Sexual Orientation Should NOT Be Discussed in Elementary Schools | Colorado State University
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ค. 2024
- The role elementary school teachers should play in sex education has become an increasingly important issue. The complexity of the topic was on display at the University of Colorado when four participants engaged the claim, “Sexual orientation should not be discussed in elementary schools.”
Issues of concern in this conversation include parental involvement, curriculum transparency, protecting the sexual naiveté of children, minors being educated about sexual abuse through sex education, and acknowledgment of gay people in society. An interesting point considered was whether sex education can have any influence on a child's sexual orientation.
This conversation took place on April 26, 2022 at Colorado State University Fort Collins.
⸺SUPPORT MY WORK⸺
Newsletter | boghossian.substack.com/
Donate | www.nationalprogressalliance....
⸺LINKS⸺
Website | peterboghossian.com/
National Progress Alliance | www.nationalprogressalliance....
Resignation Letter | peterboghossian.com/my-resign...
⸺BOOKS⸺
“How To Have Impossible Conversations” | www.amazon.com/dp/0738285323/...
“A Manual For Creating Atheists” | www.amazon.com/Manual-Creatin...
⸺SOCIAL MEDIA⸺
Twitter | / peterboghossian
Instagram | / peter.boghossian
TikTok | / peterboghossian
All Socials | linktr.ee/peterboghossian
__________
Chapters
0:00 Intro
0:56 Strongly Agree w/claim
2:00 Agree w/claim
2:50 Strongly Disagree w/claim
3:47 Participants further discuss their positions
12:10 What would it take for you to move to a different line?
24:20 Wrap Up
#peterboghossian #coloradostateuniversity #sexualorientation
I’m gay. I’ve taught high school for a decade now. And not ONE of my students knows I’m gay. When I’m asked if I’m married, I say yes and move on. Literally, I redirect the conversation to the topic at hand: the content I’m teaching.
Also, you don’t need to discuss sexual orientation in elementary school. I have nieces and nephews who are 3-9. They see me and my husband, and understand we’re a family like their own parents. I’ve never had the need to sit all 5 of them and explain a thing, and neither have their parents. I ask my siblings if they’ve ever had to explain anything to their kids, and no explanation was needed. The kids simply ask: “when are uncle M and uncle A coming over? I miss them.”
That’s it. No need for classrooms covered in gay paraphernalia. No need for rainbow flags everywhere. No need for pronoun pins… all of this stuff is deeply disturbing.
Well said. Straight people don't go around telling everyone about their sexuality, why should gay people. In 90% of daily life sexuality is irrelevant.
This is the way
Thank you. Simple.
Exactly
I agree with you...I also think that the rainbow stuff everywhere is because companies want more ppl consuming their products and I hate it because lets just act like rainbows come after rain and that's it
This is a thing of beauty. When people say "safe space", this is what I imagine it SHOULD look like. People allowed to have their own opinions and discuss them without being shunned. More of this, please.
I couldn’t agree more!! A true “safe space” is one in which people are allowed to be WRONG, change their mind, admit ignorance, and not be judged by their immutable qualities like race/class/gender/orientation.
I think safe space is not necessarily the best way to describe this, this would be more like a free speech space.
@@sovl2659 freedom of speech is technically protected by law in all spaces in the US. But the law doesn't protect people from ridicule or other negative consequences for using certain speech. So often, people are self censoring now-a-days because they fear of backlash for ideas they hold that seemed pretty normal, even just a couple years ago.
For people to come to some sort of consensus (or at least understanding) on topics, they need to be able to feel safe enough to express their views. IMO, it's the best way to advance. This video was a great example of what I think a safe space should be because the participants had polar opposite views and yet the conversation never developed into name calling or personal attacks and people left with a better understanding the other side's opinion.
@@cjlb49 I think that calling this a safe space is not quite accurate, the exercise is great nonetheless, Jordan Peterson emphasize from time to time the importance of a civilized space for debate in opposition of safe spaces which are generally defined as places where people prevent the flow of opposing ideas/arguments/experiences that can/could be considered as harmful.
I think that in this particular discussion definition is the key to reach a better understanding of why is important to protect freedom of speech.
@@sovl2659 to be clear, I think the idea of having safe spaces is ridiculous, because, as you state, they are typically places where debate goes to die. And yes, I agree with you that what is happening here is probably not what takes place in a typical safe space. All I mean is places where diverse and controversial opinions are allowed to be expressed and discussed without fear of repercussion is what I think a safe space "should" be.
I like how he promotes discussion and debate in schools. Universities should be encouraging this and I'm glad my university did. It needs to be ok to share and discuss ideas with ppl with different views.
What a joke as question. They should discuss it when they have sex education class not before then. Try to discuss about sexual conduct with kids when they still doing plus and minus. It’s like asking should kids vote or will you let them vote.
Thanks, Nux. It’s amazing this exercise
is viewed as controversial.
@@not4younot4you70 audience members generate and select questions. This is what they wanted to discuss.
@@drpeterboghossian why would any adult want to discuss sexual orientation to young kids that’s are in first grade? They just start learning basic fundamentals. For safety? Don’t give me that nonsense. Most parent tell their kids if someone touch you here or their you tell them no or they have to tell the parents. Anything about sex should be consent by parent, and by the way it’s the law and protocol from school as well. Bunch of people open their mind too unreasonable discussion. There are thing you should not discuss to kids especially young kids in pre k or just starting Elementary. Wtf is wrong with you people. Just let kids be kids open their mind to all this political bullshit. The 99% catering to the one percent. Just because they are different.
@@not4younot4you70 Family dynamics are taught at a young age. Brother, sister cousin. Family with 1 dad, dad and mom, 2 moms. Depends on what information is presented for what age. We have to sign off on all sex education instruction and are informed of the content so we can educate at home.
The burden of progress should not be placed on children. The burden of explaining deeply personal issues to children should be totally on the parents. If you want to reach kids, convince their parents. Sneaking behind parent's back is NOT the way to build trust.
Parents were hardly mentioned in this discussion at all. Scary.
Thanks. This is possibly the sanest thing I have ever read.
What 'progress'??
@@notapplicable6971 That’s because this community wants to indoctrinate our children at early age’s so they grow up accepting their lifestyle!
@@relaxingsounds1386 As humans advance, we teach more complex topics earlier and earlier. We’re going to have to teach it, or they’ll learn from porm.
There is a way to formulate the words to make it teachable, we just don’t trust strangers to figure it out
My favorite and best teacher I remember is my 3rd grade teacher. I found out later in life that he was gay. He NEVER brought his sexuality in the classroom and had no reason to. Im a straight, married man and would never discriminate against him because of who he chooses to love. But I had straight teachers who gossiped about their sex life and myself as well as the other students thought is was super weird and offputting. What the heck are these adults thinking???
Heterosexual or homosexuel, the adults shouldn't be discussing it with the children. That is confusing either way. 😕 Glad you had a good example of how to carry yourself and sorry you had a bad example.
Exactly!
I don't know what year you were in 3rd grade or where you went to school but the fact that straight teachers felt they could be freely discuss such things and the gay teacher did not, points in the direction of social acceptability of one group over another.
Some kids live with a grandparent, some kids are adopted, some kids have a single parents. Some kids have 2 moms. Teaching kids about possible lifestyles or social situations, has nothing to do with discussing sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation doesnt need to be discussed to kids who dont know what sex is.
I was about to post the exact same thing! Super agree. There is no problem just saying those things.
Yes, this exactly. You can teach children that some people have two mommies or two daddies and leave it at that. My son has never asked “oh really? Where do they put their ‘you know what’s?’” And one day that topic might arise and I’ll gladly explain it, the same way I will explain heterosexual sex.
@@kristinavee1012 I think the point was to teach them about feelings and not couples. Essentially make room for a gay boy to ask another boy out, and have the other boy not go "Creepy! What kind of freak are you?" and instead say "Oh you are gay. Sorry, but I'm not. Thanks for asking me out.". Just the simple thing of making kids dare express their love and likes, without worrying about "Is there something wrong with me?".
We shouldn't teach alternate lifestyles at all.
@@CurliFox it's not a lifestyle, because people choose lifestyles. No one chooses their sexuality
The knowledge just came naturally to me as I lived life. It was never discussed when I was in elementary school and I was already taught to respect and accept those who are different from me.
This is natural socialisation, there are those that argue tolerance has to be taught through indoctrination
@@chrisbfreelance what makes it indoctrination tho? Or is it indoctrination because you don't agree with the approach? I think indoctrination is a heavy word
That's your experience tho, you had good parents however some kids don't. I have heard and seen many kids who grow up with parents that teach then how some people have a wrong way of living, just like some kids learn the racism from their homes, where do you think it comes from?
Have you ever heard the boys in your school call each other gay as a mocking way?
@@YoureRightIThink boys will never stop calling each other gay in a negative way, it is the adolescence of childish language, adult women call men gay in a derogatory fasion if they feel shunned by a man, so your arguement is a strawman case. Yes, some children have negative influences, but the second you persue a career to speak to children about sexuality, you are in fact a predator, if you don't agree than why not take a random childless guy from the park an ask him to talk to you infant boy about gay relations.... you wouldn't, but the fact someone dedicated several years of their life to position themselves to be able to do that is some how a good thing to you????
