Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Wahoo Redux]

STUDENTS ARE NOT PLACED IN SCHOOLS SO THAT TEACHERS CAN MAKE THEM INTO THEIR IDEOLOGICAL ACOLYTES.

This is a common conservative melodrama.  I love the ALL CAPS for emphasis.  Very EMOTIONAL.

I've asked before and will ask again, who does this? 

[marshwiggle]

Emphasis in school should be on giving students the skills and knowledge they need to function in society, and where they are going to address issues of ethics and morality they should fundamentally be introduced to the complexity of moral decisions to develop their ability to think carefully (which is a sign of maturity) rather than jump to a simple conclusion (which is a sign of immaturity).

The real world is a place with queer people in it. Learning about them isn't any different from learning about the cis or hetero world.

There is no "cis or hetero world"; there is only the world. In the world, for a baby to be produced it requires an ovum and a sperm. The biological female who produces the ovum is referred to as the baby's "mother" and the biological male who provides the sperm is referred to as the baby's "father". The legal system provides for someone who did not provide the ovum to be designated the baby's "mother", and for someone who did not provide the sperm to be designated the baby's "father".

Which you do every time you use pronouns, read about mommies and daddies, etc. Pretending queer people don't exist doesn't equip children for success.

I haven't the slightest idea how many of the people I encounter on a daily basis are queer. I can no more pretend they don't exist than I can pretend I can fly by jumping out of a plane. Similarly, I don't know which of the people I encounter on a daily basis who

• have eczema (about 10% of the population)
• have O-negative blood (about 7% of the population)
• are tone deaf (about 4% of the population)

I don't pretend any of those people don't exist; but in daily interactions it is absolutely irrelevant. I have no idea of the sexual orientation of 99% of my students, and it makes absolutely no difference. I don't even know that about my TAs that I've had for several courses except in rare circumstances (like boyfriend/girlfriend coming to meet them at the end of a lab).

What topics get introduced in school, and when, should be determined on the basis of what is pedagogically relevant. Topics around human reproduction are relevant in biology and health classes. Topics around legal definitions of parenthood are relevant in a civics class. In the proper context, discussions can get the appropriate framing for a meaningful investigation. Out of context, there's no guarantee of any sort of appropriate framework.

[ciao_yall]

• have eczema (about 10% of the population)
• have O-negative blood (about 7% of the population)
• are tone deaf (about 4% of the population)

====

What topics get introduced in school, and when, should be determined on the basis of what is pedagogically relevant. Topics around human reproduction are relevant in biology and health classes. Topics around legal definitions of parenthood are relevant in a civics class. In the proper context, discussions can get the appropriate framing for a meaningful investigation. Out of context, there's no guarantee of any sort of appropriate framework.

The context is the world, so when they see people, or wonder about themselves, they are prepared to handle those situations.

Otherwise you might have assumed

• someone with eczema was possessed by the devil and needed to be burned at the stake.
• Or that someone injected with the blood of a random priest and died was also actually a witch.
• Or you would have been depressed that you didn't "get it" in choir and wondered what was wrong with you instead of realizing that hey, you are just different in an okay way.

[marshwiggle]

• have eczema (about 10% of the population)
• have O-negative blood (about 7% of the population)
• are tone deaf (about 4% of the population)

====

What topics get introduced in school, and when, should be determined on the basis of what is pedagogically relevant. Topics around human reproduction are relevant in biology and health classes. Topics around legal definitions of parenthood are relevant in a civics class. In the proper context, discussions can get the appropriate framing for a meaningful investigation. Out of context, there's no guarantee of any sort of appropriate framework.

The context is the world, so when they see people, or wonder about themselves, they are prepared to handle those situations.

Otherwise you might have assumed

• someone with eczema was possessed by the devil and needed to be burned at the stake.
• Or that someone injected with the blood of a random priest and died was also actually a witch.
• Or you would have been depressed that you didn't "get it" in choir and wondered what was wrong with you instead of realizing that hey, you are just different in an okay way.

The point is that those are similarly uncommon, but no-one is lobbying to make sure school children are taught about them. They only need to be discussed in the context where they will have material consequences. So, for instance, until students are becoming sexually active, sexual *orientation isn't something which has any particular relevance and doesn't need to be discussed.


*including heterosexual

[Parasaurolophus]

There is no "cis or hetero world"; there is only the world. In the world, for a baby to be produced it requires an ovum and a sperm.

