Tulsa school district about to substitute biology classes with 3 weeks of indoctrination on "sex Ed".

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TedKennedy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11,213
Reaction score
12,359
Location
Tulsa
So, because communication between parents and the school is broken, you are good with just ramming in whatever curriculum the school deems appropriate? Regardless of whether the parent approves?

This part is indoctrination, not sex education. I'm ok with a slide saying if you have questions about x, y, z, contact John or Mary Doe. But the 'activities' referenced here are NOT sex education. How does the the study of gender expansive roles and LGBTQ+ (which is actually LGBTQIAA2S+ on Amplify's site) help prevent pregnancy and STIs?

View attachment 324101
It's biology, don't you understand?
 

A.Hinkle

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 3, 2022
Messages
76
Reaction score
87
Location
Tulsa
So, because communication between parents and the school is broken, you are good with just ramming in whatever curriculum the school deems appropriate? Regardless of whether the parent approves?

This part is indoctrination, not sex education. I'm ok with a slide saying if you have questions about x, y, z, contact John or Mary Doe. But the 'activities' referenced here are NOT sex education. How does the the study of gender expansive roles and LGBTQ+ (which is actually LGBTQIAA2S+ on Amplify's site) help prevent pregnancy and STIs?

View attachment 324101
I said nothing about "regardless of whether the parent approves". I said the default option should be opting in to the class because it will prevent kids, especially who may have disinterested or overworked parents, from falling through the cracks. It is most important that kids receive sex education; if a parent is tuned in enough to see what sex ed their kid is receiving and disagrees its perfectly fine for them to provide their own and it furthers the goal of kids receiving education on actions that can dictate the course of the rest of their lives.

I'm amazed that you care enough to state your opinions online, scroll through the site, and to screen cap the video explaining the curriculum but not actually listen to that video about the curriculum. The slide you screen capped is about an activity to think about what life is like for the minority that experience life differently than most. You can litigate the morality elsewhere, but its an objective fact that people exist who are gay or consider themselves to not fit typical gender roles and asking high school students to spend 5 minutes imagining how their life would be different and harder if that was them *is not indoctrination*.

As to your last question, certain STI's like hepatitis C and HIV are significantly more common in different communities that fit under the LGBT umbrella. I would argue that you are dropping the ball on your STI education if you don't address that different groups are at higher risk for certain STI's and should prioritize safety to an even higher degree. And unfortunately, due to a culture that sometimes treats pondering the existince of people who are different from them as 'indoctrination' teachers (and even the students themselves) often don't know who is at higher risk so the whole class gets to learn about it.
 

trekrok

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,574
Reaction score
5,874
Location
Yukon, OK
I said nothing about "regardless of whether the parent approves". I said the default option should be opting in to the class because it will prevent kids, especially who may have disinterested or overworked parents, from falling through the cracks. It is most important that kids receive sex education; if a parent is tuned in enough to see what sex ed their kid is receiving and disagrees its perfectly fine for them to provide their own and it furthers the goal of kids receiving education on actions that can dictate the course of the rest of their lives.

I'm amazed that you care enough to state your opinions online, scroll through the site, and to screen cap the video explaining the curriculum but not actually listen to that video about the curriculum. The slide you screen capped is about an activity to think about what life is like for the minority that experience life differently than most. You can litigate the morality elsewhere, but its an objective fact that people exist who are gay or consider themselves to not fit typical gender roles and asking high school students to spend 5 minutes imagining how their life would be different and harder if that was them *is not indoctrination*.

As to your last question, certain STI's like hepatitis C and HIV are significantly more common in different communities that fit under the LGBT umbrella. I would argue that you are dropping the ball on your STI education if you don't address that different groups are at higher risk for certain STI's and should prioritize safety to an even higher degree. And unfortunately, due to a culture that sometimes treats pondering the existince of people who are different from them as 'indoctrination' teachers (and even the students themselves) often don't know who is at higher risk so the whole class gets to learn about it.
I did watch the video. How is what I screenshot sex education? The point of it is pregnancy and STIs, right? If that's not the point, fine, but don't try to label it as one thing when the curriculum is clearly much more. Call it gender sensitivity training and give a clear explanation of what is to be covered. The dishonesty of labelling this 'sex education' and then not requiring a parent's affirmative approval is a problem for me.

