WA Schools to Teach Gender Identity Curriculum to Kindergarteners

a reply to: Gryphon66

maybe I identify as Queer and I don't like the way trans people are trying to force society's will to bend?? Oh you didn't think about that did you. Maybe most queer folk just don't believe all this political bickering and pandering to children for whatever sick reason the trans people do is a worthy cause eh??

Why the # are old men defending the attempts to corrupt the youngest, most impressionable, and most vulnerable age group of children? It is borderline pedo, I don't like it, neither does MOST of the rest of parents of society who do not bend to this narrative. It is reaching for the easiest mind to influence to try and agitate and encourage corruption at the earliest age.

And Queer people don't like it at all!

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Gryphon66

maybe I identify as Queer and I don't like the way trans people are trying to force society's will to bend?? Oh you didn't think about that did you. Maybe most queer folk just don't believe all this political bickering and pandering to children for whatever sick reason the trans people do is a worthy cause eh??

Why the # are old men defending the attempts to corrupt the youngest, most impressionable, and most vulnerable age group of children? It is borderline pedo, I don't like it, neither does MOST of the rest of parents of society who do not bend to this narrative. It is reaching for the easiest mind to influence to try and agitate and encourage corruption at the earliest age.

And Queer people don't like it at all!

Do you identify as Queer? Are you just not out yet?

Trans* folks are not trying to bend society. They're asking for equitable treatment before the laws. You're bringing the political bickering.

Who are the old men you're talking about? Why is teaching kids that humans have gender identities equivalent to corruption?

It's not, of course, is the straightforward easy answer.

Can you quote a Queer person who has taken this position (except for you, of course.)

Oh, and welcome to the community! Coming out can be difficult!

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: everyone
Kids target each other for , having glasses, braces, the way they walk , the way they talk , . . .

And all that has been changing with new "no bully" school policies. Policies that expect kids to be nice to each other. Policies that expect kids to watch out for each other.

But, you probably want the bullying back.

I was bullied pretty badly in school, I was adhd got perfect grades but couldn't socialize worth a damn.

I didn't go home crying to my parents everyday because my parents would get drunk and beat the # out of me so you know what I did

Grew a set of balls and learned how to fight back

Man I hate to say it but we're raising a mentally and physically weak generation of children who won't and already aren't capable of competing with the kids of the rest of the world and confusing them about what sex they are isn't going to help

I'm sorry your feelings got hurt but so did everyone else's

We're probably not going to agree then.

I support kids being taught, even forced, to be nice to each other and to accept differences in each other.

What a horrible world that would be if people were nice, respectful, and accepting of others and their differences. Sarc/

Yeah, I come from that era of "boys will be boys" - - let them beat the crap outta each other, it'll toughen them up. Generational bullying is not a healthy concept.

I am not weak minded and I've never been in a fight. I have come close. They backed down because I stood my ground, just like I do on a keyboard. I have no qualms about what I'd need to do if I ever had to fight. Not being in fights does not make me weak.

Most kids today are in some form of Martial Arts, UFC, Boxing, or just physical sports. If anything, I'd say kids today are far more mentally and physically healthy then in the past.

Do I believe in coddling kids? NO. I'm not raising a kid, I am raising an intelligent, successful future adult that I want to contribute to society. He doesn't need "street fighting" to do that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

More rape logic from your direction..

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: kaylaluv

We learn about HUMAN history. Excluding someone's race history would be racist. We learn about history of all the races. So it's not exclusionary.

It's not exclusionary to talk about genders either. We all have 'em.

And we talk about women in history as well...what's your point?

a reply to: Gryphon66
# your community. I dont participate in it or agree with it. Especially those vocal about manipulating the most easily impressed age group with confusion and corruption. Noone should be proud about that at all.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist

originally posted by: kaylaluv
The LGBT community is part of our history too. Why exclude them?

Just a question, what ever happened to the Q in LGBT huh? It was there for awhile, and then the movement just suddenly dropped it like a bad habit??

It could not possibly be because those who identified as Queer no longer agreed with the rest of the LGBT on how far to politicize these issues?

The "Q" means Questioning. Can also represent Queer.

Its still there, even if not printed.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: kaylaluv

We learn about HUMAN history. Excluding someone's race history would be racist. We learn about history of all the races. So it's not exclusionary.

It's not exclusionary to talk about genders either. We all have 'em.

And we talk about women in history as well...what's your point?

And we can talk about gays in history and we can talk about transgender people in history... what's your point?

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: kaylaluv

We learn about HUMAN history. Excluding someone's race history would be racist. We learn about history of all the races. So it's not exclusionary.

It's not exclusionary to talk about genders either. We all have 'em.

And we talk about women in history as well...what's your point?

And we can talk about gays in history and we can talk about transgender people in history... what's your point?

No one said we couldn't talk about history.... Lol that's my point.

Driving a socialistic narrative into the minds of the youth vs General discussions about history.

