"For Family Day at his 3-year-old son’s preschool, Victor Parral hauled in a bag of Barbies and Kens. Using varied combinations to represent parents, he paired them up for a puppet show — including two dads, one in a floral shirt, the other in a casual tee emblazoned with gold lamé. “We had dolls for all types of families — lesbian moms, a heterosexual couple, a single mother, divorced parents,” said Parral, a 45-year-old Valencia art teacher who staged the show with his husband. For students 12 and up, Parral has given diversity lessons in public schools that invite boys to paint their nails while girls draw beards on their faces. “The idea is to explore gender as a cultural construct,” he said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/20/vox-spain-elections-far-right/ If heterosexuality is the biological norm, i.e., if heterosexuals are in no " danger" of being converted to some other form of sexual expression, why the outrage directed at those other forms? Aren't discussions of sexuality directed at teaching youngsters to be accepting of others? Might one perhaps wonder if those adults who are outraged are uncertain of their own sexuality?
When I started reading this, I was quite surprised that you posted it, because it’s the first time I’ve seen a liberal post an article that displays outrageous behavior by the left. Then I got to your discussion and see why you did it. This is a premise that has not been shown to be true. Something being a biological norm does not preclude differing from it. There’s lots of biologically normal behaviors that people go against. Non-smoking is a biological norm. But people choose to smoke. I’ve never heard that one before. That’s like saying if people objected to Ken and Barbie dressed in KKK outfits showing a happy white nationalist family, then it would mean the people who objected are closet racists. I think that proposition falls flat and is usually called up to squash debate.
The 3 year olds are aware of their sexuality by then good time to discuss it. Understanding Early Sexual Development
When I started reading this, I was quite surprised that you posted it, because it’s the first time I’ve seen a liberal post an article that displays outrageous behavior by the left. Then I got to your discussion and see why you did it. I can see why you feel it’s outrageous. Three is rather young, but I really was focusing more on the fact that the school system was teaching it. Do you think teachers should not address it at all? If not, what age would be appropriate? If so, who should teach our children tolerance? This is a premise that has not been shown to be true. Something being a biological norm does not preclude differing from it. There’s lots of biologically normal behaviors that people go against. Non-smoking is a biological norm. But people choose to smoke. See Post #3. Also, the smoking analogy is not appropriate as sexuality is not a choice IMO. I’ve never heard that one before. I can’t believe that inasmuch as that’s been the reason the issue has been raised - because of the cruelty of many towards those who don’t conform to traditional notions of sexuality. Surely you don’t believe sexuality is learned, and that teaching about differences promotes a particular sexuality. That’s like saying if people objected to Ken and Barbie dressed in KKK outfits showing a happy white nationalist family, then it would mean the people who objected are closet racists. I think that proposition falls flat and is usually called up to squash debate. This statement is confusing, but I agree my last sentence was inappropriate.
BTW, I’m an almost 89 YO heterosexual who has been married 56 years, has 3 kids, and was raised in the south with traditional values which, looking back on it, were constrictive. My children have educated me, and I’ve always tried to keep an open mind. I no longer much care what one’s lifestyle is as long as it doesn’t harm others - and I’ve yet to see any “harm” in varying lifestyles or sexuality.
So we shouldn’t teach them anything, just let them be kids? Obviously you don’t believe that, and you’re just disagreeing with what we teach them. Should we not teach them tolerance and acceptance? Surely you don’t believe that. If you don’t, what’s the point of your post?
I would prefer more emphasis on academics, and less on "lifestyle," issues in K-12. Gender studies should be college level courses.
At age 3 it’s probably best to stick to teaching ABCs and 123s. Maybe some shoe tying and the golden rule kind of stuff. If someone thinks this stuff is ok for 3 year olds, great for them but I politely disagree.
Next week, in Valencia, Spain: In celebration of "Foodie Day" at her daughter's pre-school Pilar Fernandez brought in a bag of various spirits, cognac and of course, Sangria. It's important for students to learn that for some people alcohol tastes yucky and for others they really like it. Additionally, making fun of students who couldn't hold their liquor was highly discouraged - as it ostracized many of them. The goal was respecting all foods and making sure Muslim and Jewish students had the opportunity to try pork. Later this month, at Pharmacology Day, students will be able to sample various drugs - including using dirty needles because some people can't afford culturally accepted (via social construct) the "good" drugs. YAY!!! At age 3 children should be taught everything about all subjects and that it's only "good" or "bad" for you. At graduation, students will all be given a moped to reach the stage with helmets and bubble wrap required.
IMO, this presentation to 3-year olds was not a discussion on sexuality, but rather a presentation on different family dynamics. To imply that this was "Discussing sexuality with 3-year olds" is creative hyperbole and pure click-bait.
This post was funny as hell; I enjoyed reading it! However, the comparisons are totally not equal. The only way these comparisons could be equal is if the presentation to 3-yr olds showed two dads or two moms having sex. But your post was still a fun read, no matter how ridiculous.
Gender studies can be academic. At least to my understanding, I don't consider the instruction described in the OP to be gender studies. Based on my understanding of gender studies, I do think it represents more post-secondary level of course, just as a matter of complexity. But you can't avoid discussions of family structure early on. It's just too much a part of our life and too much a part of associating with peers. I think all of us from conventional family structures, as young children, believe that our family represents the universal norm until we get broader exposure. That seems to be a pretty common human experience. But I think it is important to have children realize that families take on different forms, not just in a term of gender nonconformity, but generational differences, etc., and it's important not to be automatically judgmental. Obviously there are complexities within all of those points. Any of those points can be stretched to something I don't intend. But generally, I do think it's important to emphasize, as part of a normal socialization, that families take on different structures. And I think overly emphasizing that only one structure as legitimate not only would disserve the child but will be harmful to society and promote cruel antisocial conduct
I'd be interested in the thoughts of a child psychologist, but if I were the parent of a 3yr old, I would rather not have my child taught family structure (including gay/lesbian/etc.) by the art teacher using Barbie dolls. I don't think there's much lost by opting to teach that at home, esp. for the youngest children.
Thank you - you get it. No - the situations are not directly comparable, I agree. The point is: what, when, where, how and why we talk to 3 year olds should be up to the parents. Now, if this school communicated the full extent of what was being discussed and the parents are okay with it; then, I say fine. This seems a tad early in that we have a growing group of young men (Incels), say 18 - 35 years of age, who cannot negotiate the dating landscape and have a romantic relationship with a woman but we're going to make damn sure a 3-year old knows all the different options available to him or her. Seems like we may have missed the boat.
The most important thing that young kids need to be taught is that their bodies belong to THEM. Helps them understand what predators are doing and that they should always tell their parents. Ignorance is not bliss in this area. I think that there is some conflating of family structures and sexuality. I wish that folks would love their neighbors and mind their own business
Would you agree that there is a difference between teaching tolerance/acceptance and encouraging boys to paint their nails or for girls to draw beards on their face and a non science art teacher teaching gender is a cultural construct?
