Althouse: "A 1-hour elementary school lesson on gender diversity featuring all-girl geckos and transgender clownfish caused a stir in Oakland..."

May 25, 2011

"A 1-hour elementary school lesson on gender diversity featuring all-girl geckos and transgender clownfish caused a stir in Oakland..."

"... with conservative legal defense organizations questioning the legitimacy of the topic and providing legal counsel to parents who opposed the instruction. On Monday and today, Redwood Heights Elementary School students at every grade level were being introduced to the topic of gender diversity, with lesson plans tailored to each age group... 'That's a lot of variation in nature,' Gender Spectrum trainer, Joel Baum, told the students. ..."

116 comments:

Anonymous said...: Who wants to bet that those kids score under state and national norms in reading, arithmetic, and problem solving?

Anybody?; 5/25/11, 10:33 PM
RuyDiaz said...: Gender SPECTRUM? Talk about a bad analogy.; 5/25/11, 10:35 PM
RuyDiaz said...: After reading the article, we encounter:

1) Bad science. (The transition from the many ways of reproduction in nature to human homosexuality doesn't follow.)

2) Politically convenient misuse of science: who wants to be that the most common form of reproduction in nature, asexual reproduction, was not taught?

And those are the problems with the scientific part of the 'lesson'.

Now, let's go back to laughing at Harold Camping: backward Christians are funny, hah, hah.; 5/25/11, 10:40 PM
Joanna said...: "Really, the message behind this curriculum is there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls."

I remember that record. I don't remember the song about clownfish, though.; 5/25/11, 10:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Whatever.

If Texas schools must teach the political bullshit the Evangelical God created the earth from clay 7,000 years ago, then why can't Oakland schools teach this political bullshit?

Seems fair, doesn't it?

You can whine about it... but if you do, your whining will sound better when accompanied by a piano and a shrieking Edith.

...Girls were girls and men were men...; 5/25/11, 10:43 PM
traditionalguy said...: Today's level of public acceptance of the gender counter cultures du jour shows that the opinion leaders have an ease with living in a delusion. Male and female is all that there is and ever will be.If that statement makes you angry, then you are being loyal to a delusion.; 5/25/11, 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Julius -- Who except you and your pussy is whining?; 5/25/11, 10:44 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: While it IS a mistake to reason from nature on what is moral for humans, nonetheless nature is far more complicated than most people think it is. Even human culture is far more varied than most people can imagine.

People who think it that traditional gender roles are part of the "natural" order, or that homosexuality doesn't exist "in nature", are simply wrong.; 5/25/11, 10:46 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @traditionalguy:Male and female is all that there is and ever will be.

Oh, boy, are you in for a surprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reed_Frog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleistogamy; 5/25/11, 10:48 PM
RuyDiaz said...: People who think it that traditional gender roles are part of the "natural" order, or that homosexuality doesn't exist "in nature", are simply wrong.

Well:

1) "Traditional gender roles" is such a loaded, imprecise phrase, that I can't venture to know what you mean, let alone agree or disagree.

2) Homosexuality exists in nature (apart from human homosexuality.)

Now, feel free to return from the diversion and to the pseudoscience and abuse of power the article reports.; 5/25/11, 10:50 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: Because something exists in nature does not, per se, allow one to conclude that it is "natural". Nature, after all, sometimes produces a two-headed cow or a horse with 5 legs. No reasonable person would regard these cases as "normal".; 5/25/11, 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Seven Machos wrote...

Julius -- Who except you and your pussy is whining?

You can consider what I said to be a pre-emptive strike, intended to prevent all you commenting terrorists from unleashing your Whining of Mass Destruction.; 5/25/11, 10:56 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Math smath, English sminglish- the important thing is our students get the top scores on the gender identity tests.; 5/25/11, 10:56 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @RuyDiaz:"Traditional gender roles" is such a loaded, imprecise phrase, that I can't venture to know what you mean, let alone agree or disagree.

Well, you tell me, but the nurturing mother and the protector/provider father is what I was thinking of, and there are countless counterexamples to that even if we restrict ourselves to vertebrates.

The Oakland lesson to me smacks of scientism: kids will find out the incredible variety of sex in naturein a biology class if people like tradguy are willing to allow them to hear it.; 5/25/11, 10:57 PM
traditionalguy said...: Gabriel...Sorry. I thought we were discussing descendants of Adam that are called Man. Zoology is another area of study...unless you are saying that men are just animals.; 5/25/11, 10:59 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @mtrobertsattorney:Nature, after all, sometimes produces a two-headed cow or a horse with 5 legs. No reasonable person would regard these cases as "normal".

Let the circular reasoning begin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-pollination

Sorry, they're not all mutants.; 5/25/11, 11:00 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @tradguy:Gabriel...Sorry. I thought we were discussing descendants of Adam that are called Man. Zoology is another area of study...unless you are saying that men are just animals.