@@YoureRightIThink I subscribe to the belief that there are people who have a "wrong way of living". That does not mean that I agree with speaking derogatorily towards them or acts of violence. I believe in respect, compassion, reason, truth and being the change you want to see. People will reject the soundest of logic if not shown love(the action and the sentiment). There might be a story behind everyone's misdeeds and unhealthy lifestyles, but that doesn't justify, excuse, make it good. You may not have asserted or rejected any of these things, I just wanted to make this statement.
Your ability to force people to clarify their boundaries & then defend or flex them through the right questioning has really grown. You've become far better at subverting your own bias & coming up with valid clarifications or challenges from either side of an issue.
Seriously, keep it up! Being present while setting aside your own biases as much as you can is the best role you can have for these discussion. Thank you for nailing it!
NO. Sexual orientation is developed privately, automatically, without outside manipulation and interference.
Some people are born with proclivities to fall in love with drugs. It doesn't mean that person is a "drug addict". Just because someone has pe in the bum doesn't mean they are gay. You aren't the behaviors you see drawn to. You are more than that. The choice to give in to urges does not mean your whole identity is based around you giving into an urge or desire. Whether it be with sex or drugs or alcohol. Being gay is a choice. Being attracted to men, for me was not a choice. I was exposed to a lot of sexual pornography and perverted stuff at a very young age. I was attracted to men on and off for years. Only when I found Jesus did I completely have thst feeling fleet away from me. I never acted on it. And sometimes I would have a hard time getting itnup for girls. But I literally never have that problem anymore and I have zero attraction to men now. Acting on the urge would have rewired my brain chemistry just like doing drugs. After learning enough about brain chemistry I know thst choices and actions create pathways to pleasure or despair in the brain. If I was told "oh you're gay, be yourself, give in, etc...", i could have made choices that would have made it even more difficult for me to live a normal life. It was difficult enough to overcome my childhood experiences, but if I gave into same sex practice my my own choice I would have started to like it and then I would be another statistic of mental health and suicide and stds. It's the same story. There is enough science out to prove that sexual experiences atbyoung ages shape our minds and our pathways in our brain. The fact thst I abstained from same sex intimacy and the urge eventually went away is proof that I was never "gay". It's completely a choice just like giving into an urge to watch porn or get drunk or have a cigarette. You are more than your choices. Your choices are not your identity. You don't need to be tied to the shackles of your own brain chemistry.
@@roberjohnsmith wow , your story is amazing. Thank you for sharing your experience.
@@kristinrichmond8185 well thank you for receiving it so well. There is a lot more details but we are in a TH-cam comment section after all lol
@@roberjohnsmith just a question...does that mean being straight is a choice too?
Not true. People can and will be affected by things like education, culture and the media.
"I don't really think people get turned into homosexuals". Exactly!
The rule of thumb for parents is you answer what is asked. "Where do babies come from?" "Mommy's and Daddys." "Why does Joey have two Mommies?" Because they love each other."
How is it that our apparent specialists in child development.... educators, have chosen to disregard this?
Sorry but calling educators specialists in child development is pretty laughable. There's little if any special training that goes into being a teacher. And teachers on the whole are as ignorant about developmental psychology as the average citizen.
That's about all children need to know. You don't have to even use the words sexual orientation. A man can love and marry a man. Same for women.
Some families have 2 moms or 2 dads.
Nice try goomer.
I think this forms a logical contradiction, no? Joey having two mummies assumes both his parents are women, which they are, but they are not literally both his mother, if he came from a mummy and a daddy. I think the answer to the question is 'Joey actually has one mummy 'Jane', but Jane has married 'Judy', because Jane and Judy love each other'. This eliminates the confusion the child will experience assuming that women can procreate when engaging in sexual acts with each other.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 Sure, but that's another conversation for the next time a question comes. The depth of explanation should match the simplest form of the question. I may have 20 reasons why my 2 year old granddaughter can't have a cookie at nap time, but When she asks for a cookie, I just say no.
Phenomenal. I think this is the best demonstration of opposing views and probing the individuals on why they hold those views. I couldn't have been happier when the one guy said he was not as confident because it shows he has an open mind. My favorite of these discussions so far.
Thanks. It was a good group and we were fortunate enough to have people on different lines.
👍 definitely the most productive one I've seen so far. I really do enjoy when people make a fool of themselves tho lol.
@@drpeterboghossian I think u would get more views if u did this outside on campus for anyone to step in Join form a crowd etc because seeing this indoors doesn’t make me want to click to watch the video as much
These are the young people who minds and thought will lead humanity forward. Hoping that you are tapping into a broad cross section of this age group so that we can get a good sense of “where their heads are”, and to a lesser degree what they are absorbing from their educations. If everyone stands on the same line at the beginning of more than one or two videos, I’d be more worried than I already am.
@@shanellerosado63 he does also do these outside on campus
I was in elementary school in the 80's and they pushed the Dare program on us with stated intent that if they educated us about the dangers of drugs we would be less likely to experiment with drugs. By the time I was a freshman in high school the vast majority of the kids I went to elementary school had tried or were regularly consuming drugs.
The guy who came to talk to my school about the dangers of drugs ended up overdosing and dieing.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
How is it comparable to sexual orientation tho? That's the fault of the state, not the school program, it's already a well known fact America lost the war on drugs because you can't really win against corruption, money and crime.
A student who learns about the dangers of drugs and ends up consuming anyway would be a bad outcome. A student who learns about the variety of sexual orientation and identities and ends up discovering they're gay or bisexual or whatever wouldn't be neither good or bad, it would just be a person discovering themselves.
I don't see your point at all.
@@YoureRightIThink what is a woman?
"only users lose drugs" lol
i'm dutch, but we used to have a arcade machine of NARC nearby, so i actually knew that campaign was a thing lol
What consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is one thing it's when they need the understanding of a kindergartener to enjoy being proud of their achievements that they lose my support
Which is exactly what they want. ewwww.
YESSSSS! Teachers need to stop treating elementary students as their friends and peers! Grow up and have adult conversations with other adults! I didn’t know anything about my elementary school teacher’s personal lives, and that was just fine.
I don't think young kids should get detailed sex lessons or have a lesson on all the different orientations (both real and imagined), much less that they should be encouraged to define their still developing sexual identity, but if a book features a kid with two moms or a boy with a crush on another boy, this is no more about what goes on in bedrooms than any Disney movie. I would not claim that Aladdin or The Little Mermaid are indoctrinating kids into heterosexuality or that they are too sexually graphic. If you use the words sexual orientation correctly, then banning discussion of sexual orientation means you can't discuss a book in which a girl has a crush on a boy or vice versa. As long as it's kept at the same age appropriate level, it's fine. But no, young kids don't need long detailed lessons about orientation and they especially don't need political indoctrination
We started really basic sex ed in 5th grade in my school. By then I think 95% of the class knew what it took to make a baby so we were all ready for the information that followed. To state that people have preferences is probably pretty benign. To straight up confuse kids regarding those preferences or to try to sway them one way or the other at such a vulnerable age is pretty rotten.
This would be my stance to. There's no reason to talk about sex to talk about orientation. Some girls like girls some boys like boys and that's ok. Done, no need to get into detail
Completely right about warning children about inappropriate behavior having absolutely nothing to do with teaching them about sexual orientations and identities.
That's not what we've actually seen in the classrooms.
yes, this should be taught to them, but we lost the trust required for that in those that actively wanna do it
Exactly. I had to have that conversation with my young nieces, phrasing it like good touch and bad touch, coz their parents are irresponsible having family members that are secret predators around.
Absolutely nothing? The argument is that teaching kids about sexual orientation and identities is akin to teaching them things of a sexual nature, and that should be avoided. Warning them about inappropriate behavior is certainly tangential to discussing things of a sexual nature, at least as much as discussing straight or gay is. I would argue even more so because you don’t have to know a single thing about sex to understand that sometimes people of the same gender are in love or married.
for me the problem is that our society is trying to normalize homosexuality while simultaneously glorifying homosexuality (pride month/gay sexuality in media)
I Don't think discussing homosexuality will encourage children to be gay, I do think glorifying it will encourage children to act gay, because kids are just searching for a community to belong to. So to me, it can be discussed, but not until we stop treating it as special.
Perfect answer.
Pride month came about because people were being bullied, abused and or murdered for their sexual orientation. So pride month isn't to glorify homosexuality but to give people a safe space to meet others like them and to show the community that they are just regular people. Also, homosexual youth want to feel like they belong as well and for a long time have been exposed to heterosexual media where they have most likely felt like they don't relate but feel like they have to conform.
@@soo_uh_sidedish6225 yea uhhh that all sounds good, but if you've been to a pride month event its very much treated as a competition to prove who's the most homosexual, not commemorating those who came before.