I'm (obviously?) talking about the social world, which is characterized by different sets of norms and conventions depending on which tranche you look at, and which takes certain things for granted as a kind of default setting. Including things such as that every girl will grow up to fall in love with a boy, that families are composed of either one mother or one mother and one father, that makeup and long hair are only for girls, that blue and pants and ties are for boys, etc. And, unfortunately, the reality is that people who don't conform to these defaults are typically punished for it. As this divergence from the norm is normalized, however, the social sanctions for divergence are likewise reduced.

The biological female who produces the ovum is referred to as the baby's "mother" and the biological male who provides the sperm is referred to as the baby's "father". The legal system provides for someone who did not provide the ovum to be designated the baby's "mother", and for someone who did not provide the sperm to be designated the baby's "father".

The social world likewise provides for people whose genetic material is not involved to be designated 'mothers', 'fathers', etc. The legal system codifies certain relationships in order to confer certain rights, but it's hardly necessary for the concept's application-conditions. Indeed, in many cultures--including some quite nearby--terms such as 'aunt' or 'uncle' are honorifics which typically don't track biological descent.

Nor, crucially, are concepts such as those of men, women, males, and females necessarily tied to reproductive capacity.

I don't pretend any of those people don't exist; but in daily interactions it is absolutely irrelevant. I have no idea of the sexual orientation of 99% of my students, and it makes absolutely no difference. I don't even know that about my TAs that I've had for several courses except in rare circumstances (like boyfriend/girlfriend coming to meet them at the end of a lab).

Sure, you don't know about most strangers or even acquaintances. But you do know about the people close to you, because you're a significant part of their lives--so you meet their partners, go to their weddings and funerals, etc. That's not irrelevant. It's important to your social life that you be able to properly class the people in it, so as to make yourself understood, avoid causing offence, etc. It's also important that you know something about them when, say, their rights are under public discussion. It would also be pretty relevant if you were dating.

I don't think it would be a good thing for a child's first exposure to the existence of queer people to come as an adult, or when they first look at porn, or whatever. Luckily, that's not the case; children meet queer people in the course of their daily lives, including their peers at school. Speaking of which, homophobia has been a significant component of bullying at school for quite some time. Again, that's an encounter children are having at school. Staying mum about it isn't going to make it go away, regardless of whether you think it's appropriate. If a ten year-old calls another 'gay' or 'faggot', or attacks them in addition to calling them such names... well, that's a clear instance where a conversation about sexual orientation is important, even though the kids are pre-pubescent. Scrubbing the homophobia away doesn't get at what's problematic about the behaviour, and why. Similarly, you can't have an adequate conversation about the harms of sextortion and revenge porn if you abstract away from the sexual content that one kid has made available concerning another.

Just talking about "bullying" in the abstract doesn't cut it. You have to address what's actually being said and done--and that includes a whole lot of gendered and sexual content.

The point is that those are similarly uncommon, but no-one is lobbying to make sure school children are taught about them. They only need to be discussed in the context where they will have material consequences. So, for instance, until students are becoming sexually active, sexual *orientation isn't something which has any particular relevance and doesn't need to be discussed.


*including heterosexual

Yes, but children start to become sexually active in high school, and the ban is for all grades.

[little bongo]

I learned some trigonometry before it had material consequences.

[marshwiggle]

Just talking about "bullying" in the abstract doesn't cut it. You have to address what's actually being said and done--and that includes a whole lot of gendered and sexual content.

But seriously, what motivations for bullying are somehow acceptable? Why is being bullied for being gay worse than being bullied for being a ginger? (Or disabled, or whatever)?
This is the insidious problem of jumping on the "hate crime" bandwagon; it implies that certain kinds of behaviour aren't so egregious as long as they're motivated by some "acceptable" class of ill-will. Presumably by that logic, someone who flipped a coin to decide whether to attack the next person who walks by isn't as bad as someone who attacks the next person because of some specific characteristic.

[Wahoo Redux]

• have eczema (about 10% of the population)
• have O-negative blood (about 7% of the population)
• are tone deaf (about 4% of the population)

====

What topics get introduced in school, and when, should be determined on the basis of what is pedagogically relevant. Topics around human reproduction are relevant in biology and health classes. Topics around legal definitions of parenthood are relevant in a civics class. In the proper context, discussions can get the appropriate framing for a meaningful investigation. Out of context, there's no guarantee of any sort of appropriate framework.

The context is the world, so when they see people, or wonder about themselves, they are prepared to handle those situations.