I'm sorry your Bronze Age fairy tales have the same factual basis as the Book of Mormon, but in fact humans ARE animals, though JUST animals is not something I said..; 5/25/11, 11:01 PM
Anonymous said...: There has been a strong taboo against homosexuality in human males in every society that has realized that dudes fucking other dudes in the ass causes bloody assholes, which tend to spread really bad diseases really quick. The fact that males of all sexual persuasions tend to enjoy multiple sexual partners whenever possible adds tremendously to the spread of disease.

End of story. They should teach that in Oakland elementary schools.; 5/25/11, 11:02 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @Seven Machos:There has been a strong taboo against homosexuality in human males in every society that has realized...

For every example you can give I bet I can give a counterexample.

In fact, our CURRENT society is a counterexample--male homosexuality is not taboo in America in 2011, and we know all about AIDS and the risks of anal sex.; 5/25/11, 11:07 PM
KCFleming said...: Those kids will grow up stupid, for lack of any real education, poor, for socialist crony capitalism, and enslaved by government debts they and their own kids can never hope to repay.

But they will be, some of them, more tolerant of crossdressing.; 5/25/11, 11:12 PM
Anonymous said...: male homosexuality is not taboo in America in 201

Male homosexuality is most certainly taboo in the United States outside of a few urban areas.

I do admit that the taboo is not as strong as it is in other places. This is because the use of condoms when ass-fucking greatly mitigates the problem of disease, which was what generated the taboo.

Compare the taboo against sex outside marriage. Same basic deal. Where birth control is freely available and effective, the taboo disappears.

Your better argument would be the acceptance of homosexuality in places like Kandahar or ancient Greece. I would argue that in those places the ass-fucking and disease connection never took root.; 5/25/11, 11:12 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @Seven Machos:Male homosexuality is most certainly taboo in the United States outside of a few urban areas.

If you dilute the meaning of "taboo" to "icky" or "repulsive", maybe, but if "taboo" means "taboo" (forbidden and abhorrent) then there is no taboo against male homosexuality in America in 2011.; 5/25/11, 11:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Gabriel -- You need to get out more.; 5/25/11, 11:17 PM
RuyDiaz said...: Gabriel_Hanna:

You may not familiar with Donald Brown's Human Universals:

Human Universals

About 200 of them, though there have been additions since the list was first published.; 5/25/11, 11:19 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @Seven Machos: Outside "urban America", people who attack, threaten, or harass gays are punished and censured just as they would be in "urban America". Our society's instituions protect gays from those who do not tolerate them. That's the opposite of "taboo".; 5/25/11, 11:19 PM
Palladian said...: Wow, it's rare that almost every commenter from every "side" of the issue (whatever the issue might be) is a complete and utter bloody asshole (bloody in the British sense).

From the tiresome pussy liberal appeals to science, to Seven Machos and his usual jockstrap-snapping, cudgel-wielding foul-mouthed-bore routine, it already stinks to high heaven in here.

To the science-appealing pussy liberals: human behavior, sexual or otherwise, needs no justification from nature or science. Stop trying to compare people to frogs or clownfish, it just makes you look pathetic and desperate. Human sexuality and human behavior justify themselves. End of story.

To the Bible-and/or-chest-thumping dullards: contemporary human behavior, sexual or otherwise, needs no justification from history. Tradition, in and of itself, is no automatic justification for human social/sexual behavior. Just because our semi-literate ancestors like to roast faggots on the grill doesn't recommend the continuance of the practice.

And Seven Machos: I know it's a common assumption of anus-obsessed fratboy types, but male homosexuality and anal sex do not always go hand-in-hand (or cock-in-ass, perhaps). From my extensive experience sleeping with straight/bi guys, I'm aware that you bitches tend to go straight for the butthole, but there's a whole spectrum of possibilities...

Bottom line [snicker]... dump the clownfish and the geckos, and try teaching the indentured public school students something useful like, I don't know, mathematics? English composition? Actual biology instead of feel-good biology?; 5/25/11, 11:20 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @RuyDiaz: Not denying that humans have traditional gender roles. All I'm saying is that the natural world exhibits a great deal of variety in what the roles of the biological sexes are. It is not inappropraite for children to learn that, but it is inappropriate to try to draw moral lessons about human behavior from that fact as the Oakland lessons appear to do. That is an abuse of science.; 5/25/11, 11:22 PM
coketown said...: Gabriel is a proud member of the Church of Dawkins: any mention of morality sends him into a reflexive tizzy in which he combs the taxonomical catalog to validate his worldview. I've never seen such a breathless and hamfisted reaction to others' opinions! Not even from knuckle-dragging Creationists.

But yes, let's build a moral code on the fact that reed fish are hermaphroditic. We can also incorporate gang rape among frogs into that moral code, too. War, as well, because chimps go to war and eat their enemies. Nature!; 5/25/11, 11:23 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @Palladian: Some people find "the truth is in the middle" to be annoying too. Verb. sap.; 5/25/11, 11:24 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @Coketown:But yes, let's build a moral code on the fact that reed fish are hermaphroditic.

You need to learn to read, and not just make things up and assume that other people think them.; 5/25/11, 11:25 PM
Skyler said...: Another reason why the government should not be in the business of education.; 5/25/11, 11:25 PM
Palladian said...: "Your better argument would be the acceptance of homosexuality in places like Kandahar or ancient Greece. I would argue that in those places the ass-fucking and disease connection never took root."

Homosexuality in Afghanistan and ancient Greece is/was almost always associated with either pederasty or with relationships of unequal station, usually an older, wealthy, powerful man and a young boy. Men of equal social status almost never become/became sexually involved; such relationships were as taboo as they are today outside of "urban America". Ancient Greece and modern (and ancient) Afghanistan aren't good "role models" for western homosexualists.

Ancient Greeks weren't into assfucking that much actually. Many of the depictions of male/male intercourse on Greek pottery depicts "intercrural" sex between older Greek men and boys or young, hot athletes.; 5/25/11, 11:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Palladian -- I am very pro-gay, just like I am very pro-having sex outside of marriage.

I am merely pointing out that the taboos against those things exist because of the negative consequences of the action.

It's real bad to have a baby out of wedlock (particularly if it's happening a lot). If two people have unprotected straight sex the right couple days, a baby will occur.

It's real bad to get venereal diseases (particularly if it's happening a lot). If someone goes around having unprotected anal sex with multiple partners, that person is quite likely to end up with a venereal disease, probably a serious one.

These truths are self-evident. There's nothing anti-gay about saying that unprotected anal sex leads to disease.; 5/25/11, 11:26 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @Coketown:

How do you get this

But yes, let's build a moral code on the fact that reed fish are hermaphroditic.

from this

but it is inappropriate to try to draw moral lessons about human behavior from that fact

and this

it IS a mistake to reason from nature on what is moral for humans?

Oh, you didn't, you made it up. Unable to read, as I said.; 5/25/11, 11:27 PM
Palladian said...: "Another reason why the government should not be in the business of education."

And I agree with Skyler, even though I know he hates faggots. This "diversity" shit is a complete waste of time and money and the mental resources of children who are probably too smart to fall for this shit anyway.; 5/25/11, 11:28 PM
RuyDiaz said...: @ Gabriel Hanna:

It is a gross abuse of science.

If you are going to teach children biology, you need to teach the basics and the important. What they are using in their ideological indoctrination plan, is neither basic nor important. (It is odd or queer (sorry for the pun), but it is not even particularly odd or queer. (Want something to develop the imagination; try insect societies.); 5/25/11, 11:29 PM
coketown said...: @Gabriel: You've made countless comments, in this thread and others (hermaphrodites seem to draw you from the woodwork), to the effect that human values are arbitrary constructs, and you use examples from nature to validate that fantasy. Maybe you could clarify what you really mean so people like me don't just make stuff up!; 5/25/11, 11:30 PM
JAL said...: These folks are serious DIYers with gender diversity.

"Parents keep child's gender secret."; 5/25/11, 11:31 PM
Carol_Herman said...: The marinating sewers of our faculty lounges doesn't stop at politics!

But it's a worthless education.

Just a way of keeping kids during the day, so that both parents can work outside the home.

It's good to remember that back in the 19th century (from 1800 to 1899), American didn't have fancy universities. To go to them, the wealthy had to send their kids to paris. Or london. Hey, and german was considered a scientific language!

Still, there's nothing like a good book. And, the ability to be able to read and write. Given that video games have gotten to be popular in "culture shocked europe" ... I think the future of chalk and blackboards is highly over-rated anyway.

Kids in school? They know how to dink out. How to let their minds wander.

Nature seems to provide peer groups, so kids can learn from other kids.; 5/25/11, 11:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Also, I realize that there's a lot you can do sexually as a gay male. But society -- risk-averse as it is -- sees things differently. Society sees -- or, better, believes -- that there is a much greater chance that two gay males will sooner rather than later end up ass-fucking. Thus, the strong taboo.

There is also a taboo against anal sex between males and females. It's not as strong, and likely never was. I'm not sure why. My guess would be the higher likelihood of monogamy. If two people are monogamous, they can ass-fuck to high heaven and nothing bad will happen (that affects society).; 5/25/11, 11:32 PM
Palladian said...: "These truths are self-evident. There's nothing anti-gay about saying that unprotected anal sex leads to disease."

You're right, but I also don't believe this was the main reason for the taboo against male homosexuality. I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

And I hope you don't mind me getting all bitchy and calling you a fratboy. It was necessary for my "I hate everyone" argument.

As I said, desperately searching the natural world for justifications of human behavior is silly; ultimately futile and completely unnecessary. Knowing that fish do weird things doesn't make me "feel better" about myself and my actions. I actually don't remember anything in my (1980s era) public education that was geared toward making students "feel better" about themselves. I just remember algebra, and a really cool 7th grade science teacher who took us on a field trip on a research boat sampling sediment layers in the Chesapeake bay.; 5/25/11, 11:35 PM
Palladian said...: "If two people are monogamous, they can ass-fuck to high heaven and nothing bad will happen"

But what about the bloody assholes you mentioned? Don't bitches have tighter, smaller assholes that are more likely to be torn by the thrusts of a thick, pulsating piece of man-meat?; 5/25/11, 11:37 PM
Synova said...: "While it IS a mistake to reason from nature on what is moral for humans,.."

