First school in nation to offer LGBT Studies Course --- why?

Every one needs to know where babies and sexually transmitted diseases come from and how to avoid them. But why do we need to have classes that teach us how to have sex? And yes, there is a difference.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

And that's your right -- we have a free country where you can send you kid to another school, home school them or create a charter school. It's lovely!

I, for one, don't see a problem educating my children about LGBT lifestyles, as they're going to run into people that identify with that world in the future. I'm not going to teach my children to look down, discriminate or hate on LGBT people because of who they love.

If I was the religious type, I'd say, "I'm not God, and only he can judge".

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

A highschool in San Francisco? Where almost 1/3 self identify? They probably are already hip to what GLBTQ means. The time would be better served with a pre-calculus class.

So you are saying that it is wrong for them to have a social studies course that actually let's them study these issues, and also allow for the non-LGBT people to increase their own awareness. People have only just begun to accept such people. Taking a single class, probably for elective, is a great idea probably for anyone.

It's just like, in undergrad I took two electives focused on ethnic issues, race, culture, etc. I took an African-American Studies course about real slave narrative literature. Then I took an American Indian studies course, which covered that history. Both were very eye opening.

A lot of people show a lot of ignorance regarding all kinds of topics like these, proving that we AREN'T at a point yet where people "don't need to learn about these issues."

Where did I use the term "wrong?"


What I have pointed out is that the US spends the most per student of any country in the world with some of the worse results in the sciences and math. What we don't need is more feel-good PC classes, we need more math and science and chemistry.

As others have said, discussing it as part of a wider health class? Sure, have at it. Devote an entire class to this one subject when so many real subjects are suffering? Please. It's pandering to the base of the area just like "intelligent design" classes pander to the base in places like Utah.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: intrepid
"First school in nation to offer LGBT Studies Course --- why?"

To educate kids on the ignorance that the gay community had to put up with from their parents and grandparents? I mean it goes beyond watching Milk.

A whole course of study, uh? Ridiculous. A couple of days of that "discussion" in a health class would be way more than enough.

Yes. People that would like to sweep these people and their rights away would like it to be done as quickly as possible, if not avoid it altogether. Equality but only if it's the equality that one prefers. That's not impressive.

Not avoid....Keep behind closed doors if that is their lifestyle...Much, much different that sweeping their rights away!

But "keeping behind closed doors" their lifestyle, not being able to be themselves nor enjoy their relationships in public fundamentally relegates them to second-class citizenship.

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think it's teaching kids how to have gay sex. I think you're taking it an extreme to support yourself here.

Until someone comes forward with some of the teaching material or a class agenda, we really don't know what they'll be teaching. I seriously doubt it's an instructional class on gay sex. "Teaching how to have gay sex" sounds like some sensational, twisted facts being propagated by to scare conservative parents.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

A highschool in San Francisco? Where almost 1/3 self identify? They probably are already hip to what GLBTQ means. The time would be better served with a pre-calculus class.

So you are saying that it is wrong for them to have a social studies course that actually let's them study these issues, and also allow for the non-LGBT people to increase their own awareness. People have only just begun to accept such people. Taking a single class, probably for elective, is a great idea probably for anyone.

It's just like, in undergrad I took two electives focused on ethnic issues, race, culture, etc. I took an African-American Studies course about real slave narrative literature. Then I took an American Indian studies course, which covered that history. Both were very eye opening.

A lot of people show a lot of ignorance regarding all kinds of topics like these, proving that we AREN'T at a point yet where people "don't need to learn about these issues."

Where did I use the term "wrong?"


What I have pointed out is that the US spends the most per student of any country in the world with some of the worse results in the sciences and math. What we don't need is more feel-good PC classes, we need more math and science and chemistry.

As others have said, discussing it as part of a wider health class? Sure, have at it. Devote an entire class to this one subject when so many real subjects are suffering? Please. It's pandering to the base of the area just like "intelligent design" classes pander to the base in places like Utah.

I agree with your points about making sure the fundamentals are covered. Those are the priority.

But the whole idea of electives, which I am sure this is, is to broaden the education.

What we do NOT need are high schools or colleges that offer no social studies, art, music, etc, courses. That won't create an enlightened citizenry.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

And that's your right -- we have a free country where you can send you kid to another school, home school them or create a charter school. It's lovely!

I, for one, don't see a problem educating my children about LGBT lifestyles, as they're going to run into people that identify with that world in the future. I'm not going to teach my children to look down, discriminate or hate on LGBT people because of who they love.

If I was the religious type, I'd say, "I'm not God, and only he can judge".

