"Paedophilia is a sexual orientation" taught in California schools

[Lamaha]

Tell me it isn't true.

freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/1077-pedophilia-being-taught-as-sexual-orientation-in-california-schools

Horrified, the mother turned activist expressed shock at Torres' admission. “So sex between a man and a boy is a sexual orientation?” she asked. Torres did not deny it. “It's something that occurred in history, and so this is really important for us to include,” the assistant superintendent said, implying that yes, sexual relations between a man and a boy — properly considered rape under the laws of every state — is a “sexual orientation.”

So it shouldn't be presented as a sexual orientation because it happened in certain societies on the past, it should only be presented as one of many forms of slavery and exploitation that happened in certain societies when most adults, let alone kids, had no human rights.

Spartan boys for example were also whipped to within an inch of their lives during some exercises; do you think they were going to refuse anything Inc sexual activity with the older men who held almost life and death power and the power to inflict a lot of pain and deprivation on them, as well as being in a position of ultimate authority over them .. men who had created an incredibly divided society in which they had no access to sex with women until they married, which was years after their sex drive was active and high.

I would ask those of you who use the word “Christian” as a general insult to think again.

Christianity, like Islam, Judaism and feminism, covers a wide spectrum.

You expect others to listen to your views “ No we are not transphobic, we object to some of the views and changes promote by trans activists” and to understand that all feminists are not the same.

Yes you won’t afford that same right to Christians “ Yes they are all homophobic , everything they say is wrong and they should be hated”.

Not a good look, especially the day after hundreds of Christians have been killed and injured murdered just for attending their place of worship.

GC feminists might be wise to get over their moral purity issues and build allies, rather than alienate large sections of the UK population. If you hate everyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% then you will be very lonely.

Who has said they hate all Christians? I’ve seen people criticising right-wing extremist Christian groups, which IMO is absolutely warranted. That’s not all Christians, obviously.

Yes you won’t afford that same right to Christians “ Yes they are all homophobic , everything they say is wrong and they should be hated”.

I've never seen anyone on FWR say anything like that about Christians IM0GEN so I don't know where you're getting that from. I think you're imaging things and conjuring up some victim complex from somewhere. You sound like one of those right-wingers from the US who whines on about how Christians are 'persecuted' and there's a 'war on Christmas' and no-one can say 'Merry Christmas' anymore boo-hoo... not a good look on a UK website and not convincing to anyone either.

Maybe not in this thread; but I've often seen "Christian" used in a mocking way, as a slur, assuming that "we are all intelligent people here and don't worship an imaginary friend in the sky,' and dismissive of anything that comes out of such a person's mouth.
I can imagine that can get pretty annoying to an intelligent, well-educated Christian of sound ethical values.

Morality I agree. It needs to be taught in a context that groups of people without a voice (slaves, children, women...) have always been exploited and that was and is usually normalized in the respective societies precisely because these people‘s experiences and perspectives are / were not considered.

Indeed Lamaha. It’s not just annoyance that I’m concerned about . It’s that some GC feminists are alienating potential allies in the fight because of moral purity. It’s not a good strategy ( aside from the morality of writing off anyone who has any religious faith).

Most practising Jews, Muslims and Christians don’t want XY people in XX safe spaces either. Or in women’s sport. Or to have the word woman redefined to include men.

And do you know what, there’s far more of them in the Uk than GC feminists who avow all religion. And our elected representatives know that, even if you don’t.

Just saying.

Hi Imogen, using broad strokes here is pointless. People who say all feminists are transphobic bigots (Twitter), all Muslims are homophobic (No Outsiders, Birmingham) all Christians are hypocrites...no one is saying this.

No one is 'all' everything and no one is saying that here. Perhaps you have interpreted it that way but as MN monitors comments and deletes anything not in the spirit of debate, and as the comments still stand, I think it's safe to move in with the topic.

From what I can gather there's controversy about whether paedophilia (which is being defined as a sexual orientation by a growing number of psychologists) is covered by hate crime and anti conversion legislation. Some say that's nonsense others it's perfectly possible with wording of legislation. We're in the territory of interpretation. Not long ago transwomen were obviously not actual women.
I agree these people are despicable but being 100% certain about how laws should be interpreted is no bad thing.

ohholyjesus

I think you misunderstand how MN moderating works.

Interesting user name and not at all offensive to Muslims or Christians.

The ‘wrong side of history’ argument gains weight when people are eager to accept a questionable source because it confirms their preexisting opinion.

I don’t doubt that the way the new syllabus covers gender is something that GC feminists would object to. The idea that paedophilia is being taught as a sexual orientation is ludicrous. It is a wilful misinterpretation of fact.

Christianity is being used to blur the issue here. Many people, including Lisa Muggeridge, have highlighted how the ideology that encompasses transgenderism also implicitly (and increasingly explicitly) has the aim of eroding the sexual boundaries of children. So statements like

The idea that paedophilia is being taught as a sexual orientation is ludicrous. It is a wilful misinterpretation of fact.

are quite simply, at best, misleading.