Ahh there goes that tired old narrative. "these people don't look like me so I can't relate!" Trust me you can. I'm heterosexual and yet my favorite film of all time is moonlight. A very homosexual film. Lessons taught in film are deeper then what sexual orientation the characters are. If all you look to find is how people look/act like you rather than If they share the same values/interests as you, you're doomed to a sad life.
@@jakedelcastillo3719 No my comment didn't say pride is for commemorating those who came before. I said, "give people a safe space to meet others like them" . I've been to only one Pride festival and it's a lot of people enjoying their time hugging one another and accepting them for who they are. I think that's the core message of pride. Not just homosexuality. But I will admit a few people take it too far and embarrass themselves and that's what you see on tv and TH-cam. So I understand if someone who's never been to a pride festival might misunderstand but that's why you try new things and maybe go to a pride festival? lol
Also, I'm only stating they can't relate because you brought up the fact that heterosexual kids are going to act gay when exposed to homosexual media which is just false.
How is gay sexuality in media glorifying homosexuality instead of just… representing it?
In a brief, factual: "some people have two mums" way - yes of course! You can't turn someone gay in the same way that you can wrongly suggest someone is transgender and sow a seed of self mutilation. It's very different. However, young children can be psychologically harmed by graphic information- this is abuse/grooming and completely unnecessary.
Since I've seen and read countless of cases of people living lives as straight but only later in life coming out of gay do to societal preasures so to can it happen in reverse. If there is privledge of being a protected class or trendy and hip to be trans because of society, we can create a false identity. People ABSOLUTLEY can be influenced by society into how they sexually identify.
@@herpderp1750 look at the polls of youth who self identify as lgbt. Over the years it's COMPLETELY shifted, to a point where you can only discern with a thinking mind that it's because of societal influence. There is no evidence that says there is naturally this many lgbt people in society and they were always hidden or scared because of societal pressure. And don't even get me started inartificial estrogen in foods and pesticide sprays. Look st male sperm count and testosterone count over the last 100 years and tell me that food and water and air are not the reason testosterone levels and soerm count are dropping at a staggering rate. We are being engineered as a society through the foods we eat, to the ideas we consume, to the music that entertains us, to the mov8es we watch, and to political pressures as well. The modern lgbt movement is 100 percent a social engineering play. Whether it's with nefarious or benevolent intentions is of no matter to me, the people pushing this are engineering all of the western world.
I think you *can* wrongly suggest someone is transgender and multiple de-transitioners have gone one the record claiming transgenderism was a mis-application for them, stating they were really gay, or butch or tomboy or gender-nonconforming all along. Now this is different from being gay (which is why the GLB without the T arguments are valid imo), but also there, sexuality being on a spectrum (though easily but mistakenly experienced as a binary by straights and gays alike), and part of one's sexuality being likely not to manifest during a lifetime, does make exposing children to information tricky. You don't want someone to be unaware that being gay is a possibility when in fact they are, but you also don't want to normalize graphic imagery at a young age because that could be used as a step-up for someone wanting to groome them.
I hate that the guy I disagree with one of his arguments the most (Whoooolly unnatural oh my Lordie), that I also agree with some of the other things he said.
@@herpderp1750 how they identify but not really what they do, i think. like straight women who identify as bi because men think its hot, but have and would never have actual sex with another girl?
The logic of "You cannot turn someone gay" is nonsensical when it's a fact that children are more likely to become bi or gay if they experience issues like m*lestation, as well as hypersexual or sexually/romantically secluded for the lack of a better term, when this occurs. The majority of the time you cannot, but you can certainly influence it, and it goes the other way as well for heterosexual people. If we ran 10 tests for an experiment where a male child is born on an island of 1,000 gay couples, and the child never interacts with girls nor women except for on tv, and even then he never ceases any romantic gestures from women but only from the 1,000,, do you not think that the child may have at least a small increase for the likelihood of being a gay man once the child is 21 years old?
The first guy was on point. They are confusing and persuading children towards a certain ideology. Teaching children that men can be women and women can be men is not an agreed upon perspective which is definitely coming up in the conversation when talking about gender to kids. Kids are extremely susceptible and the conversation is coming from one side of the aisle, with a certainty that their position is the virtuous and moral one.
You missed the mark completely. The statement was about discussing sexual orientation in elementary school. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with men becoming women or visa versa. It also has nothing to do with gender identity. Sexual orientation is one thing and one thing only. It has to do with who a person is sexually attracted to. In other words it has to do with whether a person is homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or asexual.
@@gloriaf6971 That's not true because when talking about sexual orientation it is inevitable the topic men being attracted to men because they feel like a women would come up. There is no way to get around that topic in this current climate. If you were discuss the topic and assume all men that are attracted to men are gay, you would be reprimanded for not including the individuals that identify as trans. If you were going to explain that those individuals are actually women you would still have to bring up the subject of Trans women being women and there it is. My point stands. You are looking at this as if it would be discussed as a black and white subject but in this climate and day in age, that is impossible.
@@chrisi8914 Men being attracted to men is not the same as men who identify as female. Sexual orientation is not the same as gender identity.
@@gloriaf6971 - This is because you assume that sex and gender are distinct. Many people do not hold this view. Therefore when a gay man transition into a trans-woman, to respect their new identity it would be incorrect to say they are 'gay', doing so would deny their gender identity. We should instead say they are 'straight' as they are a 'woman' attracted to a 'man'. Other philosophers (say Robin Dembroff) have a different view, stating that traditional view of 'sexual orientation' (i.e. one that describes the relationship between two sexes) is far too narrow and excludes the queer community (Robin identifies as 'queer gender') and proposes that "sexual orientation is one’s disposition to be sexually engaged with people of particular sexes and/or genders". Therefore as an example, if you have a cis-gender man and a cis-gender woman who are both attracted to cis-gender men, they have the same sexual orientation under Dembroff's view, rather than the cis-gender man being 'gay' and the cis-gender woman being 'straight'.
So, Chris is is correct - the two are inextricably linked, however we approach the issue, it's naive to suggest othewise.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 When a gay man tra
The problem is that they stopped including parents. They stopped inviting them to preview materials. They stopped requiring all parents to sign consent forms. The school wouldn't even give me a copy of the materials, only a vague outline. When I asked my 4th grader what they learned today, I was shocked. It was far more explicit than it should have been. And it goes far beyond what being taught in sex ed. In my state in some school districts, I've heard of parents being left out of discussions of their own childrens sexual identity, and pregnancy.
What state are you in? I'm curious to make sure this is not my state. My children are homeschooled, but I just want to know.
That's absolutely not ok. Parents need to be considered or they risk alienating them and that puts the child's education in danger
Last time I was in-person in class, I got called a trump supporter and white supremacist just for disagreeing with my teacher on something minor. It was disgusting. Covid was nearly a blessing in that it removed me from the liberal hell-hole I called a university. It is hard to pick a grad school because colleges are so toxic without real discussions these days. Glad to see you are doing some real discussions! Thanks brother!
It's intellectual laziness. The goal is the hit they get from deeming you inferior to themselves.
…but strangely you didn’t mention the “minor” thing you disagreed on. Pretty telling.
@@pizzelle2 not the point. Throwing around "white supremacist" or "racist" willy nilly is intellectually lazy.
@@pizzelle2 He insisted Bloomberg was the best Candidate for presidency. I disagreed. All I said was Bloomberg was a bad candidate. I was right. He barely made a scratch in the polls. Tell that.
@@edwinamendelssohn5129 except without ANY CONTEXT AT ALL you have absolutely no idea if it’s “willy nilly” or not which is why I asked, that’s the intellectually appropriate thing to do. Intellectual laziness is making assumptions without all the information you 🤡
Sexual behavior is incredibly complex, and it's pretty clear that our experiences and environment (nurture) DO interact with our genetic predispositions (nature) to produce the final sexual product-behavior in us as adults. I'm sure there's lots of fetish research that supports this for vanilla hetero types, and the social contagion data we are seeing now with hugely increasing numbers of teenagers identifying as LGBTQ also certainly supports this. So, a conversation about how some men like other men probably isn't going to "turn someone gay," but years of exposure to all sorts of various kinds of stimuli clearly does change the sexual behavior of young human beings.
This is what they refuse to acknowledge. While also denying that heterosexuality is how we as a species persist. It is because of heterosexuality that humans continue which is why some people hold the view of being gay as some sort of sickness. It goes against very biological coding. Beings exist to procreate. Almost all living beings. To actively choose to never do so has to relate to something in your mental being not quite normal. Which is fine who cares who you fuck, just keep kids out of it
Plus, if we are saying gender is "fluid" and gender and sexual orientation are "social constructs" meaning influenced by our social world and NOT our biology.....then I say that's all the MORE reason to not accept LGBTQ community. I mean, after all, they are going in opposite direction of "social" norms as most the world is hetero, so maybe they just need more "social" encouraging to be straight. Can't have it both ways, they used to say they were "born this way" now they say it's all fluid. Well, society can decide if that's the case whether they want to play that game or not.
You seem to be certain about many things ("it's pretty clear", "clearly does change"...). But then you go on to say that "I'm sure there's lots of fetish research that supports this", which implies that you didn't take the effort to actually check that research, you just assume that it exists. I would be less certain about things that you haven't really observed and you just believe they are like this.
