Should public school be banned?

It absolutely is an absurd and baseless objection. If anal sex were being taught to kindergartners it shouldn't be too difficult produce the offending curriculum or offending teachers. I doubt there is any curriculum or anyone who can still call themselves a teacher doing what you suggest...Well, first, a story about an email isn't  substantiation. Secondly, discussing LGBTQ does not require discussing anal sex. This is nothing but an attempt to poison the well either by you or by whoever you got the story from.

Whenever sex ed is taught it should include all aspects of human sexuality. I don't know when sex ed is age-appropriate exactly, but it should occur before the students have first-hand experience. This is an important issue because sexual ignorance leads to societal problems.

There are fairly major historical events which have been left out of the history text books (eg. Tulsa race massacre) and the events that are covered can be heavily ethnocentric (eg. Thanksgiving) or leading to generally false impressions (eg. steady progress for the equality of African Americans since Reconstruction). The criticism is not about preventing current material from being banned, but of the current material being inadequate.

Molestation is possibly far more common in private, religious schools than public ones. However, it stays 'hush hush'.

I found this within 30 seconds

Gender identity is not an appropriate conversation for six year olds.

For example Florida banned talking about sex for K-3 and people got extremely angry about it. Do you disagree with banning sex talk for kindergartners?

This means that childhood sexual trauma can impact your sexuality and people have all kinds of weird fetishes from the first sexual thing their mind fixates on.

Is it really so implausible to you that in the current zeitgeist of identity politics some teachers are more likely now than in the past to try and have inappropriate conversations with their students, or think that getting them to question their gender (something I, and many other parents, would strongly oppose for our kids) is a moral imperative? 

But we probably have a different view of what the school system should be for.

Also how is that a false impression? The country definitely hasn’t gotten more racist since the civil war. Unless youre saying there was a nadir of race relations after reconstruction and into the 1920s in which case you’d be right 

What you found doesn't support the objection/fear 'kindergartners are being taught about anal sex'. Kindergartners are not being taught anal sex.

You nailed it. African Americans had more rights after being freed than they had in the 20's. The progression has been anything but smooth. 

Keep in mind how dumb as shit little kids are.

what do you think is age appropriate for grade schoolers?

What right have you to decide for me what my children are taught on this subject, and how can you expect there not to be a response that potentially threatens the public school system?

Just leave the kids alone and we wouldn't have this problem. Is talking about transgenderism to elementary schoolers so important? why? Cant we just focus on reading and writing...

as if it goes away or if school choice is passed I’ll no longer have to pay $500 a month to support a school system I don’t expect to ever use

I am fine with the framework as you quoted above. I think where everyone freaks out is that they view these discussions as some type of invitation or proselytizing (Do you accept transgenderism into your heart as your lord and savior?), but that is not how I understand this conversation. It is simply making children aware gender and orientation is fluid. This is information that is good for them in that it gives insights into other people and maybe themselves too. 

I didn't decide reality. It is how it is, and that is what we teach. Another appeal to consequences.... I don't think education should stop including the world as it is just because some don't understand and/or don't want to understand it. 

So you know where I am coming from: My sister's family is conservative. Her husband is military and comes from a military family. My and my sister's parents are conservative. My brother in law's family is conservative. They live in a military town in Oklahoma...a conservative town in a conservative state. My nephew is trans. There was no indoctrination into transgenderism. It is simply who he is. The point being, 'Leaving kids alone' doesn't prevent transgenderism, but it does hobble insight and support for transgender kids. Education is supposed to be for the benefit of society, and Trans folks are part of that. 

You would still pay near that amount if school choice was passed..

But a lot of people, myself included, don't think that gender is fluid.

And we control more states than you do,

Pretty arrogant to insist that this is "reality" without even addressing the opposing argument.

How do you know that?

2.1% of Gen Z adults identify as trans, double that of millennials, quadruple that of Gen X and twenty times that of previous generations.

make your own

This is where our reasoning diverges. Your (or my) opinion is not equivalent to that of experts informed by evidence. I'll trust their conclusions.