In the article posted by andyoldlabour it quite clearly states

"California parents and teachers are protesting what they call the “sexually explicit” and “dangerous” agenda of the proposed statewide health education curriculum.

According to education advocate and former public school teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, concerned parents, grandparents, and teachers spent hours poring over the thousands of pages of curricula during the 60-day public review period."

These people spent hundreds of hours in order to find that pre-school children are being taught such things as their parents assigned them a gender at birth. Are you surprised that there is a lack of trust between them and the California authorities?

And the people on here that would trust said authorities to teach ancient Greek pederasty as a means to

heighten children's awareness about their own safety, and perhaps to alert a child that what may be happening to them in secret has a name and a consequence to abusers. It may even encourage them to report it to the teacher who teaches it with sensitivity and care. Opening a subject up in a classroom in the right way is more the issue.

are beyond deluded.

Then what to say about people who argue that

"Sexual orientation" just means what a person is sexually attracted to.It's not a moral judgement on whether something is ethical or unethical.

Is rapeophilia a bona fide sexual orientation? Because that is what paedophilia and pederasty are - the rape of people too young to give informed consent. You don't need to be a Christian to know that.

And while I'm on the subject here's a clip of that right wing witch Rebecca Freidrichs talking about how she got into activism

The unions are not standing up for children here or in America.

Would these ‘parents and teachers’ be the ones who have objected to and avoided teaching about the effectiveness of condoms when it comes to preventing the spread of HIV? Or the ones who don’t want any mention of homosexuality?

This is from 2003 but is relevant www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/sex_education_in_california_public_schools.pdf
California brought in the current curriculum to try and address the lack of consistency and the gaps in teaching of sex ed.

My username could be offensive to some yes sure. It's open to interpretation. I'm an atheist. I used to label myself an agnostic.

We would agree I think that having a faith and also being right wing doesn't make you a bigot though.

I'm ok with offending people as I am with being offended.

I don't find a dictionary definition offensive but I know some who do and I find being called cis or terf offensive and others don't.

Language/semantics are being blurred here. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists...whether you have a faith or not...teaching paedophilic as a sexual orientation is morally wrong.

I'm clear from the video on the link OP posted that this is what the assistant superintendent said, as a historical teaching. I'm not clear on the ages of the children being taught in these lessons but a gender identity or a sexual orientation, paedophilia is not.

If the P gets added to the LGBT in the UK there will be uproar and rightly so.

Language/semantics are being blurred here. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists...whether you have a faith or not...teaching paedophilic as a sexual orientation is morally wrong.

I think you're blurring language and semantics. As I already explained previously, "sexual orientation" just refers to what someone is attracted to. It's not a judgement on the morality, or immorality, of such an orientation.

I don't think teaching paedophilic as a sexual orientation is accurate or helpful Unflushable do you?

"sexual orientation" just refers to what someone is attracted to. It's not a judgement on the morality, or immorality, of such an orientation.

Do you think young children should be taught about them all, unflushable?

Most practising Jews, Muslims and Christians don’t want XY people in XX safe spaces either. Or in women’s sport. Or to have the word woman redefined to include men.

As a feminist, I welcome discussion with other feminists. I will even discuss women’s issues with non-feminists when I’m in a particularly generous mood. But for me personally it’s not worth getting involved with people who agree with me about outcomes but not about reasons. Christians who are feminists - yay! Christians who share some of my goals while believing that man is the head of woman like Christ is the head of man - no thanks.

Conflating the T or the P or both with the LGB is dangerous and sends us backwards.

Children cannot consent to sex so no to paedophilic being taught as a speciation orientation.

Animals cannot consent to sex so no to Beastiality being taught as a sexual orientation.

I've seen many a story in a trashy magazine about someone having sex with a car. A car, as a machine, cannot give consent or experience pain and I'm not for having that taught in school as a sexual preference either.

No it shouldn't be presented as a sexual orientation because it happened in certain societies on the past, it should only be presented as one of many forms of slavery and exploitation that happened in certain societies when most adults, let alone kids, had no human rights

It represents a tiny aspect of Classical civilisations. I can't see any reason for even mentioning it in a general Classical studies course for young children. It might be relevant for more advanced studies, although I am not aware of this being covered in my son's Higher Classical Studies course.

On sex and relationships studies I think paedophilia probably does need to be mentioned but only in the context that it is an abnormal, unacceptable and criminal aberration.

An awful biased homophobic source. Rubbish.

Sex education in America (particularly abstinence only education) is a massive problem in some states. Rampant homophobia is another problem, as is creationism being taught as part of science lessons.

The answer to that is not teaching young children that babies are assigned a sex / gender at birth. I didn’t assign my children a sex - they are male and will continue to be male whatever they want to wear or play with or anything else. It’s not an assignment, it’s a fact. If they decide they want to identify as female instead, I will support them, but it won’t make this whole “assigned sex at birth” crap true. My sons are both autistic - being told this would be deeply confusing for them, and it’s such utter nonsense.