Christofascists seeking to seize our country

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

IMO two primary genders is not confusing. Our current world is literally like this. The vast majority of individual for now identify as male/female and gender norms wise we typically have male/female washrooms. As such, we have a gender norm expectations for these two primary categories. My thought process is that in this era of humanity, we teach kids how things are now. Then we equip them on how to address potential future change because there are a small current minority who fall into a category that is not the vast majority two.

If we are starting from scratch, I agree with you. But my kids are not starting from scratch. They are in this world so they will be part of the generation that has to embrace the flaws of this world and then change it from within.

Whether male and female will no longer be appropriate as the "vast majority" in the future, I do not know. But my comments are based on the fact that this is the reality we have as of now. That's why I suggested the path that I did above and that's how I personally plan on teaching my kids going forward. I'm not on the cutting edge of understanding this scenario, but I can only say that I plan on doing my best and doing it in a way that I feel is fair to my wife and I and our children. I grew up in an era where there was intolerance and disrespect. I've distilled things down to focusing on the acceptance and respect of all. Beyond that, I don't know. This is ultimately is still a topic that is relatively new to me.

I know you’re obviously coming from a good place and I’m not about to tell you how to parent your children. Teach them whatever you think is the right thing to teach them in the way you think is appropriate.

But I will say this: in terms of whether teaching two “primary” genders is confusing or not, it depends. It won’t be if the intent is to get them to adhere to today’s gender norms. It won’t be if the kids are cisgender. And it won’t be if they never learn any different. But, they will eventually learn different. They may not cisgender. And conforming to gender norms may not be important.

It’s not confusing if the goal is to maintain the conservative, “status quo” view of gender. It is confusing if the goal is to equip them with information on how the world actually is today.

Kids ARE starting from scratch. They don’t know anything. They don’t understand gender the way adults understand it. They will learn from their environment, experiences, and the context provided by parents, friends, teachers, doctors, etc. Every kid is a clean slate. So, you can choose how that slate gets filled, but it’s a lot more difficult to build a foundation without that wider knowledge and then try to fill it in later than build that wider knowledge into the foundation (with age appropriate terms and references).

You can teach kids about gender expression by teaching them that it is OK to express themselves however they want. If a little girl wants to dress like her brother and cut her hair, so what? If a little boy see’s another boy wearing makeup and says “Isn’t makeup for girls?” you can explain that people express themselves in different ways without diving in to a wikipedia-level explanation of the term “genderqueer” or whatever, you know?

I don’t see it as different than the sexuality conversation. There are age appropriate versions of it. You can gently explain that sometimes boys love or marry other boys and that it’s completely natural without getting into a talk about sex or gay rights.

By the time kids are ready to learn about gender in a serious way, they’re ready to learn about the complexity of it. Until then, there’s nothing wrong with distilling it down to a form that is age appropriate. Just don’t make the mistake of accidentally distilling gender itself down to something it isn’t on your way to doing so.

Kids are capable learners. They’ll learn a ton from their environment and everyone else. Just give them the context required to know that whoever they are is OK and not knowing who they are is OK too, and to be kind and accepting of everyone else. If you think the way to do that is to start off their gender education by instilling the idea that there are two primary genders, I’ll agree to disagree.

[Itse]

The idea that basic facts like the existence of multitude of gender and sexual identities shouldn't be taught at school because it might confuse the kids is silly.

The basics are in no way confusing or complicated. Even pre-schoolers can grasp the stuff with no effort.

It's also ridiculous to not teach the stuff, because the cat is just totally out of the bag anyway. Kids are going to run into lgtbq+ people in social media (or regular media) regardless.

Kids are going to learn about this stuff anyway, but from some totally random person on the internet or a friend, and that's likely going to be way more confusing than if a teacher gives them the basics.

[The Fonz]

I feel like I’m so lost on this topic and need to watch that grade 3-8 video posted by driveway (while I’m at work and getting paid, preferably).

Great discussion the last few pages though. Lot of great points made.

[Matata]

The theory of gender identity was developed by John money, a sex degenerate who forced little boys to have sex on camera, one of these boys would go on to kill himself in his thirties and the other died of drug overdose in their 30s. From its Inception gender identity has been a vehicle for sexual degenerates to instill their degeneracy into children, and you can always rely on people like that being on the front lines pushing this thing ahead. The number of kids with gender confusion is growing exponentially and a huge portion of those kids are will eventually kill themselves, looking at the statistics, tens of thousands of kids have been set up to kill themselves due to the propagation of gender theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money.

[GGG]

Citation needed.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Matata

The theory of gender identity was developed by John money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money.