Otherwise you might have assumed

• someone with eczema was possessed by the devil and needed to be burned at the stake.
• Or that someone injected with the blood of a random priest and died was also actually a witch.
• Or you would have been depressed that you didn't "get it" in choir and wondered what was wrong with you instead of realizing that hey, you are just different in an okay way.

The point is that those are similarly uncommon, but no-one is lobbying to make sure school children are taught about them. They only need to be discussed in the context where they will have material consequences. So, for instance, until students are becoming sexually active, sexual *orientation isn't something which has any particular relevance and doesn't need to be discussed.


*including heterosexual

People with eczema are never challenged when they want to get married, for instance, or if they can get a wedding cake made.  Eczema suffers are rarely assaulted because someone is offended by their skin.  People with eczema do not have a history of having to go underground to express who they really are or banned by GOP bigots from holding a story book hour at the local public library.

You are a master of apples and oranges, Marshmellow. 

[marshwiggle]

People with eczema are never challenged when they want to get married, for instance, or if they can get a wedding cake made.  Eczema suffers are rarely assaulted because someone is offended by their skin.  People with eczema do not have a history of having to go underground to express who they really are or banned by GOP bigots from holding a story book hour at the local public library.

You are a master of apples and oranges, Marshmellow.

None of those things are likely to be in the experience of an elementary school student. Some of those things would be completely reasonable to discuss in a high school civics class.

"Because ... reasons" shouldn't be the basis for introducing all kinds of messaging that isn't germane to the curriculum. (Or, as Dismalist might point out, it won't be a surprise if parents who have the resources decide to look for a school that focuses on the curriculum and minimizes the moralizing. Pretty much like why many people would avoid religious schools.)

[ciao_yall]

• have eczema (about 10% of the population)
• have O-negative blood (about 7% of the population)
• are tone deaf (about 4% of the population)

====

What topics get introduced in school, and when, should be determined on the basis of what is pedagogically relevant. Topics around human reproduction are relevant in biology and health classes. Topics around legal definitions of parenthood are relevant in a civics class. In the proper context, discussions can get the appropriate framing for a meaningful investigation. Out of context, there's no guarantee of any sort of appropriate framework.

The context is the world, so when they see people, or wonder about themselves, they are prepared to handle those situations.

Otherwise you might have assumed

• someone with eczema was possessed by the devil and needed to be burned at the stake.
• Or that someone injected with the blood of a random priest and died was also actually a witch.
• Or you would have been depressed that you didn't "get it" in choir and wondered what was wrong with you instead of realizing that hey, you are just different in an okay way.

The point is that those are similarly uncommon, but no-one is lobbying to make sure school children are taught about them. They only need to be discussed in the context where they will have material consequences. So, for instance, until students are becoming sexually active, sexual *orientation isn't something which has any particular relevance and doesn't need to be discussed.


*including heterosexual

School kids are learning about them, anyway. Many children go through a phase of pretending to be the opposite sex (as did I) as a part of exploring their identity.

They probably are seeing teens and adults in their lives identifying as LGBTQ+. LGBTQ+ people are all over the media, even if they are not talking about sexuality they are presenting with their own preferred clothing and behavior.

So, yes, we should start talking to kids about the fact that there are different ways to be, whether it is having a skin condition or their religion, gender expression, ethnicity, and it's nothing to be afraid of. And being "different" is no reason to bully, call names, harass, whatever.

I'm at the airport and saw a Muslim man create a space for himself for his prayers. There is a man in a hot pink and black suit. There is a man with an eye patch. A woman in a wheelchair. A woman with purple hair. Nobody in my line of sight is obviously LGBTQ+ but it wouldn't surprise me to see a same-sex couple holding hands or someone whose gender appears unclear.

I don't have a kid with me but I'm sure if I did I'd like to think I can answer their questions thoughtfully and have those answers mirrored by the other adults in their lives such as teachers, other parents, and so forth.

[Parasaurolophus]

But seriously, what motivations for bullying are somehow acceptable? Why is being bullied for being gay worse than being bullied for being a ginger? (Or disabled, or whatever)?
This is the insidious problem of jumping on the "hate crime" bandwagon; it implies that certain kinds of behaviour aren't so egregious as long as they're motivated by some "acceptable" class of ill-will. Presumably by that logic, someone who flipped a coin to decide whether to attack the next person who walks by isn't as bad as someone who attacks the next person because of some specific characteristic.