@@youjortube You're free the make the counter-claim. I don't need to look up (nor am I particularly interested in reading) research on fetishism to know that environmental experiences strongly influence sexual behavior.
@@MyLuggage12345 You are more correct than you know. Environment can STRONGLY influence sexual preference. And when it comes to mixing children with adult sexual matters, and with a certain kind of adults with a certain kind of sexual disorder, that is precisely the problem. The increase in population percent of LGBTQ is due to the unchecked progression of the generational cycle of child sex abuse. Long story short: Through the grooming process employed by ‘minor attracted persons’, using the behavior-modification technique of pre-pubescent orgasm, pathogenic sexual attractions are CREATED. Not only can sexual preferences be *created*, but MOST bisexual cases today are not biological / were not inborn. They were ‘inflicted’ by molestation. And that’s why (in extreme brief form) kids have traditionally been kept separate from adult sexual matters.
Molested children can grow to be confused. I would think that even children exposed to its in general life at an early age could also be confused by it. But i do believe orientation is biological primarily.
Discussion is okay given that the kids have reached puberty. But from what I've seen, public schools have been foisting these ideologies on kids, rather then discussing anything.
@@BatkoBrat i agree with that observation. As to discussion, we'd really need to pin the parameters down there. Generally, I think since this conversation would be taking place in and by a tax funded institution, and is a very controversial matter, the discussion should be consent based; consent of the taxed (parent), much like sex education already is (unfortunately many parents have abdicated that responsibility and left it to the state).
@@jmc0369
Exactly, spot on.
When you see the appalling level of proficiency, in math, English, geography, science, and history , don´t you think that teachers have better things to do than to teach about birds and gay bees. And yes, a straight person can be groomed into a gay relationship. It happens all the time. A good teachers should keep his or her sexual orientation and politcal views out of the classroom. That is called teaching , not enrolling in some freaking cults. Plus what s the obssession about gender. Most of people tries to have a good life: a fullfilling life. I find it quite creepy when you meet someone and the first thing that person says: I am gay, straight, non binary etc ... Why do you tell me that I don´t want to know and I don´t care. it is way too much private information I want to know. Don´t think that kids are idiots, they are quick to know if their teachers are up there. In short, don´t ask , don´t tell and do your freaking job. Last time I checked your sexual orientation is not a skill or a talent. It is perhaps the reason why people are so fond of it because it necessites whatsoever no skills nor talents. Hey teachers leave the kids alone : pink Floyd
Discussing the birds and the bees wasn't the question here. Besides, children figure out how babies are made without intervention. They hear it in the school yard, or from older siblings. I remember the absolute shock and horror when someone told me what my parents did in order to have me. Sexual orientation in this case would not be the birds and the bees, but simply involve romantic attraction, like hugging, holding hands, maybe even kissing, something children experience very early. I'm a guy, and I had my first crush at 8. There are many gay people that figured out they were gay through experiencing their first crushes. By allowing a basic discussion in classrooms, children can understand themselves better. We can imagine the opposite case happening: A straight kid might think they're gay because they have a friend they like a lot. But when they learn the basics about romantic attraction they can understand that they weren't gay to begin with, they just liked their friend because they were kind or whatever.
The education system is a joke. They can't even teach the basics but we're having this conversation, lol. Young people know the names of the Kardashians but don't know how many states are in the US. Pathetic
@@denji7696 Sexual orientation is not skill, like Norm McDonald used to joke: " I am proud my son is a doctor--I am proud too my son is gay" Being gay is not an accomplishment you don't put it in your resume as a skill. Likewise those things have no place in the classroom. Side-note: in the 90ies, they put a ban on steroid use in sports and made it illegal because these treatments are very dangerous. Many bodybuilders died from it very young. Suddenly, they prescribe them to kids. That is insane. Every idiots on this planet knows you can not really change gender. They should read biology for dummies. In Life, you have to accept reality and do with what you 've got. Those idiots never talk about Buyer's remorse. The same applied to plastic surgery. Anyway that proves my point th-cam.com/video/cV0AgB88JE4/w-d-xo.html
@@denji7696 th-cam.com/video/p6t8KmYqKlk/w-d-xo.html
@@dageustice public schools must be about teaching children math science art history etc. Public school is not a place to teach kids about gay binary cis etc. Some kids convert to Christianity very early. That does not mean all public school teachers must teach them about Jesus. Public schools may not provide every service that kids need. It shouldn't be. But it shoukd be a place of safe learning for all families. I mean if my kid has medical conditions I don't want my public school teacher to diagnose it. I go do physician. If I have a gay son, I don't want public school teachers to talk about sexuality in classrooms. Would doing more things help? Maybe in some cases. Is it right? No It's not the place.
I might have missed it, but was parental responsibility ever mentioned?
The muscular dude on the strongly agree was getting to that point but missed to say it when Peter mentioned the "violence in a small Arkansan town" example. Once a gay couple gets attacked once would he want it to be discussed to prevent it from happening? If it happened twice, should it be discussed in class?
Bro its only the state that can be responsible, we are dum. 🤡
This is the inherent difference not just between political sides but just between discussions in general. Is the government supposed to be in control or are parents. Degrading not just biological parents but all guiding figures and replacing it with the State is dangerous regardless of the content.
@@Umm62
But the inept State and its government school myrmidons can't even teach children how to properly read and write. How does anyone expect it to satisfactorily explain sexual orientation to kids?
@@JS-jn7iv
Yes, you are spot on. The Leviathan State is a clear and present danger. That is why the separation of school and State is essential.
I like how impartial you are during the discussions, and that you push people to think things through rationally. I've watched quite a few of these since I found you, and they are one of my favorite debate formats.
This was my favorite one yet. A lot of thoughtful discussions and a good deal of getting into the specifics. I also liked the open mindedness of the gentleman in the middle. No one *wants* to be wrong, so we all have this stubborn tendency to stick to our position even we're confronted with facts/data and/or very well argued ideas. I really like how these exercises attempt to challenge and overcome that.
I don't think being scared to take a strong position is all that much better than being foolhardy in a position. If truth is what mattered, he should have been willing to go both directions based on arguments/evidence rather than avoiding the extreme end regardless of what argument or evidence is provided. Being on the edge and being unwilling to move off the edge are not the same thing and he was equivocating them.
The consecrated government school system is the closest thing America has to a national religion. The entranced congregants are the impressionable and vulnerable youth (students) performing at the divine behest of the omnipotent archbishops (school administrators) and the proselytizing, sacrosanct members of the ecumenical council (teachers unions).
Is the holy sanctuary, within of the ordained government school cathedral, the place you want your children to learn about sexual orientation?
Haha, they exist to affirm the greatest superstition. The existence of the state and its monopoly on authority. The prussian education system is global and is an abomination. They could not have their wars or their pappy/nanny state programs without it. That's is the stake through the heart, of the issue.
@@jmc0369
You certainly know the score.
Speaking of authoritarian overreach, the despotic YT algorithm may have ghosted your comment.
@@jeffersonianideal I think I get that alot. I know some posts get a response without a notification.
@@jmc0369
It happens to me quite often. YT's shadowbanning has reached epidemic proportions. Never trust YT.
@@jeffersonianideal YT is a private company. Their server, their rules. Igt's hypocritical for you to be here if you really feel YT is despotic.
I agree with the first guy who said it's gr00ming. Unfortunately, too many kids are exposed to pretty extreme stuff wayy too early, but for those who aren't, seggsuality should not be introduced by the government. He's right kids are easily influenced and puberty is something that both introduces and largely fixes ones orientation.
Also, the question underestimates the vast incompetence (best case) of most government employees (teachers) on this moral stuff
And now they're 'transitioning' kids as groomers so kids get mutilated and have life changing surgeries that they might regret later in life
I think people's sexuality can be influenced over time... I mean, ppl talk about how they started out with soft p0rn but ended in some weird fetish zone... stuff that couldn't be imagined years ago is the norm.... the way that sex changes the brain (after puberty) is astounding... people need more n more depraved things to get aroused even.. can you imagine a child that doesn't have the capacity to understand or reason and the repercussions it can have on undeveloped brains? Ever wonder why the majority of addicts have been abused as children?
so no... don't awaken this stuff in kids.
I think the most important thing to consider here is, WHO is having conversations with children in elementary school. If parents want to have these conversations with their children, that is their right. If children share information they've learned with other children, that's just going to happen, it's a fact of life. But people employed by schools have no right discussing this with children, unless they were hired in a specific role such as sex education to have a discussion about this with children. And, yes, discussing sexual orientation inevitably involves discussing the actual physical act of sex for the discussion to make sense. My stance is, STOP stealing children's innocence. And to answer another question, you can explain to a child that people should not be touching certain body parts of theirs without going into detail about sexual acts and who has sex with whom, etc.