However, in all fairness, he cannot choose not to pay taxes that support the public school, so those free market examples don't exactly fly. Don't tax him to support the school and, certainly, he has no right to bitch about what is taught. However, if he is taxed, he certainly has the right to voice his opinion.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

A highschool in San Francisco? Where almost 1/3 self identify? They probably are already hip to what GLBTQ means. The time would be better served with a pre-calculus class.

So you are saying that it is wrong for them to have a social studies course that actually let's them study these issues, and also allow for the non-LGBT people to increase their own awareness. People have only just begun to accept such people. Taking a single class, probably for elective, is a great idea probably for anyone.

It's just like, in undergrad I took two electives focused on ethnic issues, race, culture, etc. I took an African-American Studies course about real slave narrative literature. Then I took an American Indian studies course, which covered that history. Both were very eye opening.

A lot of people show a lot of ignorance regarding all kinds of topics like these, proving that we AREN'T at a point yet where people "don't need to learn about these issues."

Where did I use the term "wrong?"


What I have pointed out is that the US spends the most per student of any country in the world with some of the worse results in the sciences and math. What we don't need is more feel-good PC classes, we need more math and science and chemistry.

As others have said, discussing it as part of a wider health class? Sure, have at it. Devote an entire class to this one subject when so many real subjects are suffering? Please. It's pandering to the base of the area just like "intelligent design" classes pander to the base in places like Utah.

I agree with your points about making sure the fundamentals are covered. Those are the priority.

But the whole idea of electives, which I am sure this is, is to broaden the education.

What we do NOT need are high schools or colleges that offer no social studies, art, music, etc, courses. That won't create an enlightened citizenry.

And not devoting an entire class to this subject will not create neanderthals either.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think it's teaching kids how to have gay sex. I think you're taking it an extreme to support yourself here.

Until someone comes forward with some of the teaching material or a class agenda, we really don't know what they'll be teaching. I seriously doubt it's an instructional class on gay sex. "Teaching how to have gay sex" sounds like some sensational, twisted facts being propagated by to scare conservative parents.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a wiener.

The course at Ruth Asawa San Francisco School of the Arts will cover terminology, and the broad history of LGBT issues.

“We’ll look at what it’s been like for gay men, what it’s been like for lesbian women, what it’s been like for transgender people,” social studies teacher Lyndsey Schlax said.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

And that's your right -- we have a free country where you can send you kid to another school, home school them or create a charter school. It's lovely!

I, for one, don't see a problem educating my children about LGBT lifestyles, as they're going to run into people that identify with that world in the future. I'm not going to teach my children to look down, discriminate or hate on LGBT people because of who they love.

If I was the religious type, I'd say, "I'm not God, and only he can judge".

Oh, but it's not that simple.

The default is to have your kid educated this way, and if you want to educate them according to other means, you better hope your darn near independently wealthy.

So much for "free" country with "free" choice in education.

a reply to: ketsuko

That was the point i was getting at.
I do think a sex ed segment is needed in the Health classes.
But i do not see the need for the subject of gay/lesbian relationships to be discussed at such an early age as my daughter was
subjected to. Being 8 years old, she doesnt even understand her body yet, let alone the physical relationship between 2 men entails.
I personally think this subject can wait till grade 7 or 8.
But thats just my opinion

And in discussions such as this, it's pretty incredible that I can reach back to 1960's and hear this in a song:

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

It's just as relevant in 1965 as it is today in 2015. The only thing for sure in life (besides death & taxes) is change.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think it's teaching kids how to have gay sex. I think you're taking it an extreme to support yourself here.

Until someone comes forward with some of the teaching material or a class agenda, we really don't know what they'll be teaching. I seriously doubt it's an instructional class on gay sex. "Teaching how to have gay sex" sounds like some sensational, twisted facts being propagated by to scare conservative parents.

Real ly?

Keep in mind that this poster was put up in a middle school in Kansas which claims to teach abstinence only. So if you can get a poster that lists explicit sexual positions in a so-called abstinence only curriculum ... then just imagine what you might be getting in more liberal places in their sex ed programs.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sure, if they claimed to be "abstinence only" and used a poster like that, then they're not doing what they said they were doing.

I personally don't find anything wrong with the poster.

"But it's giving them ideas!" So? What's so icky and wrong about sex?

Nothing that kids today wouldn't find out about on the internet or by talking to their friends. Most kids would probably roll their eyes at that poster.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

A highschool in San Francisco? Where almost 1/3 self identify? They probably are already hip to what GLBTQ means. The time would be better served with a pre-calculus class.

So you are saying that it is wrong for them to have a social studies course that actually let's them study these issues, and also allow for the non-LGBT people to increase their own awareness. People have only just begun to accept such people. Taking a single class, probably for elective, is a great idea probably for anyone.

It's just like, in undergrad I took two electives focused on ethnic issues, race, culture, etc. I took an African-American Studies course about real slave narrative literature. Then I took an American Indian studies course, which covered that history. Both were very eye opening.

A lot of people show a lot of ignorance regarding all kinds of topics like these, proving that we AREN'T at a point yet where people "don't need to learn about these issues."

Where did I use the term "wrong?"


What I have pointed out is that the US spends the most per student of any country in the world with some of the worse results in the sciences and math. What we don't need is more feel-good PC classes, we need more math and science and chemistry.

As others have said, discussing it as part of a wider health class? Sure, have at it. Devote an entire class to this one subject when so many real subjects are suffering? Please. It's pandering to the base of the area just like "intelligent design" classes pander to the base in places like Utah.

I agree with your points about making sure the fundamentals are covered. Those are the priority.

But the whole idea of electives, which I am sure this is, is to broaden the education.

What we do NOT need are high schools or colleges that offer no social studies, art, music, etc, courses. That won't create an enlightened citizenry.

And not devoting an entire class to this subject will not create neanderthals either.

Schools have the right to create any electives they want. We need diversity of studies.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

A highschool in San Francisco? Where almost 1/3 self identify? They probably are already hip to what GLBTQ means. The time would be better served with a pre-calculus class.

So you are saying that it is wrong for them to have a social studies course that actually let's them study these issues, and also allow for the non-LGBT people to increase their own awareness. People have only just begun to accept such people. Taking a single class, probably for elective, is a great idea probably for anyone.

It's just like, in undergrad I took two electives focused on ethnic issues, race, culture, etc. I took an African-American Studies course about real slave narrative literature. Then I took an American Indian studies course, which covered that history. Both were very eye opening.

A lot of people show a lot of ignorance regarding all kinds of topics like these, proving that we AREN'T at a point yet where people "don't need to learn about these issues."

Where did I use the term "wrong?"


What I have pointed out is that the US spends the most per student of any country in the world with some of the worse results in the sciences and math. What we don't need is more feel-good PC classes, we need more math and science and chemistry.

As others have said, discussing it as part of a wider health class? Sure, have at it. Devote an entire class to this one subject when so many real subjects are suffering? Please. It's pandering to the base of the area just like "intelligent design" classes pander to the base in places like Utah.

I agree with your points about making sure the fundamentals are covered. Those are the priority.

But the whole idea of electives, which I am sure this is, is to broaden the education.

What we do NOT need are high schools or colleges that offer no social studies, art, music, etc, courses. That won't create an enlightened citizenry.

And not devoting an entire class to this subject will not create neanderthals either.

Schools have the right to create any electives they want. We need diversity of studies.

And if you diverse your way out of basic literacy? Math?

C'mon. This is San Francisco. This is just PC pandering for that region, just like "intelligent design" is pandering in other regions. Same principle--so the locals can feel good about themselves. It doesn't make the kids smarter and, in both situations, they get plenty of that at home.

Want to challenge the kids and make them better "critical thinkers?" Have electives that are not just echo chambers for their local environment. Put the GLBT studies in Utah and the intelligent design class in San Francisco. Do AA studies in Utah and Mahan's "Influence of Seapower on History" in San Francisco.

ETA: besides, the school is "for the Arts" type of school. They have plenty of diverse humanities and probably need more math.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

A highschool in San Francisco? Where almost 1/3 self identify? They probably are already hip to what GLBTQ means. The time would be better served with a pre-calculus class.

So you are saying that it is wrong for them to have a social studies course that actually let's them study these issues, and also allow for the non-LGBT people to increase their own awareness. People have only just begun to accept such people. Taking a single class, probably for elective, is a great idea probably for anyone.

It's just like, in undergrad I took two electives focused on ethnic issues, race, culture, etc. I took an African-American Studies course about real slave narrative literature. Then I took an American Indian studies course, which covered that history. Both were very eye opening.

A lot of people show a lot of ignorance regarding all kinds of topics like these, proving that we AREN'T at a point yet where people "don't need to learn about these issues."

Where did I use the term "wrong?"


What I have pointed out is that the US spends the most per student of any country in the world with some of the worse results in the sciences and math. What we don't need is more feel-good PC classes, we need more math and science and chemistry.

As others have said, discussing it as part of a wider health class? Sure, have at it. Devote an entire class to this one subject when so many real subjects are suffering? Please. It's pandering to the base of the area just like "intelligent design" classes pander to the base in places like Utah.

I agree with your points about making sure the fundamentals are covered. Those are the priority.

But the whole idea of electives, which I am sure this is, is to broaden the education.