I just had a flashback to a creation-science text for elementary that did just exactly that.

The *science* was actually good (I don't expect Gabriel to believe me) but when not addressing origins, science at that level is entirely objective. And the book did an excellent job.

What it also did that made me *nuts* was apply a lesson from nature about the nature of God. Thus... the flashback.

That's not just bad science, it's irresponsible, rotten doctrine.

"Now, let's go back to laughing at Harold Camping: backward Christians are funny, hah, hah."

I'm tempted to say, "For the win."; 5/25/11, 11:39 PM
Joanna said...: Bullying sucks. I'd be hard pressed to find an argument in favor of kids bullying. (Survival of the fittest, perhaps?)

It's been awhile since I've been on the playground, but it's my understanding that much bullying is rooted in violations of gender norms. People talk big about stopping bullying and, more generally, getting to the root of problems rather than offering bandaids. Well, here ya go. An attempt to get to the root of a problem.

Ultimately, I think this program was trying to speak to THAT. If not directly speaking to bullying, speaking to things found at the source of bullying these days.

You can agree or disagree with the controversial/political aspects. Since parents could pull their kids out for the AIDS talk, they certainly should have been granted the same for this one. But is the base lesson -- People are different. Different doesn't have to mean bad, gross, or scary. People are people. -- really that horrible?

As for the $, the $2000 (or however much it cost) is not going to make or break these kids' reading and math skills. C'mon. Would it really make a difference if the funds for this program were privately raised and donated by a (non-political) group? Is that the tipping point that would make it acceptable?; 5/25/11, 11:42 PM
RuyDiaz said...: About the taboo debate/incipient porno:

I think the universal has been either outright prohibition of human homosexuality. Sometimes some 'stuff' is allowed for certain people. Sometimes male homosexuality was allowed or required for certain people. But either outright prohibition or extensive regulation have been the norm.

(All the same, men so inclined have ignored the prohibition or evaded the regulations since there have been prohibition and regulations.); 5/25/11, 11:44 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Using science as an attempt to justify human sexual behavior is apt to backfire. It all depends on just how the scientific mustard is cut.

Once one sticks to mammalia, determinate heterosexuality becomes much more cut and dried. Many mammals exhibit bisexual behavior, especially when denied access to the opposite sex (e.g. cows will hump other cows if there's no bull around). However, fixed sexual preference for the same gender occurs in two mammalian species, sheep (about 6% of rams will not service ewes), and humans.

Notice two things: the lack of other primates among this list, and the fact that the two species that exhibit "fixed" homosexual behavior have been living in close proximity for thousands of years now.; 5/25/11, 11:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Palladian -- No question that males who have multiple sex partners with just one ass-fucking in the mix can spread a great deal of venereal disease. We straight men are hampered in two ways:

1. In the long term, women tend to be monogamizers.

2. Lots of women refuse to be ass-fucked in the first place.

Having said all this, one thing that maybe I haven't made as clear as I should is that condom usage while ass-fucking anyone, gay or straight, prevents venereal disease. Birth control in general prevents birth. Thus, in places where there is widespread use of condoms and birth control, we see the taboos against out-of-wedlock sex and gay sex considerably relaxed.

Technology is the best thing ever.; 5/25/11, 11:49 PM
RuyDiaz said...: As for the $, the $2000 (or however much it cost) is not going to make or break these kids' reading and math skills.

It is not the money, but the school time wasted on crappy 'educational programs' like this one.; 5/25/11, 11:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Palladian the Gay asked...

Don't bitches have tighter, smaller assholes that are more likely to be torn by the thrusts of a thick, pulsating piece of man-meat?

Researching that question, I came (he he he) to NoRestForTheAss.com.

Of course there are plenty of other places on the Internets to find a visual answer to your question, but I've gotta recharge a little before penetrating any deeper.; 5/25/11, 11:51 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Now, why are our schools tied with Mississippi's?; 5/25/11, 11:54 PM
RuyDiaz said...: Of course there are plenty of other places on the Internets to find a visual answer to your question

There are places like that on the internet? I had no idea. Next you are going to tell me that people record each other humping and let other people see it.; 5/25/11, 11:54 PM
Joanna said...: I actually don't remember anything in my (1980s era) public education that was geared toward making students "feel better" about themselves.

I remember a considerable amount of touchy-feely stuff in my 80s era public ed. Two examples:

1. Second grade. Once/week the class would list the positive qualities of one student, and everyone wrote cards to that student.

2. 6th grade. For 1/4 of the year, everyone took a class about social issues. That's where I learned the word "clique". We read about kids in crappy situations and talked about how to handle them. (Parents doing drugs, your friends are making a slambook, good/bad touch, etc.)

I don't think it really did much, but I think 6th grade is too late to begin that kind of discussion. The playground lessons were already too ingrained.

It is not the money, but the school time wasted on crappy 'educational programs' like this one.

Okay, so let's make it an optional after school program. Does that make it any better/worse?; 5/25/11, 11:54 PM
Michael K said...: How many of those kids can read ?; 5/25/11, 11:56 PM
RuyDiaz said...: Okay, so let's make it an optional after school program. Does that make it any better/worse?