How does teaching that some children have two daddies or two mommies necessarily devolve into descriptions of sexual acts? I don't see it. It doesn't steal anybody's innocence to know about same-sex marriage and people living each other. If you can talk about dating for heterosexuals and how mommy and daddy met, you can do the same for two fathers or two mothers. Kids can actually learn about gay couples before anything is even mentioned about sex. That way, gay children know, when the time comes, that it's okay to want to date someone from the same sex. Just keep it age-appropriate. There is nothing more natural than talking about different types of families to children.
@@soulscanner66 two different things. Kids do not need to know about families of two moms or dads. They don't care. They are open minded. They probably care for violent or crazy parents. Second, you don't teach kids about their love life at public school. Even if I'm gay and I have a gay son I don't want public schools discuss such matter in any ways. I'd probably teach my kid about sexuality my self or get a type of help I find best for my gay son. How do I trust the information would be correct? Also how about other families with different religious backgrounds and different point of view? How about math, English and science etc? Public school is not a church or sex education center. This is a place of learning for all kids.
I don't think the discussion is about formal classes in sex education for elementary school kids. It is the informal stuff. If a kid asks about homosexuality in class, is he or she shut down? If a kid gives a presentation on his family vacation, is the fact that he has a mommy and a daddy an issue? If another kid gives the same presentation, but he has two daddies, is that an issue? My guess is that different standards would be applied to these two different kids.
@@yikwonjang2978 So we don't tell kids they have mommy's and daddy's? That's just dumb ass.
@@andyiswonderful And the different stand is the issue. Either its all or or it all has to be out. But many of the people who are worried about 'grooming' wouldn't even register a teacher talking about seeing the latest star wars movie with their opposite sex spouse as grooming where as a teaching mentioning they saw the latest spiderman with their same sex spouce would be 'grooming' or somehow bad. And if they acknowledge they'll say "well okay then it all goes" and we're stripping all basic, causal human interaction because 'the gays are coming for your kids!' as if that won't have negative effects on childhood development.
For me this is the optimal way of having discussions on important issues, without having opposing sides attack each other. A unbiased mediator is important, someone who can push both sides to be more receptive to the others position, rather than the ‘if you don’t understand my view, you’re a horrible person’ approach.
This would restore faith in humanity.
Agreed... I also like the visual component. We can literally see where you stand on any given issue
Don’t groom kids, period
There are stages of development that children don’t reach until a certain age. Introducing it early can be harmful...
The people who push sex on young children all believe childhood innocence is a trait of the privileged. They want to corrupt your children as early as possible.
Yeah people don't see how easily this slipper slopes into pedophilia. If a child can consent to talking about sex, changing their gender and having physical elements denied via hormone pills. That's just a short hop skip and jump from consenting to sexual acts
Curious, do you also believe introducing heterosexual ideologies early can be harmful?
@@marcelly715 heterosexuality is what made the person exist so yes. We should teach natural human processes. Sticking your penis in an asshole isn't natural.
@@marcelly715 I think introduction of a sexual nature too early is harmful. Doesn’t matter what sexuality it is.
How are you going to talk about sexual orientation without talking about sex first?
So at least after regular sex ed.
Every kid learns about parents and relationships without knowing about sex. "Some kids have 2 dads" isn't a conversation about sex.
@@aCynicalPie no child has 2 dads. Everyone has a mother and a father. To live an alternative lifestyle is a choice to not be mainstream. To force people to recognize your alternative lifestyle before they are able to make such choices for themselves is manipulative.
@@aCynicalPie Exactly. But having two dads also doesn't reveal their sexual orientation. Same with a mom and dad. Relationships aren't inherently sexual, and even when sexual can't simply be assumed from one partner. You can discuss parents without discussions of sexual attraction.
I love your recent content Peter. You're very good at facilitating genuine debate and discussions like this are needed more than ever.
I strongly hope to see more of these agree/disagree videos in the future (and in multiple universities).
This format of discussion is SORELY needed today.
A university that censors intellectual disagreement and debate, is NOT a university anymore: it's an indoctrination camp.
I think explaining that some men like men and some women like women is perfectly fine for older elementary kids, as long as it is done as a factual statement, in an appropriate class such as sex education, because a lot of them probably already have boyfriends and girlfriends. I don't think discussions about transgender or non-binary are totally necessary at elementary age.
My issue is most videos I have seen with teachers talking about homosexuality in class have the teachers applauding and even rewarding kids who come out as LGBT.
I agree
I think such discussions are fine, but I don't see why it should be the purview of the school system. It should be the responsibility of the parents to teach it
@@_Stormfather My dad died before he gave me 'The talk' and my mum didn't bother because I was a boy. Sometimes the parents can't or won't discuss sex and sexuality.
This. He didn't explain what he meant by sexual orientation. Some grown ups like boys some like girls. That's enough for young children
@@smp7413 Exactly, you don't need to go into any detail, just mention it so they understand that some people are different in that way.
The problem with ANY discussion, as has been shown in videos from Classrooms, is the PERSONAL agenda of the actual teacher and/or school administration. If there was a "Introduction to Religion" class in school, would you want a hard-core catholic teaching it? Or Would you be afraid that THAT particular teacher would try to indoctrinate/groom students to the catholic religion?
Did children learn about sex about 100 years ago?? Sure thing, when a large family lived in a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment/house, the kids are probably going to hear mommy and daddy making "whoopee" at night. That's DIFFERENT than some stranger (Teacher) talking about something they MAY have an actual vested interest in.
Personally, I believe that pre-pubescent kids are VERY mailable and fluid, and Very open to suggestion.
The Question I would ask, to someone pushing this issue, would be.....WHY? Why the NEED to SEXUALIZE kids at such a young age? What is the End Goal? My position is NOT about LGBTQ+++++ being wrong or right.....but about Letting Children to be Children and NOT Sexualize them.
Dialog is essential. Thank you Peter for these videos
You're very welcome. Thanks for supporting this channel and my work.
He does a brilliant job. He puts people on the spot but nicely. More of this needed to broaden people's minds
@@drpeterboghossian I would assume you are happier out of academia- even though I feel kids are missing out on a great professor like the Weinstein. The more nonsense we hear coming out of academia the happier you are w your decision ? Would love to know what you think of Sam Harris ??
You’re very welcome, thank you.
This process-or something like it-should be taught in schools everywhere. But it’s not. Our institutions are facing a crisis of ideological capture, with ideologues teaching our kids.
My neighbors are a gay, male couple. The one I’m closest to has told me repeatedly that he has no idea if he would have been gay if he wasn’t raped by a male family member as a young kid. He’s never looked at a woman in his life. His partner has been with women, but was also raped by an uncle and has no idea if he’s addicted to the trauma. The saddest part is that my friend says that he has only ever spoken about this with a handful of his gay friends and every one of them were also raped by older men.
We both know it’s a coincidence that these are the only stories he happens to know. But he says he won’t ever question if you can be “turned gay”. He thinks it’s very possible and still can’t figure out if that’s his truth
Also, my lesbian friend also complains about the many women who are not lesbians but hate men so they’re “trying women” (aka going around hurting real lesbians with their trauma and experimental lifestyles). She says that lesbianism is trending and it’s getting messy and tiresome
There is plenty of evidence it's a choice.
Look at all the kids experimenting in college. If they were gay or straight without choice, experimentation wouldn't be a thing. It wouldn't be needed. They would just know.
Your gay friends show exactly that by opening up that avenue, they made the choice to go down it. Why, I don't understand, but that's what they did.
I think homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture. So many gay men are victims of child SA. I wasn't abused but I do think my unusual upbringing, being primarily raised by my grandmothers, contributed to me being gay. However I have a gay friend who had a normal upbringing with both parents in the home.
@@scooter-wy3qs A lot of it comes down to how you are raised. I know of kids that are around lbgt constantly but never "converted" however others slip into it easily.
@@barbarasimons3762 the gay part you can't change some people never realize they are gay whether they are shammed out of it or think they are straight, but the TQ+ is 100% grooming
School is a terrible place to learn anything, let alone your sexuality, from teachers.
This is definitely one of the best yet. The dialogue was pretty damn good on both sides.
Edit: Great job, Peter!
Delighted you enjoyed it!
You can't talk about sexual orientation without talking about sex. It's like talking about political ideologies without talking about any political issues.
@@eustace88 No you didn't. How did that statement explain the different types of sexual attraction? It's like saying I fully explained politics because I said that someone was a Democrat. Some people don't understand that there's a big difference between being a smart ass and actually being smart.
The first dude said what we all been thinking and he said it without giving a flying F
This needs to be done with subject matter experts. Yes there are views being discussed, but the lack of known facts and studies being presented leads to more questions than answers.
A very important topic was completely missed by both sides: childhood sexual trauma is almost always so extreme that it follows people throughout their entire lives and drives them to do extremely self-destructive things. Introducing children to sexual situations, I believe, does a ton to make them curious about/interested in sex in a very unhealthy way that will lead them to try things that will scar them for life. Teaching children how to identify, report, and avoid possible abusers is important, but I don't believe that it is appropriate for anyone but the parents and deeply trusted adults that the parents approve of to discuss with children because, as we've been seeing a lot recently, a lot of teachers are turning out to be predators who use the children that they have control over to live out their own fantasies at the children's expense. Talking about sexuality in any other way is extremely dangerous for children because it opens a gate of curiosity for them that they are not ready for that will scar them for their entire lives.
