Okay I'm very LGBTQ friendly and have in the past physically defended those that I knew was gay from narrow minded bigots. But this is going way over the line. Parents, no matter what their religious beliefs unless it endangers the kids, have the right to bring their children up in the way they wish. This new law passed in Illinois is just wrong.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/456988-illinois-pas...
Here is what I can see happening 20 years from now;
“Okay kiddies in our 4th grade class, we all know Napoleon conquered a large part of Europe during his reign, but most importantly you need to remember for the test is that he was bi-sexual!”
One of the inquisitive 8 years olds raises her hand, “Yes Jessica?”
“Mrs. Kline what’s a bi-sexual?”
“Well Jessica that is a man or a woman that likes get naked with and have sex with both men and women.”
“Ewww, Sex!” the whole class erupts.
Another student raises his hand, “Yes tommy?”
“My mommy, daddy and our reverend says that sex is something that should only happen between two married people.”
“Sorry Tommy but your mommy and daddy are wrong. The law states that sex is something that can happen between two or more consenting people of any age or gender.”
Another hand raises, “Yes Cathy?”
“Both my mommies say that two people in a relationship should be faithful to each other and when I’m old enough to have sex I should wait to have sex until I find the one that will be my soul mate.”
“Your mommies are wrong, according to the new laws you should have sex as often and with as many boys and girls, as you an before marriage. Matter of fact with the new laws we should have a demonstration for the whole class, Cathy why don’t you and Tommy come up front and we can demonstrate the proper sexual techniques that you would use between a boy and a girl.”
Comments
This certainly doesn't sound like a very LGBTQ friendly post.
Especially since you seem to imply that every contribution of anyone who is LGBTQ, even when their sexuality is important, innately has something to do with sex or the undermining of traditional relationship values.
I would appreciate it if you would give both the link you provided as well as your own post a second look and consider how much you are reading into things that simply isn't there. I can imagine the same sorts of arguments being levied against textbooks during the mid-20th century civil rights movement as well, given the growing push to have black contributions recognized as such at the time.
Your argument above implies that recognition of LGBTQ people as such in some way also requires the absence or disparagement of individual sexual values regarding one's own partner and relationship preferences, ignoring the fact that partner preference has nothing to do with the type of relationships one pursues (polyamorous, monogamous, or otherwise.) It also, in turn, disparages valid relationship types based on an ethical standard that is distinctly religious in origin, though at the moment that's the least of my concerns with the views expressed. Combine that with your implication that validation of LGBTQ peoples via normalizing their existence in educational systems will also lead to teachers insisting that children have sex with one another in front of them further sensationalizes your invalid points by taking the focus further and further away from the truth and toward a twisted fantasy.
By your argument any teacher who recognizes a historical figure as mormon should then insist that every girl in the class become sister wives for one of the boys: it's a fallacy based on fear and a lack of understanding of the value of the information in interpreting the history in question. The more people understand about other people the better they can, in turn, understand the actions of those people and, furthermore, the impact those actions can and would have on others.
Schools have made it centuries without requiring teachers to have students have sex with one another in class to teach them about straight couples. The very concept that acknowledging the validity of other sexualities would change that is silly.
Melanie E.
Oregon Passed a Similar Law This Summer.
Actually, with the demographics of the state, it is likely that just the West side of the state did. The rest of the place is struggling too hard to survive economically.
I long for the day when none of this will be talked about. It'll just be assumed that people do what they do with no comment needed.
Not quite
It's really not all that different from laws requiring 'Comparative Religion' to be taught.
The specific law to which you refer is more related to the overall topic of sex education. This is also a controversial topic, and one that many bigots have used similar examples to attack.
The problem is that parents and religious leaders not only do not teach the basics of sex, procreation and birth control, but actively lobby for schools to cease and desist all such education. The result of this lack of education is adults who have no idea of how sex works, where babies come from, or the breadth of human and animal sexuality.
There is much to consider when it comes to education. The biggest concern of educational professionals is ensuring that children graduating from schools have a full and complete understanding of the world into which they are about to enter and in which they will live for the rest of their lives.
So, although your concerns may seem legitimate, the educational context is not that which you fear, but one that will lead to greater understanding of people whose sexuality is considered to be evil, aberrant or immoral.
Red MacDonald
Ok, here goes:
"The biggest concern of educational professionals is ensuring that children graduating from schools have a full and complete understanding of the world into which they are about to enter and in which they will live for the rest of their lives."
Was there ever a time that actually happened?
What happens today is that generations corrupted by human hybris, in the actual belief they can make an economy grow forever, have created an educational system, that deforms the children into mindless consumers so that they can feed the economy with their lives. Who'd be willing to tell that? Well, I do. It is happenig all around us, and now the first scientists actually confim,( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOwIRv0Fs0 ) that schools around the world do the exact opposite of what is needed.
Not that I actually think Nuuan's fears are founded, as going on like today humanity won't survive long enough for that to happen.
