Safe Schools Coalition: sexual politics in the classroom (3 Viewers)

[Loudvicuna]

We have a three year age gap. I wouldn't be calling anyone who is three years younger then me 'child'. lol

And apparently, trans people are "mentally ill now"? Oh? Please direct me to the website of Fascist Fortnightly where you obviously pull this crap out of.

If you can not tolerate another human being for something they cannot changed (last time I checked, being LGBT is something you are born with and is not a 'lifestyle' choice), you are a bigot, plain and simple.

People that slit their wrists are mentally ill but people who slit their dicks and get false breasts aren't? Again I got nothing against it bro people can do what they want

 

[wannaspoon]

People that slit their wrists are mentally ill but people who slit their dicks and get false breasts aren't? Again I got nothing against it bro people can do what they want

People who cut off their old chap are treated as heroes and are honoured by the US president... People who want to cut off their leg or arm because they feel it's not a part of their body (yes, it is an illness, it's called Apotemnophilia) are institutionalised, put on a course of drugs and treated as mentally ill... Go figure...

 

[mcchicken]

Political correctness needs to go sometimes out of the window. This program has its issues, that it needs to fix seriously if it is going to remain in schools. Just because someone disagrees (and I have made this point several times), does not equal bigot. Yes there are bigots, homophobes and the whole circus if you like. But it doesn't necessary mean that everyone who disagrees with transsexuality or homosexuality is one. Period.

While addressing bullying is a good thing, especially in this hot topic, you don't have to I guess, put students in their shoes, with role-plays. Educate respect of those who are different, or whom you may disagree with etc. you don't have to teach them the ins and outs of the LGBT movement and its values. But the school needs to be sensitive with these issues, and clearly SSC in its currently form isn't.

Most of us prefaced our initial statements with "oh yeah the role play thing is a bit over the top and unnecessary"

Not necessarily wrong...

It seems our education system has drifted away from the notions of free thinking and more to the notions of indoctrination... This is not designed to educate people about the values of a sexual relationship or respect, it is designed to indoctrinate tolerance with complete disregard to freedom of thought and expression that is contra to the narrative... People have a right to their own free opinion (particularly when being educated)... This style of teaching discards that code... This quite obviously sets a very, very dangerous precedent which in itself is just as regressive as Fascism...

Would not really classify those comments as Fascist, I would call them more Conservative... Learn what Fascism actually is before throwing out that label...

This argument never makes sense to me... How is tolerance not a thing we should all want for this world? How is saying "oh it's okay we're all entitled to our opinions" a valid excuse for any sort of discrimination? Why would you want your child and future generations to not practice tolerance?

 

[wannaspoon]

This argument never makes sense to me... How is tolerance not a thing we should all want for this world? How is saying "oh it's okay we're all entitled to our opinions" a valid excuse for any sort of discrimination? Why would you want your child and future generations to not practice tolerance?

Sorry, but a bubble wrapped world where I have to watch whatever I say, do, etc is not a world in which I would want to live in... A world where an off the cuff remark can mean the end for your: career, friends, professional integrity, etc is not a world worth living in... My world and the things in it should not be micromanaged by others, plain and simple... I also recommend you read the book 1984 by George Orwell...

 

[nerdasdasd]

This argument never makes sense to me... How is tolerance not a thing we should all want for this world? How is saying "oh it's okay we're all entitled to our opinions" a valid excuse for any sort of discrimination? Why would you want your child and future generations to not practice tolerance?

Tolerance is a good thing, but I think it would be better off to make a TV ad or program.

Though .. I do think school should be a place of learning about science, maths, etc... not social molding.

 

[wannaspoon]

^^^

Calm your farm I didn't say you can't make a joke or something

I say things with my friends all the time that I wouldn't say in public or in front of people I don't know

But when you're opinion is "Islam is a bad religion" or "gay people are ew and need help" then I'm sorry but no

Your!

 

[mcchicken]

Tolerance is a good thing, but I think it would be better off to make a TV ad or program.

Though .. I do think school should be a place of learning about science, maths, etc... not social molding.

Never said I was for this program

^^^

Your!

Lol pick apart my typos because you have nothing else to say

 

[nerdasdasd]

Never said I was for this program



Lol pick apart my typos because you have nothing else to say

So are you against or for or neither?

ahah

 

[mcchicken]

So are you against or for or neither?

ahah

I don't think the roleplay thing is okay

Give 'em a little video or book or something

 

[nerdasdasd]

I don't think the roleplay thing is okay

Give 'em a little video or book or something

Defs , that would be more right ~

 

[jenandeeb]

The All of Us teaching manual has been ordered by 350 schools.

A taxpayer-funded sexuality program that instructs 11-year-olds to role-play gay teenagers has been accused of crossing the line between education and advocacy in the classroom.

The controversial Safe Schools Coalition program, which teaches high school students in years 7 and 8 about sexual diversity and inclusion, is pitting religious groups against gay rights advocates.