I keep hearing about how teachers are predators but the bulk of the predation is of heterosexual persuasion. Now one might say 'well there are more straight people period so you'd get more heterosexual predation of young minors'. True. However those who express concern always talk in very broad, vague terms. There's never any data pointed to or presented, at least that I've seen, that the predation is statically more among non-hetero teachers than than hetero teachers or even statically abnormally high. Yet whenever the discussion of sexual orientation its framed as if the gay community is inherently spawns predator teachers. In reality a parent should be more worried about the opposite sex gym teacher or coach of their child than a straight or gay teacher having a discussion in class about what a gay person is and they should not be treated any different than any other person.
" it says disscuss, not influence"- Peter
Me: "isnt part of the point of having a discussion to change/influence others minds?" "Isn't the purpose of your game to influence people?"
As much as I enjoy his methods of getting people to seeing contrary sides, I agree, I didn’t understand why he responded that way by saying what it’s “discuss” not “influence”. We are discussing the reality of elementary kids being influenced by teachers to think and explore sexuality at a young age when they haven’t grown through puberty yet.
Never should anything sexual be discussed in elementary schools, never, period
There could be some benefit to teaching knot tying in elementary school. They do not.
There could be some benefit to teaching swimming in elementary school. They do not.
Sell me on why this issue is the one that needs to be inserted.
The entire conversation is odd though. Gay/straight really isn't what's going on in schools. They are actively "transing" the kids -- which has very little to do with sexual orientation. Other than, you could argue that they're transing away the gay in some cases.
Perhaps this conversation wasn't supposed to be culturally relevant?
And because disclaimers always seem to be required lately...
Gay people exist. I have no problem acknowledging that in school.
You don't need a lesson plan to do that.
And obviously, you're not going to turn someone gay.
You can, however, turn someone trans.
If you're looking for the groomer in your school, start with the head of the GSA (gay-straight alliance) or similar club. And that will likely be just the tip of the iceberg.
Oh god!!… you mean to tell me there’s more letters within their letters?? I can’t keep up!. I agree 100% btw.
The transing is very real, and insidious. Listen to current trans people talk about how they knew they need a gender switch. Almost none of them innately knew that they should switch genders.
99% of them "discovered" their trans identity when they saw trans people online and it sowed a seed in their mind like "hmm, maybe I'm like that too ". Sowing that seed in little kids minds is harmful
Transing the gay away is something that I'm shocked isnt talked about more
@jellybiscuit, boomity.
When I was a kid, no teachers in elementary school ever talked about sex. It wasn't appropriate then and it's not appropriate now. There is a lot of scare-mongering about "grooming" now, which, I can't image is very prevalent. I was not exposed to homosexuality other than constantly hearing disparaging remarks on the school yard and in movies. If anything, I was "groomed" to be heterosexual. Yet, despite nobody talking to me about two men being together, I found myself naturally attracted to other guys and for a long time considered myself gay. In my late 20's I began being attracted to women and now as mature man, I consider myself bisexual with a strong preference for women. But, nobody groomed me or talked me into anything. And, my shift in preferences had absolutely NOTHING to do with any stance on morality, since I think moral judgements on sexual preference are a bunch of crap. Either way, it's probably not a topic for elementary school. That said, we should teach kids tolerance and respect for others. Oh...and in case anyone cares, I'm politically conservative.
NO!!! Let parent's explain sexual orientation to their own kids, and if there are issues, send them to a professional!!! (Not school, a Dr's office!!!) Brother James OSB
If you had multiple hate crimes in a city, then special interest groups would manipulate data by labeling benign interactions as "hate crimes" to inflate statistics- like they're doing in UK right now.
Public education is a system by which parents delegate the responsibility of educating children to a school. The answer truly is as simple as: because I said so.
If parents do not wish to delegate sexual orientation education to schools, at any time, then they have the authority to do so.
That's really not what public education is though. Prior to public education most kids just didn't get an education.
@@Mutantcy1992 yeah you're gonna need some backing for that baseless claim. Many kids went to school prior to a federal public school system. The local community had say in what was being taught. Recency bias at its finest tho. You think because youve never been educated outside of this weird bubble we live in that education has never existed outside of it. How completely moronic.
@@Mutantcy1992 They didn't get a *formal* education. But they would typically still get an education, often by mom when they were young, so that they could at least be literate (enough so that they can read the bible!). When they became older (as in, middle school aged), boys would typically start work as an apprentice of some sort, while girls would typically learning various homemaking classes by mothers. Now times have changed, and I'm not necessarily saying that we should go back to that system, but I'm not sure that it today's education is actually better than it was back then, and is now arguably worse.
@@AtrusOranis
tl;dr: Our system is broken and needs drastic change.
It's absolutely worse. Kids are being pushed through and graduating and know absolutely no life skills. At least a kid back then, for the most part, would learn how to do SOMETHING useful that could help them make a living. We need to bring back apprenticeships (and not in the way it's used now, I mean actual skills) and classes that teach kids things that could help them and others in various situations instead of only memorizing things for a test and then it's gone. There used to be classes in school that were very practical that basically anyone could use. Accounting, shop class (being able to fix everyday things is a massive boon to ANYONE), etc. If a kid wants to learn more advanced things, there should be programs available to let them pursue those interests and obviously they can go to further schooling to do so once they graduate from grade school.
There is a way to blend old school ways with newer ones to create vast opportunities. We just don't do it. It's "My way or the highway!" when it comes to public education. Good example being when I was in school, I did very well. I had good grades, rarely missed any days (only when sick or something), etc. Eventually though, I just got bored with the things they started teaching in the high school years. Nothing was practical for daily life. Nothing they were saying interested me enough to pursue as a career. I was just bored, sitting there listening to things I could care less about, wasting my time and theirs. Had there been a way I could have picked a topic I was interested in and followed that and have that count as my high school education, I would not have loathed being there so much. I ended up just not going to school anymore because I finally got fed up with it. I was not of legal age to drop out though so I ended up getting in trouble and being taken to court and forced by a judge to go back to school. I did, reluctantly, because the alternative was juvenile detention (because I didn't want go to school lol).
So I went back and it was about a year after I had stopped going, halfway into the school year. Again, I did well, got good grades, etc. When I finally became legal to drop out, I actually said to myself "Might as well just go till the end of the year. Maybe I'll just finish school anyway." Afterwards, I ended the school year doing well still. When the very end came and they gave out their final marks, etc. I find out that I failed. Obviously, I'm confused because I did perfectly fine. I inquire as to what's going on and it's because of "lack of hours". Because of me not being present the first half of the year, I failed no matter how well I did in every subject. I was livid and that is when I said f**k school for the last time.
The point of all of this story is that the system is trash. It does not help kids. I'd argue in a lot of ways it actively harms them because so many schools are EVEN WORSE than most people think. The one I went to was small, but it was funded just fine and there's no reason it needed to be garbage, but it was because of these school boards, administrators, etc. that decide on these policies. Frankly, I don't think most of them know what the hell they're doing because they were taught by this same system that's been going on for so long now. I'm not claiming to be some omnipotent being with all the answers, but I am smart enough to see what doesn't work and our public school system is flopping terribly.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I feel very connected to this topic given my experience and I really, really think we need some drastic changes.
@@AtrusOranis mmm, yeah some of them. You should check out historical illiteracy rates in the US.
Once upon a time, that used to be the parents responsibility. Let that sink in. Also, Sex ED is different than sexual "orientation". Learning about the biology of how women get pregnant is ok, in the later development stages, middle school/high school etc.
I am glad you incorporated the the categories on the screen so we have a clear picture of where the people stand on the issue.
After watching several of these videos (I love this format, btw), It seems that there is a lot of people who feel that moving between the lines is some sort of weakness, specially among those in the extremes. This perception is very detrimental. Those who can change between the lines are open to the possibility that they might be wrong or that there might be things that could change their minds. This openness to learn new things is a very valuable quality.
Children shouldn't be taught about sex, sexuality or alternative lifestyles.
The left-most Strongly Disagree guy almost said the quiet part out loud on accident despite himself. “To increase equality” is exactly the problem. The intent to increase equality of outcome by navigating the development of youth with the end goal being equal numbers of sexual orientations across society despite the fact that nature and evolution alone for hundreds of thousands of years did not produce that outcome.
It's absolutely possible to plant unhealthy seeds of curiosity in people at a young age that when blurred with their sexual development, can cause confusion, attraction and urges later in life. Think about this example alone, and there are many more similar ones to cite: why is it when a child is sexually abused, they are more likely to sexually abuse a child themselves later in life? That’s not even getting into how many abused kids end up adopting a sexual orientation matching their abuser later in life. There are deep psychological ties to sexuality that can absolutely be disturbed and altered through the wrong kind of exposure and yes, grooming.