Despite widespread popular belief, Money did not coin 'gender identity'.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Lol.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Matata

The theory of gender identity was developed by John money, a sex degenerate who forced little boys to have sex on camera, one of these boys would go on to kill himself in his thirties and the other died of drug overdose in their 30s. From its Inception gender identity has been a vehicle for sexual degenerates to instill their degeneracy into children, and you can always rely on people like that being on the front lines pushing this thing ahead. The number of kids with gender confusion is growing exponentially and a huge portion of those kids are will eventually kill themselves, looking at the statistics, tens of thousands of kids have been set up to kill themselves due to the propagation of gender theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money.

Holy s**t, dude. You seriously need to get off the internet and get some help.

[Wormius]

So Matata is proving everyone’s point that by forcing the wrong gender upon someone it creates a gender dysphoria in the subject and does lifelong harm.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Matata

The theory of gender identity was developed by John money, a sex degenerate who forced little boys to have sex on camera, one of these boys would go on to kill himself in his thirties and the other died of drug overdose in their 30s. From its Inception gender identity has been a vehicle for sexual degenerates to instill their degeneracy into children, and you can always rely on people like that being on the front lines pushing this thing ahead. The number of kids with gender confusion is growing exponentially and a huge portion of those kids are will eventually kill themselves, looking at the statistics, tens of thousands of kids have been set up to kill themselves due to the propagation of gender theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money.

That's a pretty gross interpretation of what was written about Money. I would not agree that the study of gender identity was founded or developed by Money any more than Jordan Peterson founded or developed clinical psychology. Both would be considered practitioners and applying their unique perspective to their field of study. Neither would really be attributed as adding much to the theoretical underpinnings to the school.

I might suggest reviewing Kohlberg's Cognitive Developmental Theory of Gender (not to be confused with Piaget's Cognitive Development Theory), Bem's Gender Schema Theory, or Spence's Multifactional Gender Identity theory. Accepted theory by this school seems to suggest they have presented the most broadly accepted work on this topic.

All too often I think people are conflating sex with gender when discussing this matter. Sex is determined by physical traits while gender is determined by societal norms and the acceptance of projected gender characteristics. It would seem that you're taking your thoughts of gender and projecting them on others and enforcing gender conformity to your liking rather than acknowledging gender is fluid and not aligned with your thoughts or feelings on the matter. You could argue that gender dysphoria (the mismatch between gender identity and assigned sex at birth) has gotten out of control, but this is actually society evolving to be more accepting of the various gender associations. Because gender is created by culture this acceptance is part of the never-ending evolution we see in our society, right or wrong.

Gender Identity has been around for as long as humans have existed, only our cultural norms have changed making those who vary from the binary seem strange. It is those cultural norms that have been dangerous as the intolerance so prevalent in our societies makes people who are different feel rejected. It is that rejection that leads to the suicide issue you appear to be concerned about. If you really are so concerned about people with gender dysphoria committing suicide then maybe be a little more accepting of them and how they choose to present themselves?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

The idea that basic facts like the existence of multitude of gender and sexual identities shouldn't be taught at school because it might confuse the kids is silly.

The basics are in no way confusing or complicated. Even pre-schoolers can grasp the stuff with no effort.

It’s far from simple.

How can gender be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to an individual?

How can gender be both self-chosen and a product of socialization?

What does reifying gender as an innate characteristic mean for efforts to reduce social expectations around what is feminine and what is masculine?

Only people who haven’t really engaged with those apparent contradictions can claim it’s simple.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Matata

The theory of gender identity was developed by John money, a sex degenerate who forced little boys to have sex on camera, one of these boys would go on to kill himself in his thirties and the other died of drug overdose in their 30s. From its Inception gender identity has been a vehicle for sexual degenerates to instill their degeneracy into children, and you can always rely on people like that being on the front lines pushing this thing ahead. The number of kids with gender confusion is growing exponentially and a huge portion of those kids are will eventually kill themselves, looking at the statistics, tens of thousands of kids have been set up to kill themselves due to the propagation of gender theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money.

I get Yoho is in the Sin Bin, it you don’t need to up the crazy this much

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How can gender be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to an individual?

Society frames the characteristics and behaviors associated with each gender. The individual knows how they feel and which gender they most associate with regardless of societal framing. They are two very different things.

How can gender be both self-chosen and a product of socialization?

How can someone become an Oiler fan living in Calgary?

What does reifying gender as an innate characteristic mean for efforts to reduce social expectations around what is feminine and what is masculine?

Social expectations change, frequently. What was considered a masculine norm in the 50s would now be considered toxic masculinity and not acceptable. What was considered femineity in the 50s would be consider subjugation today. Society will continue to frame and reframe what genders look like but to the individual they know whether they identify one way or another. How they choose to represent themselves in society is based on cultural acceptance of those images.