Ostensibly an anti-bullying program, it takes a politically correct approach to sex education. Teachers are told it is “heterosexist’’ to refer to students as “girls and boys”. Prepubescent children are taught the meaning of terms such as “queer’’, “pansexual’’, “sister girl’’ and “trans guy’’.

Nearly 500 of Australia’s schools are using the program and Victoria has ordered all government schools to sign on by 2019.

The program’s teaching guide, All of Us, includes a role-playing lesson plan in which kids as young as 11 are told to imagine they are 16 and going out with “someone they are really into’’.

"http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au/app/theme/default/design/assets/all-of-us/documents/unit-guide.pdf" = the booklet.
...

What do people think about this?

The whole thing's stupid to be honest. Why should taxpayers money be used for things that should be taught by the parents at home?

And the fact that teachers are being told it's heterosexist to refer to the students and boys and girls...? That's so bloody stupid. Last time I checked, if you have a penis, you're a boy. If you have a vagina, you're a girl. What's new?

 

[dan964]

Most of us prefaced our initial statements with "oh yeah the role play thing is a bit over the top and unnecessary"

I am well aware of that. My point is the whole program, content-wise needs serious reform if it is going to be taught as an anti-bullying program, not just a change in the media/form of presentation. I not opposed to taking a stance against bullying in this area. It needs to be done, without "proselytizing" in a particular viewpoint on the issue, which is what SSC does.

This argument never makes sense to me... How is tolerance not a thing we should all want for this world? How is saying "oh it's okay we're all entitled to our opinions" a valid excuse for any sort of discrimination? Why would you want your child and future generations to not practice tolerance?

No because the definition of tolerance you are operating on, is one where you are only tolerant if you agree with said opinion. It is this new form of tolerance that is problematic. The old form, was yes I disagree with you, but I am not going to wage a war to prevent you from being able to speak your opinion. That is why it makes so sense to you, because we have a different understanding of "tolerance"

I am all for tolerance, but not this new type that says crudely or vulgarly "Shut up and agree with me". This tends to be from the far left, although the far right employs similar tactics (that just use different terms to call it).

Tolerance of the old form is: I can disagree with their lifestyle or opinion etc. and still respect them and allow them to give their opinion, without them being shut down in the public space. Yes it is difficult, but it certainly a more unifying argument. The public sphere is a place for where ideas can be contested, argued, debated at the like - if that wasn't the case, then the government as it stands would be very one-sided.

===

Secondly, discrimination is a loaded word that is thrown around without sometimes any though. I can discriminate between two things as being different, without being rude or offensive. There are two meanings to that word, I understand you probably refer to the other:

1. "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
2. "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."

The first is not excusable, but the second is perfectly normal and good, and what hopefully should be what is there rather than the first. It is important to understand difference and recognize it. The lines can be blurred of course.

It is good to recognize the differences between for instance the genders/sexes, or the difference between someone who is 5 years old and someone who is 25 or 80, that they are not the same, but yet still as equal in dignity, respect etc. etc. Well if there is a difference, the how do we make that obvious? This program, seeks to its radical view of equality, remove all forms of discrimination, which is reasonable except that it includes the valid form which is discernment of differences and recognition and understanding between the genders/sexes, and also between homosexual/heterosexual relationships.

 

[mcchicken]

I am well aware of that. My point is the whole program, content-wise needs serious reform if it is going to be taught as an anti-bullying program, not just a change in the media/form of presentation. I not opposed to taking a stance against bullying in this area. It needs to be done, without "proselytizing" in a particular viewpoint on the issue, which is what SSC does.



No because the definition of tolerance you are operating on, is one where you are only tolerant if you agree with said opinion. It is this new form of tolerance that is problematic. The old form, was yes I disagree with you, but I am not going to wage a war to prevent you from being able to speak your opinion. That is why it makes so sense to you, because we have a different understanding of "tolerance"

I am all for tolerance, but not this new type that says crudely or vulgarly "Shut up and agree with me". This tends to be from the far left, although the far right employs similar tactics (that just use different terms to call it).

Tolerance of the old form is: I can disagree with their lifestyle or opinion etc. and still respect them and allow them to give their opinion, without them being shut down in the public space. Yes it is difficult, but it certainly a more unifying argument. The public sphere is a place for where ideas can be contested, argued, debated at the like - if that wasn't the case, then the government as it stands would be very one-sided.

===

Secondly, discrimination is a loaded word that is thrown around without sometimes any though. I can discriminate between two things as being different, without being rude or offensive. There are two meanings to that word, I understand you probably refer to the other:

1. "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
2. "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."

The first is not excusable, but the second is perfectly normal and good, and what hopefully should be what is there rather than the first. It is important to understand difference and recognize it. The lines can be blurred of course.