For this reason, discussion of sexuality does not belong in schools until the point that the school is authorized to speak on sexuality and reproductive health at later ages. As for what age that should be, this decision should be handled by PTA organizations with a focus on the parents. Furthermore, once that age and curriculum have been decided on, the educator should not have full free reign on how to teach this. A healthy classroom that talks about this topic shouldn’t be led by an individual who is trying to self-insert their lifestyle in any way shape or form as part of the curriculum.
To the point of another commenter: I agree that when talking about or describing the family unit to children, it should be ok to discuss families that have a single parent, both parents, step parents, adoptive parents, parents of the same gender. These are facts of life and children may see different family structures among their friends and should grow up accepting these differences.
But when it comes to the topic of actual sexuality, attraction, and any of the details within these scopes… absolutely not.
That means not forcing kids to take on pronouns unless the idea comes wholly from a student. It means there shouldn’t be propaganda present in the classroom like flags or signs or symbols that encourage preference towards a particular lifestyle. It means not encouraging or forcing children to dress experimentally. It means not giving encouragement toward any particular sexuality and yes that includes heterosexuality.
It means presenting reproductive health and education in a scientific and biological way, at the appropriate age. And then in later age/grades, when the topic of sexuality comes up there should be proportional time devoted to discussing alternative sexuality that is representative of what occurs naturally.
The rules of thumb guiding sexuality based education should be #1 waiting until kids are old enough to understand their own bodies and urges, and #2 less is more. This sort of education needs to involve parents as well, they should ultimately decide individually whether or not they want their kid to know any more detail- and be prepared to talk about it at home to supplement what they want their kid to know.
As for the idea that child sexual abuse should be a motivating factor in educating kids on sexuality early... that's ludicrous. We can teach our kids to monitor themselves and their body space as it applies to potential abuse from adults without going into sexuality or the reasons behind it. We can teach them to recognize the physical manifestation and signs of unacceptable behavior and how to properly report it without getting into the topic of attraction. Abuse is not an excuse to groom or stock the pond. We can teach them the what without the why, especially when they are not equipped to comprehend the why yet.
If this is to be looked at through a lens that doesn’t involve terms like grooming and stocking the pond, then the topic of alternative sexuality needs to be saved for, without exception, the period of a child's development that's been deemed appropriate for a universally agreed to curriculum tackling overall sexuality in general.
In addition, reproductive health should be taught and understood from a biological health perspective WELL before the topic of sexuality. They don't belong in the same textbook, classroom or age/grade. I imagine anyone espousing the idea that sex and gender are not related should agree, if they’re honest about it.
Maybe that means reproductive health in late middle school and sexuality in high school. I don't know, I'm not a scientist or educator myself. Ultimately the point is not how quick you can insert alternative sexuality into a child’s life… it’s a question of when a developing youth is prepared to understand both reproduction and sexuality as separate entities. And that sure as hell doesn’t happen during K-5th grade. No matter what sort of playground talk happens during lunch and recess.
Anything less is a clear crusading attempt to get ahead of the “straight” competition to insert these alternative ideas into a child's psyche. Why would anyone want to do that? Applying Occam’s Razor… what would the simplest explanation for that be? To influence the direction of a child’s development so that at best "let's make more people like me" and at worst "let's make more people FOR me."
A child’s healthy development must always come first. Not what a random teacher wishes had happened for them as a child.
The bottom line? You see before your eyes how even college age young adults are influenced by hearing different ideas about sexuality and children, and see how they change their minds about topics in Pete’s exercises across the board. How much more impressionable would these folks have been ten to fifteen years ago when exposed to sexually charged information from a trusted adult teacher?
Spot on.
"equal numbers of sexual orientations" that is NOT what equality means and you know it, equality means equal opportunity and equal rights. That's all.
@@queengoblin and attempting to force young highly suggestible children to think the way you think about social issues is not the perview of teachers or the government.
@@queengoblin and gay people already have the same rights as everyone else.
lol its great how americans can be so fundamentally wrong most probably influenced by their idea of religion. great stuff guys, keep it up. just tell me at what age you decided to be straight? you think if you were told in elementary school "hey there are gay couples" you'd have been like "oh let me try it with a man when i'm older"? dont you see how absurd that is? btw tl;dr because whats that whole novel lol
Respect that he challenges both sides and not just favors one
I love this whole series, Creating a space for open discussion, a place to share controversial view points and teaching people how to examine their beliefs is something we as a society are in urgent need of.
I hope there is another live event, I would love to participate in one of these exercises!
Thanks! We’ll be doing many more of these next year (depending on funding, of course). We’re also experimenting with new models and methods. Stay tuned!
@@drpeterboghossian you got a like and subscribe from me
I love these discussions…I wish we could do this in every day life!
There’s no reason you can’t and every reason you can! You just cannot do this on university campuses.
@@drpeterboghossian sick how you wont let the other guy talk cz you know he has straight facts and he could definitely owned you! I can see right through your manipulation!!
@@drpeterboghossian If we all had a moderator such as yourself, we could.
@@drpeterboghossian I wish I could say "that's funny". But, it's not funny. I think there are still many campuses that would accept and allow for your fantastic style of encouraging more open - less judgmental communication! We need so much more of this! Thanks!
here in Victoria Australia sexual orientation has been taught in what we call primary school, l believe the equivalent to elementary school. it was called "safe schools", having two young children who went to primary school in this time l can tell you there were/are many problems because of it, the main problem being that "children were thinking they had a problem because they did not have a problem"
this was not sex education it was gender fluidity, l spoke to the then school principle about it not wanting my children involved to be told by him that the government had made it that he was not allowed to teach anything about religion but had to teach gender fluidity,
it really has messed up a hell of a lot of young kids of today
Good input from experience as.well.
They weren't able to teach anything about religion? What? I thought public schools had to teach general religious education (i.e. world religions) at primary school so children can appreciate different world views. Perhaps this has now been removed as a core curriculum item. I suspect the reason they've removed religious education from public schools is because most religions disagree philosophically and theologically with LBGT ideology.
Sexuality is not a discussion between teachers and students. Its up to the parents!!! Serious boundaries are being crossed
The debate got hung up on sexual preference outcomes, but missed the most glaring issue. Talking to prepubescent kids about sex at a young age will likely cause them to explore sex at a young age. Save it for sex ed in grade 7/8.
Is it so much to admit that the government has no place in these discussions with children?
Great discussion as always. Thank you, Peter
You’re very welcome.
The older gentleman's voice of reason is powerful. The way I interpreted him was, accept that you don't know everything and that there's always a chance you're wrong about something social.
Being absolutist isn't synonymous with being powerful nor being right.
It's difficult to have conversations about orientation with children who have never felt attraction. Primary kids in particular are not cognitively or developmentally ready for discussions about sexual orientation. All families should be represented in class so children see themselves in their classroom, however, the layers underneath of having 2 moms isn't a discussion to be had.
I agree with this! I think it’s okay to explain different family units (some kids are adopted, live with foster families, grandparents, have two dads etc) but I don’t think you need to go into the details until later
The problem with discussing these things in school is not that it may turn children gay, it is that it may confuse them unnecessarily, and given the fact that there are laws on the book that if the child is confused enough to want to have his or her sex changed or their puberty blocked, not even their parent would have the power to stop that from happening, then that confusion is anything but cost free or harmless
Oh and BTW, the “doctor” who will prescribe the puberty blockers will loose his or her license if they decide to challenge the perceived identity of the child instead of immediately prescribing the drugs, so really, once they are confused, the harm is done, and it can NOT be reversed
But by discussing it could also alleviate confusion, soooo there’s that.
@@zaphodbebop105 No, discussing it among adults reduces confusion among us, because we have discernment, 5-10 year olds do not have that yet. Stop treating kids like mini-adults, they aren't. But there are lots of adults who act like overgrown toddlers, we need less of them, not more.
@@radcyrus Indeed. If I were a pediatrician today in America, I'd be very, very discerning of the parents as quickly as possible, as carefully as possible and once it looked like they'd be a career threat, I'd advise them that I was unqualified to assist them, write off the consult as no charge or just say they'd get a bill later that never arrives, and send them on their way to find someone else. You can't argue with parents who have lost their minds. God help them and their children.
@@uppityglivestockian I wouldn't be able to do it. Sending kids away with such obviously abusive and neglectful parents
Love the conversation and the back and forth. This is a real interesting question with missing context, be it bad or good. No one brought up critical gender theory influence in elementary schools which is the main reason this question is topical and probably the only reason why this question is being asked in the first place.
Man I was hoping one of them would have brought this up but they never did.
Teaching 'sexual orientation' these days also means indoctrinating children into Gender Ideology, which is complete nonsense.
The types of people pushing to teach about this will more than likely want to turn the children into young gender theory adherents, and that's the whole problem. It's a belief system. An ideology that is trying to remake the world in their image using other peoples malleable children, and most people believe that, rightly, gender and sex are not separate things.
A real consequence of this is that it ends up advertising transgenderism to young children, and we're seeing an epidemic of children who are being encouraged to take harmful drugs for the rest of their lives, halt their puberty, and sterilize themselves, which is just barbaric and shortsighted. All under the unassuming guise of compassion and inclusivity.
