NOM BLOG

School Teaching Kindergartners That There Are More Than Two Genders

 

From an alert from the Pacific Justice Institute:

Redwood Heights Elementary School will be teaching children in grades kindergarten through fifth that there are more than two genders. The two days calendared for this are entitled "Gender Spectrum Diversity Training."

... Another document from the school advises parents: "When you discuss gender with your child, you may hear them (sic) exploring where they (sic) fit on the gender spectrum and why."

... The activities and reading list include: Grades K-1: "Boy, girl or both? Which Outfit, Which Hairdo? (Reading) My Princess Boy."Grades 2-3 "What is gender? (Reading)10,000 Dresses." Grades 4-5: "Three dimensions of gender. (Reading/Song) All I Want to be is Me."

... "Though to many this may seem extreme, based upon some of the bills now pending in the Capitol such as SB 48, this will be the new normal in California's K-12 public schools," [attorney Kevin] Snider continued.

37 Comments

  1. Carlos
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Teachings in school should reflect the reality of life. Like it or not, gender identitiy is not male or female and variations exist. Nothing wrong with that.

  2. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    I'd be ok for schools teaching this in a class on mental illnesses and instances of anti-evolutionary phenomena..

  3. Marty
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Variations do exist Carlos... at the rate of less than 1%. Aberrations is a better term.

  4. Carlos
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Marty - The number is irrelevant. Knowing the excpetions to the rule is part of knowing the rule itself.

    All this is doing is educating children that not everyone fits into a mold and that is OK. I fail to see the problem with this.

  5. Richard
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Variations/aberrations--does it matter what you call it? Reading the release from PJI, this was a one-off, mini lesson, teaching compassion and understanding for people that may not be like everyone else. Is that so bad? Sounds like a very christian thing to me.

  6. Renee Aste
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    I can see if a school wants to combat the toy commercialization that separates the genders, I think schools can do that without going out of its way in regards to diversity. For example, if a boy colors with a pink crayon and a girl says boys don't use pink, a teacher should be able to remind the students that all the colors are to be shared. Or if a boy refuses to take turns with a toy crane with a girl, again the teacher should be able to step in and remind the students that all students can use all of the toys. It's that simple, children shouldn't have to go through any sort of 'training' simply if there is a opportunity to learn, the teacher should use it.

  7. Gothelittle
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Carlos, once teachers are done making sure that kids know of every single variation of every single part of every single human being, who's going to have time for reading or math?

  8. Therese Z
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Whether "gender diversity" exists or not (and a miniscule group of genetic aberrations do not change the fact of X and Y), it's not up to the schools to teach it, it's up to the parents, who can introduce it to their children when they are ready.

  9. Mark in Seattle
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    This is a major reason why parents choose to home school. You can spend state money teaching falsehoods that benefit no one, and we'll spend our money at home, and we'll see who comes out on top academically.

  10. Pete
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Not all people are male or female. I support this school teaching truth.

  11. RomanHans
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    You understand that "gender discussions" covers stuff like girls wondering if it's okay that they play sports, right? Nobody's discussing gender reassignment surgery quite yet.

  12. SC Guy
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Disgusting how they try to pollute the minds of the young and innocent.

  13. TC Matthews
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Whatever is or isn't included in "gender discussions" I question all of it, especially the use of these books. Is this really "literature"? Math? Science?

  14. Lisa
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    That's why we can't cede our public institutions to those with an agenda centered on redefinition. Even if you're homeschooling your kids, or you have them in a private institution. Don't think for a minute that they wont come after you after they're done recreating what's being taught to kids in the public system.

  15. Gothelittle
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    An article addressing something similar on another website got me thinking.

    The picture chosen to accompany this blog post is of the cover of a book called "10,000 Dresses", about a boy who likes to design dresses in a society where nobody wants boys to do such things. The truth is, perfectly masculine men in the 1700's and 1800's dressed much differently than they do now. They wore wigs, ruffles, and embroidery on their clothing.