That solves it. No child would voluntarily put through that crap.; 5/25/11, 11:56 PM
Palladian said...: "I remember a considerable amount of touchy-feely stuff in my 80s era public ed."

Hmm, maybe it was because I grew up in rural Pennsylvania, where I was one of the few boys who took both home economics and "industrial arts". I was just as happy cooking Maypo as I was casting an aluminum George Washington bust.; 5/25/11, 11:59 PM
Michael K said...: Maybe those kids would understand better if the lesson included homosexuality in prison.

Maybe they should include the study of rats that shows homosexuality increases with overcrowding the rat colony.; 5/25/11, 11:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I grew up in a small town in the 1980s and we didn't have any touchy-feely shit.

I hated shop.; 5/26/11, 12:02 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: So I had lunch with my friends at Racines which is a place near my home known for being gay-friendly for some reason that I do not understand. The food is not that good. Shortly after being seated another party takes a table nearby. They were four middle-aged couples got together. The odd thing about them was the men were dressed as women. Of course our attention was riveted to the table of eight women, four of them quite ugly. The men made no attempt to pass as real women. Their makeup was regrettable, their fashion choices were absurd, their mannerisms were masculine, all four made butt-ugly bitches with serious chips on their shoulders, while their apparently understanding wives were all attractive and feminine and lovely. This confounded us tremendously, we're usually not that stupefied by odd happenings. At our table we discussed why the men didn't at least try to look and behave as we imagined any self-respecting drag queen would do. Finally one in our group got us to understand we were asking the wrong questions, that it wasn't about any of that, it was about getting away with it, sort of like Halloween dress up in May. They were just proving they could go about in public shamelessly without bothering to do cross dressing well.

Apologies, this is the closest I got for a gender diversity story. Maybe had any of us had such a class we wouldn't have been so confused.; 5/26/11, 12:03 AM
RuyDiaz said...: I remember a considerable amount of touchy-feely stuff in my 80s era public ed.

I remember a lot of ineffective Communist propaganda from my 80's/90's public education in Cuba. The lessons were so preposterous they didn't take. (Did you guys know that you are a backward society compared to Cuban socialism.); 5/26/11, 12:03 AM
RuyDiaz said...: I hated shop.

I hated shop too. Though, in my defence, we never had materials, and the old tools were trying to kill us. Also hated technical drawing because of the 'pointless' neatness, and I wanted to learn math, not draw crap, damn it!

But I really hated English. Because, as I told one of my teachers in frustration: "why do I have to learn this anyway? It is not as if I'm ever gonna use it."; 5/26/11, 12:11 AM
Palladian said...: I loved shop class. I remember my 9th grade shop teacher, Mr Shervanick, who talked about Thomas Paine all the time and taught us how to use an offset printing press and how to bind books, as well as how to cast George Washington heads out of old aluminum cans.; 5/26/11, 12:59 AM
Anonymous said...: I wished I loved shop class. It is one of my goals in life to provide some way for my children to have mechanical skill. I have none.; 5/26/11, 1:04 AM
Anonymous said...: 1. No one here seems to be defending this as an admirable and proper subject for public school instruction. Well, is it?
2. The CA Proposition 8 proponents were right, it has begun: the teaching, in our public schools, that adult single-sex marriages are really cool and a worthwhile choice for all adults, and good for kids too.
3. Gender Spectrum trainer? C'mon. Because professional teachers don't want this reputation, the school hires some advocacy person who makes this their rice bowl. We've seen their ilk before: Diversity trainer, etc. Little Kevin Jennings wannabe's, extolling the virtues, techniques, and normalcy of diverse hedonistic teenage sex.; 5/26/11, 1:07 AM
Revenant said...: "Gender Spectrum trainer?"

That's hilarious.; 5/26/11, 1:09 AM
Joanna said...: Mr Shervanick sounds awesome. I liked my 7th grade shop class, especially power saws. That's my only shop class experience.

I wish I had taken autoshop in high school. I was too intimidated, and my free periods were already filled up with music and arts classes anyways. It sure would be nice to understand wtf is going on under the hood of my car.; 5/26/11, 1:13 AM
el polacko said...: it's a sad commentary that this has stirred up so much controversy and ranting about gay people and..ahem.."bloody assholes". i grew up in the midwest in the '50s (!) and i can recall learning about the clownfish..of course, i had a catholic education so maybe those priests were trying to 'indoctrinate' us...but i think it was just mostly a science class lesson about animal reproduction that included an illustration of the awesome diversity of god's creation.; 5/26/11, 1:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Polacko -- You talk of Catholic priests...and you want the talk of bloody assholes to stop? I think not, sir.; 5/26/11, 1:35 AM
Joanna said...: No one here seems to be defending this as an admirable and proper subject for public school instruction. Well, is it?

I'll raise my hand for this one.

I'll defend what was taught. I think Gender Studies is an admirable and proper subject for public school instruction. But I want other, competing ideas about gender to be taught alongside each other, to allow the children to discuss the theories and come to their own conclusion.