It's difficult for people to fight back against this because it's an extremely complicated manner to get a handle on, and there are adherents to this, basically, religion that have infiltrated every public and private institution in the country, and are doing their best to spread their ideology by any means necessary.
If someone is getting beat up because they are gay, the lesson to teach kids is not to tell them it's wrong to beat people because of sexual orientation. You teach them it's wrong to beat people for any reason other than defense of self and others.
Interesting discussions as always, thank you Peter!
You’re welcome. It was a good group.
My argument would be I don't trust the teachers.
only because you believe they are all evil.....no teacher has as much time to talk about this stuff as they are making it sound
@@laceegomel8207 No I think that there are a lot of good teachers out there.
Drawing a line keeps people safe.
I like the safe guard that teachers don't talk about sex, just like I like the restriction don't speed on road.
The discussion should be held in high school at the earliest
agreed 100% and still only with parental consent
Why? Make an argument.
@@aCynicalPie him or me?
@@aCynicalPie you ever heard of Pandora's box?
@@aCynicalPie because we f#&ing said so, that's why. gotta problem with that?
at a young age, Kids are not able to discuss ... Kids are able to learn without filter. Kids believe in everything, so adults will definitely educate them according to their beliefs and not exactly according to kids' preferences.
Also, there are tons of priority subjects to teach like math, reading, speaking, .... develop critical thinking somehow and then kids will be able to absorb sexual orientation properly
I love this entire series of discussions, Peter. I think they're really valuable. Thanks!
Thanks!
These young men are so damn ignorant. The science about sexual orientation has existed for decades. This is something determined before birth, in utero. We have known that for ages. Sexual orientation is biological. Gender identity, on the other hand, is not. It absolutely has a social contagion aspect. We have seen that in recent years. Kids should not be exposed to gender ideology, but should absolutely be taught about sexual orientation.
The strongly agree kid is close. It's not that people get influenced to be gay. It's that they get influenced to be sexually deviant or sexually focused individuals. Deviancy could include things like gay behavior in otherwise straight men, but really leans more towards other behavior generally seen as distasteful by society. This could be furries and zoophilia, trans affirmation groups, and so on. In my day it was the emo craze, today it's questioning your biological gender and getting permanent treatments to follow a fad.
Really the hard part is asking people why these things are bad, and really the best answer is that it's already acclimatized cultural information. Previous societies have found that degeneracy and deviancy leads to downfall and has thus adopted cultural standards against it, but has forgotten or not really understood the explicit reasons why. If you Socratic method your way down to the bottom it's hard to give a solid reason why, but even still we know that such behavior leads to less desirable outcomes on average.
I don't care if the kid is gay or straight I don't want any teacher especially if they are apart of that letter cult discussing anything with them. As for the TQ+ Im 100% against it.
Only time it should be "discussed" is when talking about in nature like animals in homosexual/heterosexual relationships if the kid inquires about it then that's different.
I’m shocked no one brought up religious groups. What if a child is Orthodox Jewish or Muslim, they shouldn’t be taught that being gay is ok or should be acceptable if it’s directly in opposition with their religious beliefs. School should be absolutely neutral.
NO! This shouldn’t be a thing! I grew up not 100% straight, I didn’t NEED my teachers talking about it to me! I would never force this conversation onto a CHILD! It’s WEIRD!
Interesting to see debates regarding stuff that is just common sense. Our culture is so easily manipulated.
So, little Karen comes to class with her two dads (or Johnny comes to class with his two moms)...kids are curious (that is their job at that age)...how can one silence a teacher to the point where they can't even state that some kids have two parents of the same sex?
Sure, you can say things like, the teacher has to respond "ask your parents." However, discussing a fact of reality shouldn't be so restricted.
But that is about where I think it should end, in the Elementary School. Sex-Ed should, whenever it occurs within a particular school system, is probably the more appropriate place to discuss in a more broad set of topics.
Peter seems to want to take news (hypothetical) and try to see if it justifies a school discussion on sexual orientation...why can't this be referred back to the parents? It should be sufficient, to state that we should not harm others, which is why we don't tolerate kids fighting in school...regardless of the reason. It is consistent and reinforces the basic concept.
Amazing work Peter, I'd love to see discussions like this everywhere
To me the concern is largely analogous to talking about religion in schools. Most people don't have a problem the subject matter being "discussed". The problem arises when teachers decorate the classroom with religious flags and iconography, have the kids sing religious songs, and introduce pro-religious literature and classroom activities.
To me the first young man, stated it perfectly in that to teach little kids thus is grooming and takes away their personal opportunity to choose their sexual preferences. Lastly it's amazing how sexual preferences has taken over the need to talk about health care benefits, economy and other needs of our society
I would strongly agree unless this happened: The person elected to teach the kids about this should be chosen by a hat draw first and then further approved by parents (or could opt-out). If that particular random teacher is not comfortable with it, then draw again. The point is that you want to elect someone who doesn't really want to teach that. This way you know the kids are safe and will be exposed to a more balanced point of view.
These are really great discussions. The only problem with this one is that the person on Strongly Disagree wasn't challenged to move from his position like the other 3 were throughout the discussion.
Dude that first comment was wildly on point 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
The guy on the strongly agree line gave the very definition of grooming without realizing it.
"Advancing equality" is not and should not be the goal of any educational curriculum. Especially in elementary school.
Teaching kids WHAT to think and not HOW to think is grooming.
It is about context. If the discussion is about treating each other respectfully and fairly, regardless of sexual orientation, then, yes, THAT should be taught. But anything that goes beyond that becomes a slippery slope, especially in today's climate wherein "queerness" is a social contagion that even straight people adopt just to appear cool and oppressed.
True. But you should be able to teach respect and fairness for all without specifying orientation... All should mean ALL. Otherwise why not point out every other difference and specify that too? "Make sure you show respect and fairness to those with webbed toes"
@@masonzuleger The distinction here is that hate against LGBT has been historically violent, traumatizing and sometimes even fatal. LGBT youth are also something like 6 times more likely to commit suicide. Yes, let's teach children the golden rule, but I do think it is important to emphasize areas of hate and discrimination that are still rampant in society today.
@@masonzuleger That seems impossible though. Like if a kid grows up knowing only athiests that think religion is stupid, you need to mention that there are religions that people follow that are different from what they think, and that they shouldn't judge or hate others for it.
You can't really teach people to respect differences without mentioning that differences exist.
@@hejiranyc preach!
When i first started seeing this guy conduct this exercise about a year ago it didn’t really get far but now that i seeing it working in full swing it’s pretty badass …
Super dope seeing it work!
"Tell someone if a person tries to touch your private parts." "Don't put your hands on someone because they are different from you." Those lessons can be taught without bringing sexual orientation in it. That's for all human beings.
~ “I knew my parents were man and woman and married long before I ever knew anything about sex” was a pretty devastating blow to the point the meatheads were trying to make.
How so? At 3 you don't understand anything other than mom and dad take care of your needs. Sexual orientation literally means who you prefer to orgasm with and give orgasms to. Anything else is just a friendship. Marriage is a sexual partnership. Dating is the precursor to sexual partnership.
Another fantastic dialogue, thanks so much Peter 🙏
Thank you!
I would love to participate in one of these exercises. Peter Boghossian is a National Treasure.
Teach children respect and manners.
Would you let the stranger down the street talk to your kids about sex? Nuff said!
@@eustace88 sexual orientation is literally who you want to have sex with. You utter moron
@@eustace88 that's not a discussion on sexual orientation dude. Your example doesn't work. Referencing someone's sexuality and having a full on discussion on what sexual orientation is and what each orientation pertains is are two very different things. One is remark and the other is quite literally sexually grooming children who don't have the mental facilities to understand it.
@@eustace88 teachers being g cause for child abuse n pedo says otherwise.
theg r strangers
Talking about romantic attraction isn't the same as talking about sex, otherwise people would never show their kids Disney films.
My argument for discussing sexual orientation in a limited capacity is that kids will be exposed to all kinds of people in the outside world and they will have questions, not all of which will be answered by parents. Explaining in a neutral way that there are some same sex couples does more good in helping them make sense of the world than the harm that the confusion might cause them.
Yeah, I agree but we need much better safeguarding systems in place to detect teachers who exploit that natural curiosity to cross a line and turn a factual discussion into grooming. Transgenderism has made decent teachers feel they can't call that stuff out for fear of losing their jobs.
So what if not everything is addressed by parents? It's not an iron law that public schools have to make up for that.
@@relaxingsounds1386 I don't think it needs to be "taught" but there's nothing wrong with a male teacher saying either "my my wife " or "my husband" and vice versa. And if a question comes up, there should be standardized and informative, fact-based ways of answering it instead of "sorry, it's too taboo to talk about".
There is no confusion in saying "go talk to your parents about that" you're arguing for the sexual grooming of children
@@yohnjates what is your definition of grooming exactly?
Schools never taught about heterosexual relationships. They only taught about biology. No discussions about relationships should be taught in school. That should be, as it used to be, a parent with child discussion.
Teaching acceptance/tolerance of other humans does not have to include taking it into the sexual realm in schools, especially at young ages.