What we do NOT need are high schools or colleges that offer no social studies, art, music, etc, courses. That won't create an enlightened citizenry.

And not devoting an entire class to this subject will not create neanderthals either.

Schools have the right to create any electives they want. We need diversity of studies.

And if you diverse your way out of basic literacy? Math?

C'mon. This is San Francisco. This is just PC pandering for that region, just like "intelligent design" is pandering in other regions. Same principle--so the locals can feel good about themselves. It doesn't make the kids smarter and, in both situations, they get plenty of that at home.

Want to challenge the kids and make them better "critical thinkers?" Have electives that are not just echo chambers for their local environment. Put the GLBT studies in Utah and the intelligent design class in San Francisco. Do AA studies in Utah and Mahan's "Influence of Seapower on History" in San Francisco.

ETA: besides, the school is "for the Arts" type of school. They have plenty of diverse humanities and probably need more math.

First, I'm from SF originally. Contrary to your point, people when I was in school were still calling people "fags" and "that is gay," etc.

This school sounds like a more high-achieving school anyways. Are you sure that they are lacking in math, science, or literacy? As a former middle school and high school teacher, I can say that when it comes to low-income schools that ARE under-achieving, those schools and teachers most definitely prioritize math, science, and literacy, often too much. They begin cutting everything but those.

So I don't think that in this day and age it's a real worry, as the schools that need to prioritize are trying to, often to the detriment to even basic social studies or "specials" such as music and art. There still is a HUGE gap in these schools, but it's not because they aren't focusing on those three subjects.

I'm not sure so much that it is "pandering." Again, diversity of thought is good. The earlier we teach diversity of thought, including everything from ATS subjects to LGBT, the less utterly brainwashed people will be as adults.

One of the biggest problems we have is that most people aren't taught any non-conventional stuff until often after high school or even later. And by that time, many people have already settled into a kind of conventional "head in the sand" mindset.

I don't understand why people assume that they or their kids will be tainted forever if they know the position of someone/something they don't agree with? Aren't these people's convictions, beliefs and morals strong enough? I don't get it.

If someone really wants to reinforce their beliefs, understanding the position of your enemy is the best way. Is there some kind of fear that once they understand that which they disagree with they'll somehow magically convert?

a reply to: queenofswords

28% ?

no way

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: NavyDoc

A highschool in San Francisco? Where almost 1/3 self identify? They probably are already hip to what GLBTQ means. The time would be better served with a pre-calculus class.

So you are saying that it is wrong for them to have a social studies course that actually let's them study these issues, and also allow for the non-LGBT people to increase their own awareness. People have only just begun to accept such people. Taking a single class, probably for elective, is a great idea probably for anyone.

It's just like, in undergrad I took two electives focused on ethnic issues, race, culture, etc. I took an African-American Studies course about real slave narrative literature. Then I took an American Indian studies course, which covered that history. Both were very eye opening.

A lot of people show a lot of ignorance regarding all kinds of topics like these, proving that we AREN'T at a point yet where people "don't need to learn about these issues."

Where did I use the term "wrong?"


What I have pointed out is that the US spends the most per student of any country in the world with some of the worse results in the sciences and math. What we don't need is more feel-good PC classes, we need more math and science and chemistry.

As others have said, discussing it as part of a wider health class? Sure, have at it. Devote an entire class to this one subject when so many real subjects are suffering? Please. It's pandering to the base of the area just like "intelligent design" classes pander to the base in places like Utah.

I agree with your points about making sure the fundamentals are covered. Those are the priority.

But the whole idea of electives, which I am sure this is, is to broaden the education.

What we do NOT need are high schools or colleges that offer no social studies, art, music, etc, courses. That won't create an enlightened citizenry.

And not devoting an entire class to this subject will not create neanderthals either.

Schools have the right to create any electives they want. We need diversity of studies.

And if you diverse your way out of basic literacy? Math?

C'mon. This is San Francisco. This is just PC pandering for that region, just like "intelligent design" is pandering in other regions. Same principle--so the locals can feel good about themselves. It doesn't make the kids smarter and, in both situations, they get plenty of that at home.

Want to challenge the kids and make them better "critical thinkers?" Have electives that are not just echo chambers for their local environment. Put the GLBT studies in Utah and the intelligent design class in San Francisco. Do AA studies in Utah and Mahan's "Influence of Seapower on History" in San Francisco.

ETA: besides, the school is "for the Arts" type of school. They have plenty of diverse humanities and probably need more math.

This is a very high powered college prep High School. All students take a full academic class load AND do additional study in performance or the arts.

Approximately 90% of the students go on to college. And more 30% of those complete some form of graduate school.

Most of these kids would smoke you in math.

Do a little research before you make assumptions.