Monique S
hummm what I think Nuuan is
hummm what I think Nuuan is pointing out in part is this
lets take General Patton of WW2 fame
historically he fought the Germans as an American
not the new age label list
American
White
male
age 50 to 75
raised in California
city Serria Madre
education college lvl
Military branch army
family RICH
Catholic
sex in bed straight
or just he was an American general and who cares what he did in bed!
enough of the 'extra' labels used to separate us all
Proud member of the Whateley Academy Drow clan/collective
My mistake
I guess it's my mistake: I had conflated being "LGBTQ friendly" with "understanding LGBTQ people." I apologize. Clearly, neither follows the other. Perhaps being "LGBTQ tolerant" is the more appropriate phrase.
Because, in this context, being "LGBTQ friendly" is sort of like saying, "I am LGBTQ friendly and will physically defend those that I know to be gay from narrow minded bigots, because I do not care that gays are sexually deviant."
(I am being sarcastic, by the way.)
As far as I know, the new law being referred to does not require existing educational material and instruction to be superseded. This new law requires that "the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the history of this country and this State" be included in official textbooks - it does not intend to supersede or replace or supplant any educational material - it means to supplement them.
Also, sex is not the be-all and end-all of LGBTQ folks, as the comedic-sarcastic schoolroom scenario above seems to imply. LGBTQ people do not have sex on the brain no more than cisgender folks. I suppose conflating "sexuality" and "sex" is a common mistake, because both words have "sex" in their spelling, after all. That's like saying "superhero" and "superstition" and "supercilious" all have to do with people in tights that fly.
Also, perhaps, the sample dialogue,
should read like this:
And this:
should read more like this:
I suppose the question shouldn't be "what's the world coming to?" It should be more like "when will people start understanding other people?"
click here to read all of my blogs,
click here to read my stories in BCTS, and
click here to see my profile & know more about me.
You Are Right Nuuan
Your statement is correct.
Parents, no matter what their religious beliefs unless it endangers the kids, have the right to bring their children up in the way they wish.
Of course, when about 10% of those kids are LBGTQ and another 99% of those kids have a close relative or friend who is LGBTQ it's reasonable to assume it's dangerous for those kids not to know as much about LGBTQ as they need to act tolerantly and informed.
How do you feel about black history month? Do you think schools should include information about the Holocaust in the curriculum? Should we teach our students about how we treated Japanese citizens during WWII?
Churchill said that those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. If the next generation doesn't learn that being LGBTQ is as inconsequential as where you came from what will have learned from everything that LBGTQ has been put through over the years.
I would like a gay curriculum to ask -- what do you think the following people have in common?
Eleanor Roosevelt
Emily Dickinson
Leonardo Da Vinci
Sally Ride
Walt Whitman
Maybe that little boy or girl in the back, who thinks they're worthless because they're LGBTQ -- would see a glimmer of light.
I really, really dislike governmental over-reach. Corrupt government has cost me $millions and horrible embarrassment with front page articles based on corrupt officials using their office to steal from me. Yet - I think government has a duty to make sure our children are educated. I'm a Jeffersonian and believe Jefferson would have made LGBTQ part of the curriculum if he was alive today.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
I agree but...
Very nicely written Jill, and you pose a very good argument. Couple things I question and have comments about though.
I would really like to know where you got these figures. Around 10% of all kids are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered? And almost EVERYONE of them knows someone who is? While I know there is a small percentage of kids that would fall under one of those categories I find those figures very hard to believe.
A very good question and one that could easily show that your debate opponent is truly a bigot. Unfortunately that is not the case here. From many of the posts and blogs I have read here on BC, I have to say that I am far more open minded than some that agree with your side of the debate. I just don't blindly follow the masses like sheep for the slaughter and form my own opinions using more than just the biased reporting we see on television.
So to answer this question, "How do I feel about black history month?" I feel that every instance when a difference such as religion, race or sexual preference is highlighted in a discussion, all too many times it’s this attribute that becomes the main topic instead of what the person actually did.
For instance how many heard the name, Gorge Washington Carver? How many would answer that he is a black man from history? Quite a few I would imagine, but how many would remember what he did? (hint he was a botanical scientist that developed/invented over 100 different uses for one type of crop)
What about Booker T Washington? Can you tell us more about him (other than he was also a black man in history) without looking it up online?
What is Lady Godiva most remembered for? She rode a horse down the street naked of course, but how many know WHY she did that? Ironically enough it's her story that also brought about the moniker, “Peeping Tom”
Personally I believe we need to get rid of the labels. He’s not black, she’s not a lesbian, etc. People should be remembered for what they did, not what color their skin happens to be, are they male or female, or what they may or may not do with another consenting adult behind closed doors?
Exactly my point, being gay or TG should be inconsequential. But as the examples I cited show that forcing these issues always seem to have the opposite effect. How many really remember that Gorge Washington Carver invented peanut butter? How many remember that Booker T Washington founded the Tuskegee University? How many remember lady Godiva rode naked down the streets to lower taxes? This is what these people should be remembered for, not what color their skin happens to be or in Lady Godiva’s case how much of her skin she showed.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
Some Comments
1.) Statistics for those adults who identify as LGBTQ run about 5%. I'm estimating that at least half who actually are would never tell a pollster.