And my point on STIs and LGBTQ+ was in terms of studying the biases, the plethora of genders and 'imagining another gender' etc. I would assume the physical risks on the LGBTQ front would be covered in some detail when talking about HIV and other STIs.
 

okcBob

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,290
Reaction score
8,364
Location
okc
Perhaps some of these topics would be fit for biology class under the section "mental illness"?
Correct. Anyone who thinks this nut is mentally stable is just as crazy as he is.

1669749386817.jpeg


 
Last edited:

A.Hinkle

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 3, 2022
Messages
76
Reaction score
87
Location
Tulsa
I did watch the video. How is what I screenshot sex education? The point of it is pregnancy and STIs, right? If that's not the point, fine, but don't try to label it as one thing when the curriculum is clearly much more. Call it gender sensitivity training and give a clear explanation of what is to be covered. The dishonesty of labelling this 'sex education' and then not requiring a parent's affirmative approval is a problem for me.

And my point on STIs and LGBTQ+ was in terms of studying the biases, the plethora of genders and 'imagining another gender' etc. I would assume the physical risks on the LGBTQ front would be covered in some detail when talking about HIV and other STIs.
What you screen shot were a list of definitions relating to gender. Do you disagree that gender is inextricably linked to sex? Remember as well that this is a baseline education course; as we've agreed lgbt issues are particulrly important to address during a discussion around STI's. I'm not sure most 7th graders really understand what 'gay' means outside of using it as a playground insult. To really have a material conversation about the risks of STI's LGBT issues need to be brought up and a certain level of understanding of those issues is necessary.

Even at the high school level, which this activity is designed for, wouldn't you agree that a student who is gay deserves sex education as much as the straight students? You claim they should just reach out to a third "John or Mary Doe", but do you really expect someone in the social pressure cooker that is high school to feel comfortable doing that?

You may have had a point that the curriculum was misrepresented if this activity was 90% of the course and not a single activity included in a 3 week course, but this is like an atheist saying ancient history is Christian propoganda because it briefly discusses Christian persecution during the Roman Empire.
 

TedKennedy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11,213
Reaction score
12,359
Location
Tulsa
Man, when I was growing up people didn't discuss homosexuality in public, period. Dinnertime conversation - hell no.

It was generally accepted (correctly, IMHO) that homosexuality was deviant, abnormal behavior.

When I enlisted in the Navy, a fellow would get a free ticket home for being openly homosexual. Everyone knew they existed, everyone suspected who they were, but they kept that crap in check.

We have not advanced as a culture when we embrace these ideas and celebrate and normalize this garbage. I'm just glad I don't have young children that would be subjected to this kind of crap. Even a passing phrase that shows any tolerance of it is normalization.
 

trekrok

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,574
Reaction score
5,874
Location
Yukon, OK
What you screen shot were a list of definitions relating to gender. Do you disagree that gender is inextricably linked to sex? Remember as well that this is a baseline education course; as we've agreed lgbt issues are particulrly important to address during a discussion around STI's. I'm not sure most 7th graders really understand what 'gay' means outside of using it as a playground insult. To really have a material conversation about the risks of STI's LGBT issues need to be brought up and a certain level of understanding of those issues is necessary.

Even at the high school level, which this activity is designed for, wouldn't you agree that a student who is gay deserves sex education as much as the straight students? You claim they should just reach out to a third "John or Mary Doe", but do you really expect someone in the social pressure cooker that is high school to feel comfortable doing that?

You may have had a point that the curriculum was misrepresented if this activity was 90% of the course and not a single activity included in a 3 week course, but this is like an atheist saying ancient history is Christian propoganda because it briefly discusses Christian persecution during the Roman Empire.
For sex education, no, I don't believe a dive into the various hypothetical genders is necessary. Is the story of how to not get an STI that different for lgbtq community? Seems like the technique would be similar.

And my recommendation to seek a third party seems pretty on point to me. If I'm sitting there as a TransTrans woman, I'd benefit from a counselor much more than listening to a bunch of 'plus' training with all my high school peers.

And again, the parent should affirmatively approve of the training after getting an accurate description of the content. The fact that the default setting is the opposite, is telling.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom