Georgia school board fires teacher for reading a book to students about gender identity
Georgia school board fires teacher for reading a book to students about gender identity
A Georgia school board has voted to fire a teacher after officials said she improperly read a book on gender fluidity to her fifth grade class.
A Georgia school board voted along party lines Thursday to fire a teacher after officials said she improperly read a book on gender fluidity to her fifth grade class.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't care what you feel, if the parents tell you "don't read that to my kid" and you do it anyway, you get what you get.
No genuinely, 100%, actually, fuck that. Forget gender, lgbt, and all that for a moment. In a very general sense, a teacher has a duty to society to challenge children and teach them to be better people. Sometimes that will clash with the bigotry and racism held by their parents, and that's a good thing. The moment we prevent teachers from trying to make a better world is the day our society ends.
Until the pendulum swings, like it always does, and the right wing grabs hold of all of these tools that the left has created. And then you'll be told that you have no choice regarding the changes they will make. It's best to leave that authority with parents.
What in the country fried fuck are you talking about? Do you honestly believe that conservative teachers aren't already doing this? There is no pendulum. Conservatives attempt every trick they can come up with to sneak their ideology into classrooms.
So don't play their games. Get the people on your side, instead of trying to get around them.
Tell that to the right.
in 2020 51.31% of the popular vote went to "the left" and 46.85% to "the right".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Results
That 81 million and 74 million. Sometimes it feels like both halves are pretending the the other half is all crazy people. So you're saying that we should do something because the other side does it too.. But if the other side is crazy, why do we emulate them?
Oh no, God forbid the right gets a hold of checks notes gender fluidity.
Everything is a tool to authoritarians, it doesn't mean we should stop making tools.
...yes it does?
so what you're saying is that everything's fucked, lets give up?
No, let's move ahead carefully to not fall over and slide further back down the hill.
Don’t teach my kids reading!
Don’t learn my childrens ‘bout no demonic algebra.
Don’t read that evil evolution book to my offspring.
I mean, have you seen the symbols they use in math? It's obviously a demon summoning. No kid of mine will learn about librul irrational numbers. /s
But naw, that's what they sound like. They want to pick and choose facts to teach their kids. They might not be going after math symbols this time, but they're still anti-reality. Parents can have some leeway in how to raise their kids, but they don't get to choose to keep their kids ignorant of reality. Well, unless they live in Georgia apparently. Or Florida. Or one of several other states that have done similar and just coincidentally happen to be red states.
Full of nuance. Love it!
It doesn't matter how backwards you think it is, the parents have the authority. If you want the kids to start learning a topic, get the parents to agree.
Oh, my bad. I didn’t realize the parents were all experts in education and also made the rules and could even change reality to fit their whims.
I hate it when people try to change reality to fit their whims.
Says the person doing exactly that.
Like it or not, parents don't own children, nor do they have an absolute authority over them.
If parents abuse or neglect their child (and yes, depriving them of an education is both) then the other responsible adults in that's child's life have not only every right, but the absolute responsibility, to override the abusive parents' instructions or demands, and intervene in the child's best interest.
Hey now! You stop it with that reasonable speak! That isn’t allowed on the internet.
Then take the next step and vote to get those kids taken away, if you think it's that much harm.
jesus tapdancing christ, just say you think parents should control every aspect of their child’s lives including everything they THINK and HEAR.
Child disagrees with parents? Fuck em, parents are always right. Always. Right?
All I'm saying is that if you want the government to parent the kid, then have the government parent the kid full time.
one of the man benefits of public education are having the kids taught by people who actually know what they are teaching, rather than random parents who think they know. yeah, its not perfect, but parents generally make worse teachers than, ya know, trained teachers.
its classic micromanagement of the kid. let go
Conservatives believe that their children are their property. Or a close analog thereof.
So you teaching their kid something they don't want the kid to know is treated like you're damaging "their stuff".
Conservatives are all about protecting property, even when said property is actually a person who might not want their "protection".
I'm very pro public schools. I'm only saying that parents must have authority over schools when it comes to their kids.
You contradict yourself.
No I mean what I say.
You mean what you say, but don't understand it. So you contradict yourself.
Two things can be true. Reading sure is tough!