I think I'm going to take Amy Pohler's words of wisdom and say "Good for you. Not for me." in this scenario.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: kaylaluv

We learn about HUMAN history. Excluding someone's race history would be racist. We learn about history of all the races. So it's not exclusionary.

It's not exclusionary to talk about genders either. We all have 'em.

And we talk about women in history as well...what's your point?

And we can talk about gays in history and we can talk about transgender people in history... what's your point?

My history books were all white men.

All white washed to be heroic straight white men.

Gender diversity is real and needs to be openly acknowledged and accepted. The earlier the better.

a reply to: Annee

My history books were a mixture of men and women of all colors and religions. This was in 2002

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Gryphon66
# your community. I dont participate in it or agree with it. Especially those vocal about manipulating the most easily impressed age group with confusion and corruption. Noone should be proud about that at all.

Finally a little bit of honesty.

Thank you.

What kind of person would misrepresent themselves for a bit of argumentative advantage?

No one is manipulating children by talking about gender and gender identities. That's simply absurd. And what a garden variety argument!

Double post on phone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: kaylaluv

We learn about HUMAN history. Excluding someone's race history would be racist. We learn about history of all the races. So it's not exclusionary.

It's not exclusionary to talk about genders either. We all have 'em.

And we talk about women in history as well...what's your point?

And we can talk about gays in history and we can talk about transgender people in history... what's your point?

My history books were all white men.

All white washed to be heroic straight white men.

Gender diversity is real and needs to be openly acknowledged and accepted. The earlier the better.

Yeah, but aren't you like 70 or something? I mean.. that was a long time ago, isn't it time you let go of that perspective. Is this what's behind your hectic progressivism, some delusion of yours that we're still living in the 50's?

It's 2016 and being gay is cool, police can't use violence against blacks without outrage, women are raped by glances and the white man is the personification of the devil.. You know, things change. This is called the principle of rhythm.

You guys went pretty far but the pendulum is starting to swing back again, people are getting tired of your hollow arguments.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: kaylaluv

We learn about HUMAN history. Excluding someone's race history would be racist. We learn about history of all the races. So it's not exclusionary.

It's not exclusionary to talk about genders either. We all have 'em.

And we talk about women in history as well...what's your point?

And we can talk about gays in history and we can talk about transgender people in history... what's your point?

My history books were all white men.

All white washed to be heroic straight white men.

Gender diversity is real and needs to be openly acknowledged and accepted. The earlier the better.

Yeah, but aren't you like 70 or something? I mean.. that was a long time ago, isn't it time you let go of that perspective. Is this what's behind your hectic progressivism, some delusion of yours that we're still living in the 50's?

It's 2016 and being gay is cool, police can't use violence against blacks without outrage, women are raped by glances and the white man is the personification of the devil.. You know, things change. This is called the principle of rhythm.

You guys went pretty far but the pendulum is starting to swing back again, people are getting tired of your hollow arguments.

Some people want us to still live in the 50s. I sure don't.

I've watched the progression of opening up reality over many years. I prefer the openness.

"Principle of Rhythm" - - I like that.

As far as men whining about Feminism - - I am so over that. Deal with it.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
a reply to: Annee

My history books were a mixture of men and women of all colors and religions. This was in 2002

Yes, I've watched the evolution.

Mine was in the 50s.

a reply to: Annee

I don't want the 50's ma'am, I want the medieval or ancient World.. I want to swing swords in ancient China, be an adventurer around the Mediterranean 3000 years ago.

You people want a completely safe World, I think you're unbelievably boring. What a sterile vision of the future, no sharp edges, and forget about ice cream, it's way too unhealthy. Speaking of ice cream, I'm gonna have some ice cream.

I'll be sure to incarnate as a reptilian in my next life, I'll be coming with a space armada for you liberals to show you the true meaning of law and order. Fascism on a scale never before seen, you want to be safe little robots.. I'll make you into half living golem!

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

You don't know much about historians, do you? Every historian puts in his/her own spin. You can read two different historian's view of an event in time and get two different spins on it. It's more subjective than you think. Most history textbooks drive some kind of social narrative, depending on the historian/publisher who produced it.

Example: one could focus on gays' negative affect on society (helping to spread STDs/AIDS, lack of stable relationships), or one could focus on the society's negative affect on the gay population (forcing them in the closet, not allowing them some of their civil rights, etc.). See how that works? Social narrative. From history.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I know plenty about History as I regularly look things up on it on my own time. I also look at evidence and fact. In a time where women were not afforded as many opportunities as men, can we really expect there to be a diverse background? There were women through history who have done amazing things but the fact is that women did not make as many artistic or scientific advances as men. The fact now is that more women are accepted into college than men. More businesses hire women simply because they are women so they can show diversity in the workplace. Why are we trying to change history? Why is it important to rewrite anything instead of making sure the youth push forward and make their own diversified history?