As is, it feels like indoctrination. Even if the topic is one you support, indoctrination is not the way to educate the youth.

wv: ednest. where ed schultz is gonna hideout, post slut-comment; 5/26/11, 1:36 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: 'That's a lot of variation in nature,' Gender Spectrum trainer, Joel Baum, told the students.

Gawddamnit, just once - just ONCE - I wish somebody would show these people all the variations in an ass kicking.

The spectrum is so wide it's amazing.; 5/26/11, 1:40 AM
el polacko said...: @YoungHegelian: bobono apes; 5/26/11, 1:44 AM
el polacko said...: @machos: thanks for the chuckle, but cute as i was back then, i couldn't get a priest to play with my weiner much less plow me from behind and, as far as i knew, the only reason they wanted me on my knees was to pray. better luck next lifetime i guess.; 5/26/11, 1:52 AM
Palladian said...: "Gawddamnit, just once - just ONCE - I wish somebody would show these people all the variations in an ass kicking."

I already knew them. I was openly gay in my rural high school and no one ever said a negative word to me, mostly because I made it clear that I wouldn't take any shit from anyone.

Our class president was a gay Jew. Of course, at that time the gay part wasn't known, probably not even to himself. But I knew. And I would have beat the crap out of anyone who messed with him, even though he wasn't my type. I was much more interested in the quarterback and his father, who was a gym teacher.; 5/26/11, 1:53 AM
Anonymous said...: A number of people from my smallish high school turned out gay. One guy was a good friend. He was strikingly handsome yet he never did nearly as good with the girls as he could have. The rest of us never put it quite together why then. In college, he became the president of one of the largest fraternities at the flagship state university.; 5/26/11, 1:57 AM
Ralph L said...: but it's my understanding that much bullying is rooted in violations of gender norms
No, the bullies are bloody assholes.; 5/26/11, 2:00 AM
Palladian said...: So many of the guys with whom I had my earliest sexual experiences turned out straight and married bitchy, ugly women.; 5/26/11, 2:03 AM
rhhardin said...: It will confuse them when they encounter the Paradise Lost cliffs notes

"[T]wo great sexes animate the world..."; 5/26/11, 2:05 AM
Ralph L said...: he became the president of one of the largest fraternities
That's because he was the one guy who had something besides pussy on his mind at parties, so he could actually think and act responsibly.; 5/26/11, 2:05 AM
Ralph L said...: So many guys marry bitchy women.; 5/26/11, 2:08 AM
Anonymous said...: My favorite comment to the article:

Won't this take time from the ebonics curriculum?

Fortunately, Oakland's schools already produce so many Rhodes Scholars that they have the time and money to spend on stuff like this, right?

Lessons on "all-girl geckos and transgender clownfish" are just so much junk science unless they explain the genetic mechanisms that give rise to such things ... like the fact that fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds don't have X and Y chromosomes, but mammals do. You think they'll explain that to the fourth-graders?; 5/26/11, 2:55 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Your better argument would be the acceptance of homosexuality in places like Kandahar or ancient Greece. I would argue that in those places the ass-fucking and disease connection never took root.

Glad you mentioned Afghanistan.

We have a lot of aerial surveillance of that country, and much of the population is stuck several millenia back in development. So, no surprise that the rustic tribesmen don't quite understand what is happening.

Apparently, the guys back in southern Nevada running the drones have a great time watching the tribesmen do their thing with their flocks. They don't quite get that just because they can't see that UAV flying around at night above them, that doesn't mean that the guys back here can't see them just fine.

I grew up in Colorado, and we used to say that Wyoming was where men were men, but the sheep were nervous. Well, that sure seems to be the case in rural Afghanistan right now.

So, to further 7's point, why the (continuing I think, outside of Afghanistan and Wyoming) taboo against bestiality? My guess, if 7's point is valid, is that some of those STDs crossed the species barrier that way (likely not HIV, which appears to have crossed when we ate our closest remaining genetic relatives).

So, how long until our schools start teaching that bestiality is also just fine. After all, it has been around as long as we have had flocks of potential partners.

Oh, and as for homo dogs, I gave a young male dog to a female friend of mine last year. She was looking for a lap dog, and this one is maybe 40 lbs so far, and hasn't quite stopped growing.

She was not temperamentally suited for raising a dog, not having the patience to train it. It is now with her grandsons, who range from 2 to 9. And it is still untrained.

So, these young boys daily see Tuxie riding the other (male) dog around the yard, pumping away, and don't quite get it, yet. And he humps everyone's leg, and again, they don't quite get it. Yet.

Quite humorous, at least for me, on the outside.; 5/26/11, 4:24 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: but it's my understanding that much bullying is rooted in violations of gender norms

No, the bullies are bloody assholes.

I should be facetious (after all that 7 has said) and suggest that the opposite is more the case, that the victims of the bullying are the ones with that ailment.

But to the main point, I don't know on the female side, but that surely is the case on the male side, that a lot of bullying revolves around bending of sexual norms. Though I do think there is some of that in girl world too.