And? Diagnosis of autism increased after we realized it was a thing too. It is hardly a surprising observation.

Are you suggesting I should make my own kids? We've done that, although, they can't really be considered kids anymore!

But a lot of people, myself included, don't think that gender is fluid.

I think that something important to consider is that what people point to in children to determine if they are trans relies a bit on sexism. I am sure that most people in their mid 20s and older remember growing up with tomboys being a thing. These were girls that did not fall within the stereotype of what it meant to be a girl, instead doing things that were "what boys do". I have actually seen numerous people that would have been called a tomboy when I was growing up being called trans by those around them now.

It is also undeniable that gender and sex are tied together, and so we must ask how it is that gender can be a spectrum or fluid when sex isn't. What, precisely, makes it so? I would argue that there isn't an actual way to show that gender is fluid without either presupposing it is or using sexist thinking about gender roles.

We don't have a neutral field reaching this conclusion, we have a field that has become so politically infected that the works coming out of it are all suspect creating waves, and from that we have different academics forced to adhere to those ideals or be found to be some kind of 'phobic' and lose their position. One cannot simply point to an academic field without also understanding the state of said field, and when you do that when it comes to gender studies and sociology you will find that it is all highly suspect.

You should be able to justify your positions on their own merits instead of simply claiming that the "experts" are on your side.

Then try to imagine how you'd feel if the public schools had a system whereby they could be confirmed in the Catholic Church, take communion, and change their names to a Saints name without your knowledge. 

I have no burden to uphold the status quo. It is the status quo because that burden has already been met. If you want to challenge it, you have your burden in front of you and your audience should be the scientific community....Not the same at all. If the positions of the Catholic Church could be substantiated,  then your scenario would be analogous.

I have no burden to uphold the status quo. It is the status quo because that burden has already been met. 

If you don't think conversing with me further on this subject is beneficial to you, just say so.

People have deeply held beliefs. Many of those peoples deeply held beliefs are different than yours, but we all have to live together. Forcing your deeply held beliefs on peoples children is playing with fire, particularly when the consequences of those deeply held beliefs if applied to other peoples children = those children are sterilized or mutilated. 

This conversation isn't a competition, maybe 5 or 6 people are even reading it. It's not going to move the needle in either direction, there's no "winning" or "losing."

Yea, I don't think continuing this conversation would be beneficial to either of us. You want your position to be as justified as gender fluidity but it isn't, and I dont have to treat it as such. 

Unfortunately for our conversation, I've reached my limit of absurdity. Equating discussions of gender fluidity to 'teaching anal sex' or 'sterilized or mutilated children'  has sabotaged a sincere conversation between us.

There is literally no other body image disorder in which we accept that the persons viewpoint is valid and try to change their body to match. 

[thett3] I don't think "my position is justified and yours isn't, and no I won't say why or justify my position because I assert that mine is the status quo and the status quo is always right!" is a serious response, particularly not from a self described skeptic.

 I won't say why or justify my position because I assert that mine is the status quo and the status quo is always right!" is a serious response, particularly not from a self described skeptic.

I disagree. There is a huge movement supporting fat people so that they can be comfortable in their own bodies. Society is forced to redefine a fat person as a healthy person regardless of the science.

Not true.

I disagree. There is a huge movement supporting fat people so that they can be comfortable in their own bodies. Society is forced to redefine a fat person as a healthy person regardless of the science.

If you ever want to have a serious engagement with the other side, feel free to respond to my post whenever. I don't think "my position is justified and yours isn't, and no I won't say why or justify my position because I assert that mine is the status quo and the status quo is always right!" is a serious response, particularly not from a self described skeptic

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

-Hitchens

This includes the justifications of the status quo.

[SkepticalOne] I have no burden to uphold the status quo. It is the status quo because that burden has already been met. If you want to challenge it, you have your burden in front of you and your audience should be the scientific community.

This is false

If there is no proof (or support) it should be treated as false even if there is no proof it is false.