This guys in the news quite a lot recently.
This seems a bit too far. Is primary a bit too young for this ideology? Certainly “endocrine supports” for young kids seems a bit scary as the changes can be irreversible.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/transgender-issues-should-be-part-of-primary-curriculum-says-childrens-minister-roderic-ogorman-42256827.html
Threadbans
The Orb
irishfreeview
RobbieTheRobber
Why would I be afraid?
Gender identity shouldn't be taught in primary schools and I shudder to think that children under the age of 16 will be legally allowed change their gender.
Biological sex is a reality. Gender (which once was the same as sex) has become a ridiculous game of "who-can-out-do-who" in the uniqueness league. It means nothing. Yet to people like Roderic O'Gorman, they are trying to make someones gender (but interestingly, only the male and female genders) more legally recognisable than their biological sex.
If someone wants to live as the opposite sex, they are free to do so. Compelling people to go along with their "reality" is beyond Orwellian.
They are pretending that sex and gender are different, yet linking them inextricably.
It's a complex topic that grown adults find hard to comprehend, yet some are wanting it taught to children. One sidedly too. Would you be ok with primary kids being taught about the suicide rates, the damage it does to your body, the surgerys needed? Or do you just want the happy clappy, isn't everyone the same rhetoric?
"Primary school children should be educated about what it means to be transgender"
"Asked if school children should be taught more about what it means to be transgender, the minister said “absolutely”
"His department, with the Department of Social Protection, is working on policies on whether children under the age of 16 should be able to declare their gender identity"
"Mr O’Gorman says he hopes this will give a “clear pathway” on the legality surrounding under 16s self-declaring their gender identity."
Its all in the article Robbie.
Just because YOU don't have any issue, doesn't mean others don't.
Yes, I trust parents to teach their children to instill values of tolerance to their children. For my own children I trust myself and my wife far more than I trust anyone else in that regard - we are their primary educators.
So that's a no then from you. No one specific thing that is or will be added to the curriculum that you have an issue with.
So your kids don't go to school?
Jesus.
How specific do you want?
"Gender identity shouldn't be taught in primary schools and I shudder to think that children under the age of 16 will be legally allowed change their gender"
Please don't engage with me again.
They don't. Not yet at least.
And when they do, we will remain their primary educators, with the school remaining in its place - a supporting role.
The State should stay in its lane.
So we shouldn't teach about boys and girls. We should avoid any gender identity in schools got it!
What am I zealot for exactly there pal?
People will be people whether or not schools intervene in this type of education. There will be ignorant and anti-trans people who will unfortunately pass that on to their children and there is nothing you or your friends can do about that. I'm sure this trans woman was well aware of the difficulties that lay ahead of her, and she will deal with any problems it presents for the child. Out of your hands.
Another way of looking at this, if you are worried about anti trans sentiment and the effect it will have on your friends child is this: If teaching on transgenderism is brought into primary level education, and a certain amount of people are really against it - what way will that affect your friends and their child? Would they not be in a worse position possibly, and more prone to receiving abuse? I don't know the answer but there is a chance it could just make things worse. These are just the anti trans people. Lots more people will have concerns about teaching their young kids about this specific issue that are nothing to do with being anti trans.
Biology and the DIFFERENCES between boys and girls should be taught in school.
Again, you spectacularly miss the point and undermine the whole "gender and sex are separate" argument.
Gender identity, if taught in school, should cover exactly how many genders?
What pray tell do they teach about boys and girls in primary school? Genuinely curious.
The State, as guardian of the common good, owns the fcuking motorway 😁
3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article42
Do we teach biology to primary school kids?
You're right. They face an uphill battle, but hopefully by winning these battles, future generations will have to deal less with close minded people.
As much as it's out of my hands, what is in my hands (to coin a phrase) is to stand alongside them and engage and try and explain how they're a loving family, and if people could just accept that, sweet.