It is good to recognize the differences between for instance the genders/sexes, or the difference between someone who is 5 years old and someone who is 25 or 80, that they are not the same, but yet still as equal in dignity, respect etc. etc. Well if there is a difference, the how do we make that obvious? This program, seeks to its radical view of equality, remove all forms of discrimination, which is reasonable except that it includes the valid form which is discernment of differences and recognition and understanding between the genders/sexes, and also between homosexual/heterosexual relationships.

Maybe in my annoyance last night I didn't make my stance quite clear - my bad.

When I say 'tolerance' I don't mean everyone has to be a giant leftie and blah blah. I know plenty of people who don't understand other religions/sexual orientations/whatever and might not even like seeing it but nonetheless respect that group of people and their right to practice whatever they want. This is fine. It's just the moment someone like that opens their mouth to publicly shame said group of people is when I have a problem.

I don't want people to just see the words of an open-minded person and be like "oh I have to adopt that opinion because XYZ", I want people to do it of their own accord. Again, I have to apologise as I did appear quite rash and passive aggressive last night. I can only attribute that to the fact that some of the people I was addressing were just trolls anyway. Thank you for your well thought out response.

When I mentioned discrimination I was thinking specifically of the lack of rights for LGBT+ (primarily marriage equality).

 

[dan964]

Maybe in my annoyance last night I didn't make my stance quite clear - my bad.

When I say 'tolerance' I don't mean everyone has to be a giant leftie and blah blah. I know plenty of people who don't understand other religions/sexual orientations/whatever and might not even like seeing it but nonetheless respect that group of people and their right to practice whatever they want. This is fine. It's just the moment someone like that opens their mouth to publicly shame said group of people is when I have a problem.

I don't want people to just see the words of an open-minded person and be like "oh I have to adopt that opinion because XYZ", I want people to do it of their own accord. Again, I have to apologise as I did appear quite rash and passive aggressive last night. I can only attribute that to the fact that some of the people I was addressing were just trolls anyway. Thank you for your well thought out response.

When I mentioned discrimination I was thinking specifically of the lack of rights for LGBT+ (primarily marriage equality).

No I understand, and it is all forgiven. I say stuff on other threads, that isn't thought through as well as possible. Although with this issue, care is taken.

Yes, there are trolls (from both sides of the floor), and there are genuine homophobes of course as that.
(On the flip side, although for I am not personally in this boat, but probably for the LGBTQI community, a lot needs to work on how public perception is for instance. If all the media presents them as in sequins, and leotards during Mardi Gras, that it doesn't for them help the perception in the public space. It is not helpful for them I guess)

For discrimination, I guess we will have to disagree on marriage/whether it is a "rights" issue for instance, whether for instance the right of marriage extends to alternative sexual expressions for instance, for you the answer would (I suspect) be yes,

For me it is a no: I personally don't see anything discriminatory for instance about the current laws, which make no mention of sexual expression but rather express what was a common understanding of marriage in terms of its purpose, function and form. (While I also see, Australia, uniquely allows for the legal rights/benefits of a marriage, for those who aren't in marriage but in a de-facto relationship).

I don't think that the government should decide on marriage laws, simply on when it is "morally right" or "morally wrong" because it would prove too divisive if such, but need to assess, well if same-marriage is introduced what are the implications? This is the biggest hurdle - thinking what about the implications of changing the laws, because there is even if they are not evident, especially when there are currently equal pushes from not just the marriage equality front, but also in transgender issues and the like.

Working out these implications, such as education (SSC included), how do we educate on these issues, in a sensible reasonable matter. How does this affect, conscience, the right of those who disagree (respectfully of course), to be excused on matters on conscience concerning the implementation of such changes? How would the laws, prevent the so-called slippery slope argument? etc. etc.

Understandably there are many issues, many perspectives, many answers. Now, is the time for tolerable discussion.

 

[wannaspoon]

Lol pick apart my typos because you have nothing else to say

You tolerate bad smells and annoying sounds... You don't "tolerate" people...

The whole notion of "tolerance" is predicated on collective authoritarianism and interventionist policies... a political tactic that, through the ages, has not worked very well...

If you wonder why you are seeing a resurgent far right in Europe, thank the leftists...

 

[Kolmias]

The whole thing's stupid to be honest. Why should taxpayers money be used for things that should be taught by the parents at home?

And the fact that teachers are being told it's heterosexist to refer to the students and boys and girls...? That's so bloody stupid. Last time I checked, if you have a penis, you're a boy. If you have a vagina, you're a girl. What's new?

It's only 6 million dollars. Pocket money to the government compared to what they spend on other less worthy programs.

 

[soloooooo]

I don't believe it belongs in the classroom. The funding should be stopped.

 

[dan964]

It's only 6 million dollars. Pocket money to the government compared to what they spend on other less worthy programs.

up to 8 million
Still it is irrelevant what the funding is. The nature of the program at times is dubious, and needs to be rethought through if it is to remain in schools.

 

[RemegadeMx]

race mixing is a crime

 

[soloooooo]

Shut the fuck up. If you don't like it, DON'T GO THERE. Simple.

No. We should cater for the majority, not the minority.