I bet it is.
It takes a village to raise a child, for good reason.
That's some absolute nonsense. I shouldn't have to rely on other parents for my kid to be able to learn certain things in school. They don't like it, they can pull their kid from the class during that instruction. This whole thing of "I don't want it, so no one gets it" is absolute bullshit.
If that teacher tried to teach creationism against school rules it would be the same exact thing, but you'd feel different about it.
Parents have the option of homeschooling their kids. That's them exercising their authority. But public school curriculum should be decided by an apolitical body that follows evidence based practices. Don't like it as a parent? Then homeschool.
I don't disagree.
Try getting a majority of parents to agree to your opinion first.
I don't have one. I'm just saying that if it's not the curriculum then it shouldn't be taught. But if you want it to be taught then you need to change the curriculum, and if you want to do that, then you need the parents to be on board. So, my assumption is that the parents in that community are against this topic being taught to their kids. It doesn't matter what the topic is. A teacher just choosing to do read books on topics that the parents may believe their kids are not ready for is wrong.
Did you read any required books in school? Did you parents have to fill out a form agreeing to those books? If not, then maybe "you need the parents to be on board" is a bullshit excuse.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that parents should be on the board. Although maybe some should? I don't really care.
What I'm saying is that in the real world, I hope, the people have influence on what their government does. So, when the government does something, like add something to school curriculum, the people can be involved. That's why we vote for things. That's the parental influence on schools that I'm referring to.
It's not parents' job to dictate school curricula. All these "PaReNtS' rIgHtS" bills are bullshit pandering to people afraid of their own shadows. They can all take a long walk off a short pier.
Ok, but was it in the curriculum? Because if not then the teacher wants doing her job.
Personal responsibility for all, if you don't like the public system teaching publically accepted science of psychology and biology pay for your own schooling then.
Doesn't sound like that book was part of the psychology or biology curriculum.
if you cant handle your child being taught reality, then maybe teach them your self? you can home school.
Gender theory isn't fact. It's theory. It's literally right in the name. The problem is teaching theory as fact, and it should be reasonable for parents to challenge what is clearly anti-science.
Hopefully we can get anti-science ideas like germ theory, atomic theory, etc out of schools soon too.
Germ theory hasn't been a theory for a century now. Germs are proven to exist.
Atomic theory hasn't been a theory for decades. It's proven. We can literally view atoms in electron microscopes now.
I don't think you understand how science works.
You don't understand the scientific definition of theory.
Science: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Lay usage: an unproved assumption : conjecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
The germ theory of disease is the currently accepted scientific theory for many diseases. It states that microorganisms known as pathogens or "germs" can cause disease.
Germ theory is not a theory that germs exist.
"It's litterally right in the name..."
I don't think you understand how science works.
ok lol'd, that was good troll
Gravity is a theory.
You don't know what "theory" means. It doesn't mean "a hunch".
If it was part of the curriculum then it's one thing. But if it was a choice made by this one teacher against the wishes of the people who wrote the curriculum then it's right that they got fired.
Independent thought IS overrated after all. Many things in society are tamped down to some lowest common denominator level to placate the masses and be palatable to the broadest cross segment. Emerging ideas though need discussion and facts being what they are the adults in the room are much more likely to be fixed in their ways and unwilling to acknowledge anything that goes against their 'good old days' perceptions of right and wrong.
I happen to be one of those adults and understand that some of the lenses I view things through are tinged by the experiences and perspectives around me while growing up. Those things though are not the current reality that we have to work within. I may not agree with every notion that my kids bring forth, but they're welcome to challenge me on it to explain their point. If you don't allow kids the information to make a detemination of their own however then the future world suffers for it.
I don't disagree with you. But, there's a reason I don't show my toddler violent movies. I don't think that the kid is old enough to see that. Also, a 4 year old doesn't need to know what World War 2 was. I'm not saying that it directly compares to this topic but I'm saying that a parent has to make choices of what I fo their child can consume based on what they think their child is ready for. So, if there's a topic that I don't think my kid is ready for now, and the school tells me that they're not going to cover it now, then if a random teacher goes against that, I'll have a problem with it. As you should.
The way around that around here is a parental permission slip if there is any question on a topic being age appropriate. Affirmative rejection of education by the parent is recordable and should be actionable by society if at egregious enough levels where it's seen as restricting a proper education.
I have a problem with your logic. Because in that world the status quo would never change and people would still be taught that homosexuality is a mental disorder. And I feel as though you would not agree with that.
First, parental permission slip. I'm actually against a system that constantly checks with parents regarding every little thing. I'm just saying that parents already have an influence as the public on what the curriculum is. So, if there's a topic you want, but is missing from it, or if the topic is present and you don't like it, then go to the school board. Don't insert, or remove content on a whim. And if the curriculum is not changed and you're not willing to deal with that, then private or home schooling is an option. So I don't think permission slips are necessary.
"Affirmative rejection of education by the parent is recordable..." How do you define "rejection" and "education"? And how is that being recorded? People had to reject a lot of education in order for the civil rights movement to get any traction. I wonder what kind of things we were being taught about women before they were allowed in schools. The problem I have with the lack of definition here is that you follow it up with "...and should be actionable by society..." because that means there's legal action that can be taken based on those loose definitions. And the rest of "...if at egregious enough levels where it’s seen as restricting a proper education." doesn't clarify it at all.
The "good guys" aren't going to be in charge forever. And we need to make sure that we don't make it easy for the "bad guys".
The notion of the slips as I've seen them implemented is as such:
In X grade we will have education on Y topic which has some measure of content that parents may find questionable for their children. If you object to this then please advise us in writing (through whatever means the school prefers) and we will have them placed in an alternative class dring that time.
If the parent rejects the class then it will be presumed they will attend the class the next year/semester, if it is rejected again at that time then there needs to be some intervention to have a discussion to identify a specific cause. That could include school counselers, social services or whomever else is required to ensure the kids get a comprehensive education in accordance with the established modern standards.
Parental interests should be noted, but not the exclusive dictation of what information is available to a kid. Those who look to restrict access to information are almost universally going to be doing so because they're afraid that their own version of things is going to be seen as wrong, usually for good reason. Ignorance is bred in isolation through unopposed repetition of opinions stated as facts.
Helping shape curriculum is distinct from the choice to engage with it at any given point and not mutually exclusive. Arguing for the exclusion of information is almost always bad, arguing for the inclusion of it is less often bad but needs to be backed by sound logic and science.
I'm reading what you wrote and I disagree with a lot of it, but I feel like our disagreement runs deeper into something more fundamental. I'm just not sure what it is. To my logic, it's obvious that this kind of centralized influence on childhood development is a bad idea because of how easily it can fall into the wrong hands. The classic "But what about when the bad guys win an election?" comes to mind. And I don't know if that's just not a concern, or is it not even a consideration for you? To me it's all about the net-positive or net-negative. And to me, the system you propose has a net-negative impact on society.
I assume that there will be some measure of eternal back and forth as one side or the other fights to have their side expressed, but that given ready access to information there is an inevitable tendancy for progressive ideals to become adopted as the norm.
Consider the major advances over the past 200 years in society, women's suffrage, civil rights, the generalized acceptance of LGBT rights, etc. Im the early 1900s it was the norm to say interracial couples where immoral, now to publically say so would have you in a virtual pillory. When I was young gay jokes where commonplace and to be gay was used as an insult, now I'm here arguing that free discussion of such as being good science and should be valid public education material. Short of extrordinary efforts at repression those kinds of advancements are not going to be reverted. The very fact that I even can have such a discussion with people across the globe at leisure helps ensure that.
There's a solid reason why urban centers tend to have a more liberal bend to them in that the common exposure to alternate ideas, particularly at a young age, lends itself to acceptance of those ideas on their merits.
I don't disagree that progressive ideas tend to be accepted as time goes on and that the "left" tends to be the main driving force behind them. However I also don't think that the people that are on the left or right are inherently different. They believe different things and act on those beliefs, but underneath that there's a common biological limitation of being human with a human brain. And I don't think that we humans are as smart as we think. So, even the good side needs to have a limit on its power. Every government thinks they are the good guys. Because of that I fundamentally oppose creating systems where power is centralized in "the few".
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
-Yah