Only people who haven’t really engaged with those apparent contradictions can claim it’s simple.

Only people who are locked in their ways of thinking and are willing to project their accepted norms onto others try to make this more complex than it needs to be. Maybe our addiction to the norm is the problem?
Maybe acceptance is the first step to recovery?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s far from simple.

How can gender be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to an individual?

How can gender be both self-chosen and a product of socialization?

What does reifying gender as an innate characteristic mean for efforts to reduce social expectations around what is feminine and what is masculine?

Only people who haven’t really engaged with those apparent contradictions can claim it’s simple.

You don’t actually have to engage with those contradictions.

Gender is simple in the same way emotions are simple. Children know them and understand them in a purer way because they simply experience them. Adults provide context and labels to those experiences, and the more finely tuned the labels, the more easily understood the context behind them.

Most of your questions, especially “how can gender be self-chosen and a product of socialization” really indicate your own confusion and misunderstanding of gender, rather than complexity inherent in understanding gender itself.

If kids can grasp it, you can grasp it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

really indicate your own confusion and misunderstanding of gender

So clear it up for me.

The World Health Organization defines gender as a social construct.

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.

If so - if gender varies from society and society and changes over time - how can someone be born with an innate gender?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If so - if gender varies from society and society and changes over time - how can someone be born with an innate gender?

Same way someone can be born with an innate sexual orientation?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Matata

Children belong to the state, comrades.

If you make the boys who are experiencing dysmorphia take cold showers every morning then I bet they will be cured!

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s far from simple.

How can gender be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to an individual?

How can gender be both self-chosen and a product of socialization?

What does reifying gender as an innate characteristic mean for efforts to reduce social expectations around what is feminine and what is masculine?

Only people who haven’t really engaged with those apparent contradictions can claim it’s simple.

I personally currently know maybe a dozen or so people who are some shades of non-cis, and a whole bunch more who are non-straight. I've followed about a half a dozen people transition in my social circles, I've first taught the subject at school at age 14 because my gym teacher asked because he was too embarrassed, and I did a pretty decent job armed only with a 90's dictionary. I've befriended my first transitioning person at age 16. I've created non-cis characters for fiction and pretended to be one for larp, and just generally been around, lived with, befriended and even dated various types of queer folk for close to 30 years now.

None of what you're talking about has ever been relevant.

You don't need to understand what light is or how it ends up being split into different wavelengths to understand that all colors of the rainbow exist, and simply learning the names of the colours is what most people ever need to understand about the topic.

Heck, magenta isn't even real, and yet somehow we can all just accept that magenta is a thing people really do experience.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s far from simple.

How can gender be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to an individual?

How can gender be both self-chosen and a product of socialization?

What does reifying gender as an innate characteristic mean for efforts to reduce social expectations around what is feminine and what is masculine?

Only people who haven’t really engaged with those apparent contradictions can claim it’s simple.

Everything taught in school but math is some combination of social construct and inherent. That doesn't mean school doesn't need to teach these things to children to prepare them for the work force.

[CliffFletcher]

We’ve made great progress in the last 50 years moving away from traditional definitions of masculinity and femininity. The goal was to erase the outdated notions of gender altogether and just let people be who they choose. If people want to wear dresses and makeup, let them. If they want to do wear their hair short and do combat sports, let them. If they want play with guns or play with dolls, be aggressive or compliant, wear makeup or shave their hair - let them choose without labelling any of those choices masculine or feminine.

So reifying those preferences by making gender a core identity is a step back. It imposes arbitrary categories on a spectrum of behaviour. It reinforces the association of dolls and dresses with girls, and guns and trucks with boys.

Biological sex is innate and (in almost all cases) binary. Gender isn’t. It’s a made-up concept that scrunches up a whole spectrum of human behaviour into two categories based on cultural expectations. We should be moving past it rather than reinforcing it.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Itse

I personally currently know maybe a dozen or so people who are some shades of non-cis, and a whole bunch more who are non-straight. I've followed about a half a dozen people transition in my social circles, I've first taught the subject at school at age 14 because my gym teacher asked because he was too embarrassed, and I did a pretty decent job armed only with a 90's dictionary. I've befriended my first transitioning person at age 16. I've created non-cis characters for fiction and pretended to be one for larp, and just generally been around, lived with, befriended and even dated various types of queer folk for close to 30 years now.

None of what you're talking about has ever been relevant.

You don't need to understand what light is or how it ends up being split into different wavelengths to understand that all colors of the rainbow exist, and simply learning the names of the colours is what most people ever need to understand about the topic.

Heck, magenta isn't even real, and yet somehow we can all just accept that magenta is a thing people really do experience.

#### magenta. Another government control mechanism.

Probably a precursor to Directed Energy Weapons of Mass Destruction