    In this feminist society, we are so stuck on defining what is proper for a girl or a boy for the express purpose of defying it openly and angrily. We claim that only girls play with dolls, so that we can give dolls to our boys and tell them that it's important to not be masculine.

    However, it is not unmasculine for young boys to play with dolls, or to enjoy attractive clothing! Wanting to play wooden swordfights does not make a girl unfeminine. We are so much more than they are trying to make us. Masculine or Feminine is so much more than your favorite color or your chosen hobby.

    The sad thing here is that society, having decided that boys cannot like attractive clothing without rejecting their masculinity, are now pushing boys who like attractive clothing to reject their masculinity. This hurts boys.

    We should stop erecting glass ceilings and gender-behavior barriers in front of our children merely to order them to break through. No wonder they're confused. Instead, my son has dinosaurs, pirates, superheros... and one doll... and my daughter has dresses, dolls, a tea set... and a superhero cape... and I affirm my children's masculinity and femininity while allowing them to be themselves.

  16. Little man
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    The problem is that the science allegedly supporting homosexual behavior (more dangerous between "male" couples) is, by necessity, inexact science (such as psychology, psychiatry, sociology) and the danger doesn't stop there. Inexact sciences deal with very highly varying, and complex phenomena (such as mental states) on which experiments often fail to be reproducible.

    But science is a business, and a greater danger is that inexact sciences form monopolies to secure Federal grants, or career jobs, and in the process politically correct(ed) conclusions will be be paraded as the results of "science". This is the greatest danger - politically correct(ed) science.

    In the exact sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry) the reproducibility of experiments is rigorous, but even in those fields of science, paradigms still favor certain hypotheses until the weight of contrary evidence shows them to have been politically motivated. Yes, science also has its own politics, and experts selected by Obama will parade the notion that homosexual behavior is immutable (but such a notion is very difficult to prove scientifically - proving the negative - i.e., that it cannot change).

    If homosexual behavior is not genetically preconditioned, how do you think case-study experiments select their study subjects? There's no other way, but with a "show of hands".

    In other words, you ask your subjects: "Who of you is gay (a loaded question)", and some will raise their hand, though their behavior could be a result of trauma, or simply trying to be in vogue. Or most importantly, they cannot develop a sexual relationship with the opposite sex. Is it a repulsion to the opposite sex/gender, or is it (as they say) an attraction to the same sex/gender? It can be viewed either way ("love", or "trauma").

    According to the Greek-English dictionary, there's no escape that Jesus and the Apostle Paul viewed homosexual behavior as mutable. Therefore, people of homosexual behavior were not excluded. In all the nations around Roman dominated Israel, Judea, and Samaria homosexual behavior was seen as immutable - "You were born that way".

    I believe, if homosexual behavior is seen as immutable, today, then people of homosexual behavior will be naturally excluded from certain social circles, and they will lose the respect they have gained as individual persons. They now say they are glad there's no genetic marker associated with homosexual behavior, because that would permit couples to abort babies with that genetic marker - note they still rely on motherhood to exist as a social class.

    Experiments attempting to show homosexual behavior has a genetic basis (exact science) were popular with the news media in the 1990's, but these experiments failed to prove the hypothesis. Nevertheless, mainstream Christian denominations changed their view on homosexual behavior before the results of those experiments were shown to be unreproducible (even by the same researchers). The news media thrives on, well, "news" and so are prone to trigger controversies to produce "news" people pay attention to.

    Who scientifically studies the news media, but the news media itself?

  17. Little man
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Look up the word "gender" in a dictionary, before starting to spread your own confused definition.

  18. Lefty
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Maybe local churches could organize an alternative school day that parents could take their kids to whenever one of these gender-bender lessons is planned. This would especially help families without a stay-at-home parent, who can't just pull their kids out of school and leave them home alone.

    Public schools lose state money on each absent pupil. They don't care about your values, or your rights as parents. But they do care about their funding. Put together an alternative school day, advertise it to all the parents, and the schools will be forced to take notice.

  19. John B.
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Your headline "School Teaching Kindergartners That There Are More Than Two Genders" is simply false. Have you bothered reading any unbiased news reports about this?

  20. John B.
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    The headline "School Teaching Kindergartners That There Are More Than Two Genders" is simply false. Have any of you bothered reading any unbiased news reports about this?

  21. Gothelittle
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    John B., quoted from the article:

    In documents released by the school, students will be taught that "gender is not inherently nor solely connected to one's physical anatomy." Further, gender is a "complex interrelationship between (physical traits) and one's internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither as well as one's outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception."

    I count four genders listed in that description.

  22. Andrew
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    I think this goes back to the queerty article posted a few days ago, "Can we just admit that we DO want to indoctrinate the children?"

  23. Andrew D
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Of those that oppose this, I'd love to know how many believe gender diversity is fiction; how many believe gender diversity is real, but should be kept secret from children; and how many believe gender diversity is real and is in principle good for children to know about, but is so unimportant compared to other subjects that it shouldn't be devoted any time in school.

  24. Andrew
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Does it matter D? It's just a tool to promote the LGBT dogma. Why waste the time? School budgets are being cut, they're talking about having four day school weeks to compensate and some schmoe thinks this junk is worth the space? I disagree. It's only worth the space if you have an agenda to push.

  25. L. Marie
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Do they really think this sort of thing helps their cause?

  26. Andrew D
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    Andrew, are you asking if it matters whether gender diversity is fact or fiction and whether it's good or bad for children to learn about? Yes, I think both of those questions matter.

  27. Andrew
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    It doesn't matter whether it's fact or fiction. There are siamese twins born, people with legs for arms and arms for legs, there are dwarfs and giants, there are all kinds of biological anomalies, why should little kids be taught about it? Is this a high school biology class?

  28. Andrew D
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Andrew, so it doesn't matter to you whether it's fact or fiction. Does it matter to you whether it's good or bad for children to learn about?

  29. Gothelittle
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    "I'd love to know how many believe gender diversity is fiction"

    Not quite, but closest, I suppose.

    For generations, people have divided into cultures and races. They have erected these unnecessary and artificial fences between themselves and others of their own kind. He's a Hatfield and she's a McCoy, therefore they might as well not even be the same species, even though they share significantly more than the 80% of their human-specific DNA.

    He has dark skin and she has light skin, therefore they are so separate that people are almost surprised when they are capable of marrying and producing children. The artificial barrier claims that they are not the same kind of human, but we know now that the Human Race can contain this diversity.

    Something similar has happened in the world of gender. Before the GLBT crowd started getting vocal and spreading their gospel, if you had male genitalia you were male, and if you had female genitalia you were female. If you were male and liked to paint pictures, that sure didn't make you 'gay' or 'a woman in a man's body'. It made you a man who liked to paint pictures. Masculine and Feminine are more than capable of containing this diversity.

    We used to be able to acknowledge that Femininity could contain toughness and Masculinity could contain tenderness. Nowadays, with the GLBT crowd trying desperately to convince us that "male" and "female" is a social construct and nothing more, "male" and "female" is being defined by people's actions rather than their beings.

    Boys who don't like sports find that their very masculinity is challenged, either by people who want them to be female or people who fear that they may be female.

    This hurts our children and perpetuates the lie that you cannot be male or female unless you fit the cookie-cutter societal mores of one or the other.

    I am a woman, female in body and mind, beautifully feminine, who is good at math and can write computer software with the best of the typically-male programmers. Fortunately, my parents did not teach me to wonder if I was a man trapped in a woman's body, and so I grew up figuring that I had just inherited my math brain from my electrical-degreed mother.

    That picture on this post, the boy who liked to design dresses... The GLBT crowd want to spread the message, "You're actually a woman inside, and that's ok!" I think that's unbelievably sexist, assuming that you can't be a real guy if you don't like 'guy things'. I'd like to point that boy to Audubon, Waterhouse, Da Vinci... and say... "You're a male who loves beauty, and that's ok!"

  30. John
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    I think they shouldn't teach this stuff in schools, it will only backfire because it will make lots of angry kids (when they get older) and parents.

    they tried to indoctrinate me with liberalism when I was in school, but it all backfired

  31. Robert Fisher
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Carlos
    "Teachings in school should reflect the reality of life. Like it or not, gender identitiy is not male or female and variations exist. Nothing wrong with that."

    Teachings in school should reflect the realities of life. Like it or not, not all people agree to currently accepted norms on the subjects of murder, cannibalism and sexual consent, as Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy prove. Therefore we should teach these as alternative moralities fully equivalent to the currently accepted patriarchal imperialist systems of morality.

    I'm sure you'll agree, what with being so enlightened and open minded and tolerant, correct? See how much sense that makes? Thank goodness intelligent, enlightened people like you are empowered to appropriate other people's children and indoctrinate them in our schools, using our tax dollars to do so.

    This gives me great hope for the future.

  32. ED-209
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    There are only TWO genders - male and female. EVERYTHING else is a birth defect...PERIOD.

  33. Robert Fisher
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Andrew D, there are lots of "facts" in the world. Do you think that just because something exists, it ought to be taught to young children, and that the children ought to be indoctrinated into participating and thinking that it's good, by the mere fact of its existence?

    There is something sordid and depressing about the fact that the activists see nothing wrong with following this tactic.

  34. James
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    "Something similar has happened in the world of gender. Before the GLBT crowd started getting vocal and spreading their gospel"

    - There have been people living as the opposite sex for centuries. This isn't a new phenomena. What has changed is medical science (gives people surgical options) and the sucess of the civil rights movement which paved the way for the gay libiration movement to demanded (and rightly so) that people be allow to live in safety and dignity, regardless of how far them may diviate from the norm.

  35. SJSP
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    James,
    "There have been people living as the opposite sex for centuries."

    There have been people living as pedophiles, zoophiles and necrophiles for centuries.

    I guess if certain types of behavior exist, then those behaviors *must* of necessity be moral. What a brilliant argument.

    "sucess of the civil rights movement which paved the way for the gay libiration movement to demanded (and rightly so)"

    The homosexual movement was certainly parasitic upon the civil rights movement, but it is not at all the same thing. It merely conned people into thinking it was by using similar language.

    Behavior is not the same as an immutable physical characteristic, such as skin color. If this were really a civil rights issue, then people with violent tendencies, spoiled children, rapists and alcoholics would have the "civil right" to behave as they wanted, since the mere existence of an urge in your head sanctifies it and obligates you to act on it, conferring upon you the status of "protected class".

    "people be allow to live in safety and dignity"

    What does that have to do with school bureaucrats trying to create gender confusion in children not their own?

    Don't you find that disturbing?

  36. John Noe
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    This unfortunately is going to be a by product of SSM. If SSM wins it will be bad enough that the homosexual agenda will be shoved down our children's throat but the lies that they are not really boys and girls will be shoved down to.

    Again let us get this information out to the publc. If good and decent people see this then we will have more voters on our side.

  37. Jennifer
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Just looked at the new kids books at my public library and it had a "families come in all shapes and sizes" picture book. "Some families have two mommies or two daddies!"
    Actually, nobody has two daddies, ask any kid. They have dad and his partner.

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] out her book titled “My Princess Boy.” Perhaps not surprisingly, reading “My Princess Boy” was on the agenda for kindergarten and first grade students at Redwood Heights this [...]

  2. [...] “My Princess Boy.” Perhaps not surprisingly, reading “My Princess Boy” was on the agenda for kindergarten and first grade students at Redwood Heights this [...]