2.) I knew about George Washington Carver and the peanut for many years, before I realized (found out) he was a black man.
3.) I'm NOT 100% in favor of Black History Month. I'm not 100% in favor of reparations.
I believe the only way you find that perfect parking spot is to believe you will every time you look. The power of positive thinking is startling. I believe a lot of blacks hold themselves back, just like a lot of whites. All they need is an excuse. I think Black History Month gives that kind of excuse.
However, making black history a part of the curriculum is much different as is making LGBTQ education part of the curriculum.
A lot of argument can be made regarding reparations, but I've seen what happens to people who are gifted money. They lose self-esteem. It's not pretty.
I wasn't baiting you with that question. I was trying to understand your position.
4.) Even if only 5% are LGBTQ that's one out of twenty. Say the average person adult in the United States knows 600, which is a common estimate, that means the average person knows 30 LGBTQ people. I would say closer to 60.
I live in a diverse city where gays are widely accepted. You can't go int a restaurant or coffee shop without seeing an openly gay couple.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Another point to be made here as well.
Things like Black History Month -- or even a push for greater visibility of LGBT figures in media -- are never intended to be long-term additions to either culture or education. Instead, their goal is to exist as a way to normalize awareness of the contributions or existence of certain groups to alleviate the hate and distrust that a lack of education fosters. Once that normalization is complete the emphasis on those elements fades, partially due to a lack of need and partially because such things often seem more extreme than they truly are due to the backlash from the hate and distrust they aim to fight.
I know a lot of people who complain greatly about the push for black visibility in media, typically with the excuse "if they can do it then whites should be able to do the same stuff." Such arguments always ignore the long history of whites doing such things being the reason why black culture IS getting such a push nowadays. The same can be applied to the argument for LGBT visibility and culture reflecting on pop culture as a whole, with many LGBT themes becoming more and more prevalent in modern culture, being EMPHASIZED in their appearances, out of a drive to normalize their presence. Hispanic culture is also seeing somewhat of the same type of push nowadays: though I would argue that it has long been on an even footing with if not better accepted than black culture as a whole, due to the political climate in the US at the moment there is starting to be a greater push for the visibility of hispanic culture in our media to fight back.
Race and sexuality aren't the only venues where media saturation has been used as a way to normalize something. That's the entire point of advertising, after all, and every time you see someone in a movie pull out an iPhone it's important to remember that that's no different. It's no different than the classic "I Want YOU" Uncle Sam posters, or Rosie the Riveter, or so many other things that are considered iconic in US culture nowadays: it was all intended to bias viewpoints toward the acceptance and normalization of particular cultural ideals.
Insidious? A bit, given it's the same methodology that helped lead to McCarthy-ism and the Red Scare, the MAGA movement, and many other less savory outcomes. In the case at hand though, it seems to me to be a necessary push in order to alleviate what should, ultimately, be a non-issue in our culture but is, instead, treated as a huge problem.
Ultimately, should sexuality matter? No. However, the only path to making sure it DOESN'T matter is to, at least for a while, treat it as though it does, because if a history book can tell you who a man's wife was without having to make a subnote about it, then they should be able to do the same thing if that man, instead, had a husband. Right now history books wouldn't mention such a thing at all unless using it as a way to emphasize the deviant or strange nature of a person, treating it more like trivia than anything else, but neither would they hesitate to mention straight relationships in passing for most anyone who had them.
And on the historical figures thing: the first thing that comes to mind for me with the name Booker T is the wrestler, and the first thing that comes to mind from Lady Godiva is chocolates. While neither of those are in any way related to the figures' importance to history, neither is it related to their race, sexuality, or anything else either. Ignorance of one form does not necessarily precede ignorance in any other.
Melanie E.
Education
"How do you feel about black history month? Do you think schools should include information about the Holocaust in the curriculum? Should we teach our students about how we treated Japanese citizens during WWII?"
Yes!, Yes! A thousand times YES!! So much is being blocked from being taught that the Moral Majority, the ultra-right conservatives, the Million Moms, the Trumpets, the White Supremacists, and the Religious Reich have de facto taken control of the primary and secondary education system and are using it to program the children of today.
BTW: I read a biography of George Washington Carver in jr. high. It was prominently displayed just inside the door of the school library on a rack marked Recommended Reading. This was in the Sixties in an all-white school*. A fascinating, brilliant man! After that I found a book about Booker T. Washington. Another brilliant man! I knew the story about Lady Godiva, although the world history teacher I had when going to school in Belgium pointed out that, given the standards of cleanliness in those days she probably would not have been anything we'd want to look at now. ;-)
* There were two junior highs and two high schools in my town. There weren't enough black kids to integrate even one school to meet Federal Standards.
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” - Turkish Proverb