Young adolescent males are naturally very insecure as to their sexuality. They haven't gotten any. They are not sure when and if they ever will. Etc. So, calling them girls, girlish, or even homos, is esp. effective as a form of bullying.

So, maybe the motives are fine with this form of "instruction". The problem is that the teachers are operating at an intellectual level, and the kids are operating at an emotional level, and doing so in their own world, where the teachers are only really peripheral.

And, yes, I think that even at those tender ages, at least as they near the end of elementary school, they can detect PC BS, recognize it for being such, and immediately ignore it. They know it because they understand at some point that they were not the fruit of a homosexual union, or, or of congress with the lower animals (in the case I mentioned before in Afghanistan).

Besides, if bullies aren't going to use the bullied feelings of sexual inadequacy against them, they will just find something else to bully them about or with. PC reeducation has never been, and never will be, the solution to bullying.

Bullying is just one of those things that most of us have to learn to deal with. It doesn't stop when we exit puberty. Rather, we face it for the rest of our lives, because it works. I probably see it more than most, because I work in a field where there are lot of them. And some of them are very, very good at it. Again, because it works. It can make you money. A lot of money. And, if you haven't learned how to deal with bullies on a personal level, all by yourself, by the time you become an adult, they will eat you alive, if you find yourself near one of them. Which I probably do at least once a week.

So, much better if they taught bully proofing, which is what my kid learned it their private school, when bullied in the 3rd or 4th grade. Yes, they also worked with the bully. But that wouldn't have helped with the next bully, or the one after that, that my kid was going to face in life. Again, just one more of those things that is taught much better in many private schools (because many, if not most, parents who care about their kids enough to pay private school tuition are not going to keep their kids in an environment where bullying is rampant).; 5/26/11, 5:01 AM
edutcher said...: The dhimmis of San Fiasco will cave to anybody over anything.

This "instruction" exists only to please the kind of people who make up the festival (or whatever it is) in The Castro (if you don't know what it is, there are picture on Zombietime (but only for the strong of stomach)) and it's one step removed from the idiots in Canada trying to raise a "genderless" child.

Your average 4th or 5th grader has no interest in "gender", especially anyone else's.; 5/26/11, 5:39 AM
Jose_K said...: Where is Penn when you nedd him to call:b..; 5/26/11, 5:40 AM
ricpic said...: The only hope is to smash the hateful homos of the state.; 5/26/11, 5:41 AM
Toad Trend said...: "At the end of the lesson, fourth-grader Desmond Pare thought that was no big deal."

Because, fourth graders (and liberal overlords) know whats best for kids.

Ridiculous.; 5/26/11, 6:18 AM
Fen said...: All this, but not a single class teaching children how to safely handle a firearm.; 5/26/11, 6:25 AM
KCFleming said...: Any school system with the time to teach this claptrap has far too much money.; 5/26/11, 6:44 AM
Paco Wové said...: I wonder if anyone teaches them about the naturalistic fallacy at the same time.; 5/26/11, 7:05 AM
Paco Wové said...: Because you can find examples of all kinds of behaviors in "nature", a lot of which would be abhorrent in any human society. Humans have cherry-picked a tiny subset of "natural" behaviors to consider 'moral' and 'lawful' (varies from society to society, of course). Whether that tiny subset is purely arbitrary, or based on some sort of coherent logic, is open for debate, of course.; 5/26/11, 7:08 AM
KCFleming said...: Yes, and thus shouldn't the teachers let the students discover for themselves whether cheating on tests, bullying, theft, and murder are not also part of the wide 'variation that exists in nature'?; 5/26/11, 7:22 AM
Lincolntf said...: These kids will grow up knowing all about trannies, fisting and the quickest, easiest way to get an abortion without their parents finding out.
Math, history, science, etc.? That shit's just for dead white men.; 5/26/11, 7:30 AM
Sal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/26/11, 7:37 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Lincoln:
Since the librul loons who push these programs are wealth re-distributors like Obama, why would a kid need any job skills?; 5/26/11, 7:51 AM
Fen said...: And some animals eat their young.

When's *that* going to be on the Equivalency Lecture circuit?

Because if animals do it, its permitted, right?; 5/26/11, 7:56 AM
Fred4Pres said...: How about they get the three "r"s down first.; 5/26/11, 8:02 AM
Tank said...: Great. In an effort to pander to the .3% of other, let's confuse the other 99.7% about their gender. This is what kids need in school.; 5/26/11, 8:08 AM
Lincolntf said...: It's ridiculous. Some years ago I thumbed through my niece and nephew's textbooks (5-7 grade, MA). They were just as bad as all the horror stories had led me to believe. Half a page on Abraham Lincoln, a full chapter on the AFL-CIO. The only picture in the WWII section was of a bombed out Hiroshima. The formation of the U.N. is what ended WW II, by the way. I did not know that.
I've got a new batch of nephews coming along (2nd grade, so it'll be a while) in suburban Atlanta. I wonder what gems I'll find in their books.; 5/26/11, 8:10 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: ...

So if an animal somewhere does something then it's OK?

