another gender. Just priming them with the idea that sexual thoughts of or approaches from one of their own sex is not wrong. That when they are of age, it will be good and proper for them to develop sexual relationships with either sex.

But they cannot help who they will want to pursue relationships with in later life, it doesn't matter what they believe to be proper, it just happens, if you really must push your religion on them at least allow all this stuff out in the open so if the unlikely does occur they won't bottle it up, instead confide in you, then you can do the decent Christian think and not force them into a loveless relationship by inaction and destroy their mental health, I mean at the very least advocate celibacy and don't do your mental capacity the injustice of claiming anyone has a choice when it comes to sexuality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the power of enforced cross-gender dressing, I don't know the science...

You're right, you don't, and your anecdote holds zero weight, in fact, in real studies, one of which you'll find references to in a link I posted earlier, the exact opposite to your assumption has been found to be true.

Zombrex · 18-10-2011 10:38am

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, let me put it this way: the State may properly teach our kids that A,B and C are legal. But it is the 'socially acceptable' but that brings trouble. What is meant by your use of it?

It is socially acceptable, that is the position of the state. If you disagree you have the democratic route to lobby that this shouldn't be the position of the Canadian state.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OR we may use the term to describe activities that society as a whole views as within the bounds of decency. Some things can be legal, but not generally considered decent. Getting drunk every night of the week. Having sex with every man and/or woman one meets. Asset-stripping companies. Paying minimum wages when one could afford to pay better.

Homosexuality is legal - but many, including me - do not view it as decent.

And you are allowed to, but that isn't the position of the Canadian State.

The Canadian State is responsibly to the democratic will of its people, not the position of the Christian churches.

If you believe homosexuality is indecent and should not be considered socially acceptable then it is your responsibility to convince enough people of that so that it no longer becomes the position of the State.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And we do not want our kids being told that it is.

Well the debate over how much you can **** up your own kids is probably one for another time :P

I'm merely pointing out that just because Christians say this is not socially acceptable doesn't reflect the position of the State, the State's allegiance is to the people of the country, not the Christian churches.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems to me the problem arises because all states have to hold/teach some sort of morality. It's fine when there is no dispute on the specifics - all agree that theft and murder is immoral, wrong, indecent or however one wants to express it. But as modern states move away from their founding beliefs and further into atheism, divergence arises on the issue of sexual morality especially.

Divergence has always existed, 50 years ago some people didn't want it taught that it is socially acceptable to associate with black people.

Progress in society cannot be held hostage to the views of conservative minority. It is the conservatives responsibility to demonstrate to the rest of us that their position is the just one.

As I mentioned on the Gay marriage thread, Christians groups have been doing a terrible job at this so far. Come up with better reasons these things shouldn't be taught, rather than just complaining they are

wolfsbane · 18-10-2011 7:14pm

wonderfulname said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It's not about persuading them they are of another gender. Just priming them with the idea that sexual thoughts of or approaches from one of their own sex is not wrong. That when they are of age, it will be good and proper for them to develop sexual relationships with either sex.
But they cannot help who they will want to pursue relationships with in later life, it doesn't matter what they believe to be proper, it just happens, if you really must push your religion on them at least allow all this stuff out in the open so if the unlikely does occur they won't bottle it up, instead confide in you, then you can do the decent Christian think and not force them into a loveless relationship by inaction and destroy their mental health, I mean at the very least advocate celibacy and don't do your mental capacity the injustice of claiming anyone has a choice when it comes to sexuality.

Whatever our inclinations, sexual or otherwise, if they are against God's law they ought to be fought against by the one who has them. We need to teach our kids not to do everything that they feel like doing. Some things are harmful/wicked. We can help what we do with evil desires.

But to teaching kids: if the State thinks homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality, they could put that to the kids - provided they acknowledge that this is not the view of most of the world's population, nor of the people who founded Canada/USA/UK, etc. Let the kids know this subject is strongly contested, instead of indoctrinating them with the homosexuality is OK view. That's being out in the open.

Yes, by all means deal with the problems sex produces. Advocate celibacy before marriage; faithfulness within it. Let them know help is there for any who seek it, no matter the nature of the sexual problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to the power of enforced cross-gender dressing, I don't know the science...
You're right, you don't, and your anecdote holds zero weight, in fact, in real studies, one of which you'll find references to in a link I posted earlier, the exact opposite to your assumption has been found to be true.

Really? I'm pretty sceptical of social science 'truths'. They seem to change with the needs of the elite. I rather listen to people I know who have the experiences - not that I trust them entirely either.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

wolfsbane · 18-10-2011 7:39pm

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, let me put it this way: the State may properly teach our kids that A,B and C are legal. But it is the 'socially acceptable' but that brings trouble. What is meant by your use of it?
It is socially acceptable, that is the position of the state. If you disagree you have the democratic route to lobby that this shouldn't be the position of the Canadian state.

OK, you say anything the State says is socially acceptable is so. Racism in Nazi Germany; Apartheid in SA, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OR we may use the term to describe activities that society as a whole views as within the bounds of decency. Some things can be legal, but not generally considered decent. Getting drunk every night of the week. Having sex with every man and/or woman one meets. Asset-stripping companies. Paying minimum wages when one could afford to pay better.

Homosexuality is legal - but many, including me - do not view it as decent.
And you are allowed to, but that isn't the position of the Canadian State.

The Canadian State is responsibly to the democratic will of its people, not the position of the Christian churches.

If you believe homosexuality is indecent and should not be considered socially acceptable then it is your responsibility to convince enough people of that so that it no longer becomes the position of the State.

I quite agree that the State's morality may differ from mine. And I appreciate I'm free to campaign for the Sate's morality to be changed.

But that is not the point. The point is the State is not entitled to enforce all its moral views on me or my kids. It can present them, but not in the terms that this is the truth. Let them acknowledge the differing views, especially those that the State was founded on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And we do not want our kids being told that it is.
Well the debate over how much you can **** up your own kids is probably one for another time

I'm merely pointing out that just because Christians say this is not socially acceptable doesn't reflect the position of the State, the State's allegiance is to the people of the country, not the Christian churches.

I agree that the State is not bound to what Christians say. But it is bound to respect their difference on this moral matter, and not force their opinion on us. If they won't do that, then it is time for Christians to vote for those who will. If our morality is such a minority view, then we must endure evil teaching and re-educate our kids at home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Seems to me the problem arises because all states have to hold/teach some sort of morality. It's fine when there is no dispute on the specifics - all agree that theft and murder is immoral, wrong, indecent or however one wants to express it. But as modern states move away from their founding beliefs and further into atheism, divergence arises on the issue of sexual morality especially.
Divergence has always existed, 50 years ago some people didn't want it taught that it is socially acceptable to associate with black people.

Indeed. And Canada was quite famous for its support of eugenics. All socially acceptable at the time. Like homosexuality today.

Progress in society cannot be held hostage to the views of conservative minority. It is the conservatives responsibility to demonstrate to the rest of us that their position is the just one.

Yes, that is true. If society casts off Christian morality, society will have to face whatever replaces it. Christians will suffer in the process, but evil brings its own punishment.

As I mentioned on the Gay marriage thread, Christians groups have been doing a terrible job at this so far. Come up with better reasons these things shouldn't be taught, rather than just complaining they are

I think my reason is fine: The State should not teach kids that homosexuality is valid, because it is a perversion of nature and has bad mental and physical tendencies. Homosexuality is also a grave sin against God, and has temporal and eternal consequences - but it is not the place of the State to teach religion.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Gender distinction in Canada's schools

Comments