I hate discussing trans issues online. It's generally incredibly one-sided, but on the off chance a trans person is reading this, I hope they gain some small comfort in realising it's not the entire world against them, and they have some allies out there!
Don't go bringing the constitution to a feelings about school curriculum fight that's not fair Jack!
Yes, basic biology is taught in primary school.
While your more Right wing type dislikes even hates The State for mostly stupid reasons, especially those who parrot the fúcknuggets on the US Right, the Left love The State for mostly equally stupid reasons. They seek out a nanny, an authority. So long as it follows their credo. They're more like the crawthumpers of Old Catholic Ireland in this regard.
Does it include Gender?
but on the off chance a trans person is reading this, I hope they gain some small comfort in realising it's not the entire world against them, and they have some allies out there!
The dramatics don't help. The vast majority of the West would respect peoples wishes to be as they think they are, but when lines are crossed people have an issue. When other peoples kids are being thought this stuff, when wider society is expected to abandon biological truths in the name of tolerance, is when people take issue. All you have to do is not cross those lines and you'll have your "tolerance", but the trans lobby won't respect that, and keep attempting to cross the line.
How nice of you to omit this:
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
The article you quote only means that the child receive a minimum of education in those areas and not what that education might entail.
Such a provision is tempered by other religious and conscience freedoms contained within the Constitution and this cannot be prescriptive of its contents in that regard, especially the article quoted above.
Interestingly the article you quote doesn't oblige that children receive a minimum of physical education - which quite frankly is a more pressing matter.
Exactly, what is wrong with telling a child that some people prefer living like a man than a woman. That’s what most people not raging about “indoctrination” are saying
How'd we get to children under 16 being allowed to choose their gender?
No. Thats not biology. Not anymore.
There's a certain strain of people too with terrible familial relations, who hate their family so much that they think that the concept should be abolished. Those types are the worst people you'll find for trying to replace the family with the state.
There is a difference between being anti trans, and being against teaching about transgenderism to children. People who are worried out developments elsewhere, where children under 16 have access to gender reassignment treatment - are not necessarily anti trans. I hope you understand this. And I hope the trans community can take these valid concerns (among others) on board without declaring dissenting voices to be anti trans. That does not further their cause, and is not good for a healthy debate.
Why would I ask someone else about what you posted?
You said
So we shouldn't teach about boys and girls.
The inference being that, "boys and girls" is currently part of the curriculum. Im not a teacher so have no knowledge of what is or isnt on the curriculum, so I ask again, what is currently been taught to primary school kids about "boys and girls"?
From the article in the very first post:
"His department, with the Department of Social Protection, is working on policies on whether children under the age of 16 should be able to declare their gender identity.
Mr O’Gorman says he hopes this will give a “clear pathway” on the legality surrounding under 16s self-declaring their gender identity"
The fact that it is being considered is cause for concern
Which genders are you speaking about and how many?
That's very different from telling children that women can become men and vice versa.
Or that there is an entire spectrum of genders to choose from.
Do you understand what “guardian of the common good” means?
I didn’t omit the provision you cited, it was just irrelevant to your argument that the State should stay in its lane.
I’m not even sure that you understand what’s meant by ‘the Family’ in the context of the provision you cited, but one of it’s major issues is that the State only recognises the Family in Irish law as being founded on the Institution of Marriage, which is why the Marriage Equality referendum was the big deal it was, so that the children of same-sex couples would have equal protection in Irish law as the children of heterosexual married couples. Unmarried people with children do not constitute the Family as recognised in Irish law.
You’re also overlooking this little nugget -
2 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
In short, the provision you cited doesn’t carry nearly as much weight as you imagine it should in the making of your argument that the State should stay in its lane, when the Irish Constitution recognises the State as guardian of the common good.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/20f4606d019ca0b240328ff30d91e82b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1de30a3af99564ce338f7a27f88f9656.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0ea8e70e5a44cd99b1246a07a9460706.svg)