Although I disagree, that's beside the point. If you're talking to the child being bullied, you need to be able to explain what was wrong about the other person's behaviour and reassure the bullied child that there's nothing wrong with them. Since so much bullying is about non-conformity, you need to be able to address that. If you simply say "Stevie shouldn't have called you names", you're just saying that Stevie's words are bad; it should be obvious that saying "Not only shouldn't Stevie have called you names, but there's nothing wrong with liking boys in the first place" is far more effective, because it directly addresses what Stevie was saying, and what he was trying to do to the kid. One of those strategies is going to be a lot more comforting than the other.

If you're talking to the bully, you need to be able to show them why what they did was wrong. And you can't do that without addressing the content of their actions, and why it is that they think the names they called the other child are bad, etc. You want to address the roots of the bully's behaviour, not just the way it manifests itself.

None of those things are likely to be in the experience of an elementary school student. Some of those things would be completely reasonable to discuss in a high school civics class.

Except that after the passage of this legislation you can't discuss that in a high school civics class in Florida.


Meanwhile, they're busy banning perfectly age-appropriate books like Tango Makes Three or Perfectly Norman from classrooms and library shelves because they have the temerity to introduce queerness as perfectly okay. Note, however, that they aren't considering banning Romeo and Juliet, despite all of its sexual content. I read it in grade eight; following the letter of the proposed legislation, nobody should read it in school, ever.

[dismalist]

None of those things are likely to be in the experience of an elementary school student. Some of those things would be completely reasonable to discuss in a high school civics class.

"Because ... reasons" shouldn't be the basis for introducing all kinds of messaging that isn't germane to the curriculum. (Or, as Dismalist might point out, it won't be a surprise if parents who have the resources decide to look for a school that focuses on the curriculum and minimizes the moralizing. Pretty much like why many people would avoid religious schools.)

As I said, the teaching of the stuff talked about is a political question, not a biological or scientific question, nor even a question of rights. It's active ethnogenesis, propagated by a small minority in this identitarian democracy.

Of course people with the resources will put their kids into schools they like. They always have. But the recognition that this is politics helps us understand that the Rubicon has been crossed. Forcing kids to learn what parents don't want is igniting a political response to increase school choice, and for everybody, not just the ricci. I live in Virginia and I happened to hear Terry McAuliffe, running as the Democratic candidate for governor say "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach." I saw that on TV and knew right away that he had just tossed out his own election, though he was leading in the polls.

More school choice is being implemented in many states, and the beat goes on. Understand that this is a solution to disagreements: Everybody can determine what their own kids will learn, but not what others' kids will learn. Problems arise when some tell others what to believe, for whatever reason.

[Wahoo Redux]

"Because ... reasons" shouldn't be the basis for introducing all kinds of messaging that isn't germane to the curriculum.

What are you talking about?

We do all sorts of things because of "because."

[jimbogumbo]

Branches of government are major topics in US History and Government courses, especially AP. Two cases that would not be allowed to be discussed that are topical involve same sex marriage and abortion access. The current case under consideration involving the abortion drug access will be a discussion point in high school upper level classes throughout the US.

That's off the top of my head. It is also unclear whether or not Florida students will be able to discuss Loving v Virginia next year due to other new legislation (which appears to be in conflict with existing Florida law.

I'll ask. dismalist, what are your thoughts on this post? I already know marshwiggle won't respond, but do you have any concerns about high school government classes being barred from discussing the court cases? I don't mean from  right or wrong perspective, rather from a perspective of the opinions reasoning of the court and the basis for the suit in the first place.

[dismalist]

Branches of government are major topics in US History and Government courses, especially AP. Two cases that would not be allowed to be discussed that are topical involve same sex marriage and abortion access. The current case under consideration involving the abortion drug access will be a discussion point in high school upper level classes throughout the US.

That's off the top of my head. It is also unclear whether or not Florida students will be able to discuss Loving v Virginia next year due to other new legislation (which appears to be in conflict with existing Florida law.

I'll ask. dismalist, what are your thoughts on this post? I already know marshwiggle won't respond, but do you have any concerns about high school government classes being barred from discussing the court cases? I don't mean from  right or wrong perspective, rather from a perspective of the opinions reasoning of the court and the basis for the suit in the first place.

I'd love them to be discussed! I would have sent my daughter to a school in which such is discussed.

But I don't care to impose my views on other parents. If they don't want something discussed, hell, if they want creationism taught and evolution not taught, let them have their way!

As I said, this is a political question, it's about interests, not about truth or falsehood, science or anything else, nothing more. Thus, a political solution is called for, namely school choice.