Praying mantises biting the heads off their mates? Those wasps that lay eggs in live spiders? All manner of violence done to other animals? It's all OK for people?

We invented society because nature is a nasty place. It's not a place to go for guidance.; 5/26/11, 8:16 AM
Henry said...: My daughter learned about gender diversity on Monday. On Saturday, with her grandma, she bought a fishtank and two bettas. They sold her two female bettas because male bettas are aggressive and territorial. Male bettas will fight until only one is left. Not so female bettas my daughter was told.

Monday morning, one of her female bettas was swimming sideways with most of its fins eaten off. I put it out of its misery.

Thanks for the butch betta, fish store.

* * *

Really, it wrenched my heart to see her so upset. If there's a life lesson to be learned it is that nature is red in tooth and claw. Wild animals don't behave as described. Let the kids feed the clownfish to the geckos. Then they'll actually learn something about nature.; 5/26/11, 8:26 AM
Henry said...: Did they bring in a monkey to show that it had hairy palms? Science!; 5/26/11, 8:30 AM
Sal said...: They sold her two female bettas because male bettas are aggressive and territorial.

I think it's the other way 'round. My wife had a male and female. The female promptly ate the fins off of the male.; 5/26/11, 8:34 AM
KCFleming said...: "I think it's the other way 'round."

Indeed. I have 5 sisters.

And no fins.; 5/26/11, 8:37 AM
test said...: Face facts. Educrats prefer pushing a political agenda to teaching kids math and science. It's easy to teach kids liberalism is wonderful. Keeping them stupid prevents them from realizing their policies never actually advance their stated goals. It's win-win.; 5/26/11, 8:46 AM
Henry said...: "I think it's the other way 'round."

Well, whatever we have now, it's not getting any friends.; 5/26/11, 8:56 AM
Stephen A. Meigs said...: I doubt they'll discuss this letter to Charles Darwin when discussing justice in animal societies.; 5/26/11, 9:05 AM
erictrimmer said...: Now that so many school districts are in debt, it would be a good time to run for school board on a slash and burn platform.; 5/26/11, 9:13 AM
Skyler said...: Palladian claimed, "And I agree with Skyler, even though I know he hates faggots."

When did I ever use that word? When did I ever express hatred? Disagreeing with a political agenda and recognizing that homosexuality is morally wrong does not imply hatred. Drinking too much is morally wrong also, but I don't hate alcoholics.

Get off your one track.; 5/26/11, 9:28 AM
Salamandyr said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/26/11, 9:32 AM
Salamandyr said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/26/11, 9:33 AM
Phil 314 said...: Julius;
Seems fair, doesn't it?

I just want to know who's keeping score.; 5/26/11, 10:20 AM
Phil 314 said...: Boy in class thinking:

I'm not a girl stuck in a boy's body; I'm a fish!; 5/26/11, 10:22 AM
Phil 314 said...: And I'm wondering if, in an effort to make their disabled class mates more comfortable, they had several graphic films on how predators prey on the weak, the lame and the small (as in children)

Nature can teach us a lot.; 5/26/11, 11:31 AM
Phil 314 said...: And how about a film on the mating habits of preying mantis, so as to prepare their young female students on future attitudes re: husbands/mates.; 5/26/11, 11:32 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: This makes me worry about homeschooling my children. Look at the rigorous academics they will be missing out on at school!; 5/26/11, 2:57 PM
n.n said...: If we are to be completely faithful to the natural order, then we must normalize rape and other forms of involuntary exploitation.

We could also judge the behavior by its contribution to increasing the fitness of our species. In that regard, it is completely without merit. Not only does homosexual behavior not promote the viability of our species, but individuals, who engage in this behavior, consume limited resources which would otherwise be available to productive members of humanity.

On the other hand, since homosexual behavior engaged by consenting adults is entirely a voluntary act, and as such is not comparable to murder, rape, and other forms of involuntary exploitation, it can be tolerated by society. However, there is no valid reason to otherwise normalize this deviant behavior.

We can respect the individuals, and tolerate their behavior, without normalizing their actions.

There are other elements of the natural order which could also be normalized, but I don't think most people would accept crushing the skull and obliterating the brain matter of humans for matters of convenience.

Oh, wait, there are people who are seeking to normalize sacrifice of virginal human life (i.e., abortion). I wonder if they are the same people who advocate for normalizing other deviant behaviors in compliance with the natural order.; 5/26/11, 5:37 PM
ken in tx said...: We have two Boston Terriers, about eight years old. They are litter mates, one male and one female. Tonight we had a mild thunderstorm and their reaction reminded of the difference between males and females. At the first peal of thunder, the female jumped in my lap and shivered, obviously expecting me to protect her. The male sidled up to me but did not jump in my lap even though I invited him. Instead he glared around with his eyes wide and snorting at the thunder. He seemed to be saying he was there to stand beside me and help defend the pack. He is a brave dog, he does not run away from gun fire or fireworks, he runs toward them.

I have heard it said, about a despicable man, that he has all the qualities of a dog except loyalty and bravery. My dogs have those qualities and I love them, both male and female.; 5/26/11, 8:15 PM