You recommend the children remain ignorant of the topics that the classes would teach.
You can have all kinds of this knowledge in your own head. I do not say or imply that you are ignorant. The ignorance you recommend is the ignorance of children about how their bodies work.
And recommending such ignorance as the proper way forward is dumb.
So I called your recommendation dumb. Didn’t call you ignorant.
Not yet, anyway.
That’s an anti-choice website’s subjective presentation. Otherwise known as fear-mongering. Or lying.
Did you read their page on abortion? HOLY CRAP!
Like… I know I live in a urban liberal lefty bubble… but holy shit, this group is Canadian! I like my bubble. Can I just live in it forever? I don’t want to know that there are groups in Canada actively trying to take my bodily autonomy away…
No, the article you linked to said that people were pulling their kids out of school to protest in fear of the fact that they might learn age-appropriate info about sex in one of the classes.
That says more about you than it does about the teaching program.
You realise that, right?
true of everyone mate.
I posted that link because it openly inventories the actual content of the material that children will be exposed to.
Many parents I know personally were assured their children would be allowed to excuse themselves from certain subjects, but now have been told they will not be allowed such courtesy, as these coursed are now mandatory.
I am not going to trust a site that lists false causes of breast cancer.
And neither should you.
Actually, initially parents were given the choice to remove their children if they felt uncomfortable.
Now they aren’t.
After seeing your younger child I am very concerned for the birth-giver’s health. Or did the horn grow in later? 
Again, I merely wanted to find a list of the actual content of the subject matter being taught today to minors.
I cone from a generation and culture that believed certain things were not for children.
Apparently that has changed.
I’m not surprised given what Mcluhan had to say about the re-tribalization of societies, but it’s still a bit of a shock to an old guy like me.
No, it doesn’t. It posts subjective opinions about what they believe the material says to their precious babbies. There is no actual content listed.
You cannot be that much older than I, if anything you are my brothers age, who got a very comprehensive sex-ed in the 60s in Quebec at a very young age, probably way more explicit than what is being taught now. So no, not generational, at all.
Again, do not trust information on sites about anything if they have misinformation and lies on that site. Find another source because you cannot trust that site to be honest.
I went to school in Montreal and around 1973 was shown a few films and a couple of hours of slightly embarrassed teachers explaining a few things.
My sons knew more from watching media before I broached subjects with them, but their mother thought it ok to give them access to Internet without supervision at an early age.
Interestingly my youngest boy thought that people with autism had frog brains, and that if we didn’t peel the labels of tins of beans we would drown polar bears.
I was told that his science teacher made these comments in jest.
God know what is said in jest about subjects such as gender identification or masturbation when communicating with pre-teens.
Sounds like a great motivation for teaching kids to think critically, so they can actually test information presented to them rather than blindly accepting it. In a world of information glut, not everything one encounters is going to be true. So I think it is more important than ever for kids to learn to be discerning.
Hey, enough with the horn-shaming. Societally, we could stand to make a little room for some centaurinormativity.
Keep in mind, it’s right at the same height as your junk.
Clones are expensive to grow and train. Normal human beings are cheap to grow – indeed, put a male and a female together and it’s entirely possible they’ll grow one for you! – so all you need to do is train. In the quantities needed to create an army for the Empire (between Star Destroyers, Death Stars, other types of ships, and planetary installations) it’s probably more cost effective to recruit and train than to grow and train.
At least some of the Legends books (I think it was the Thrawn trilogy) called out that the Emperor was extremely xenophobic. All but one of the Grand Admirals were human, and the one nonhuman one was portrayed as a tactical and strategic genius (admittedly, he was the star of that trilogy) but was essentially in exile during the events of the movies.
Now part of that may be a retroactive explanation for why there were so few alien characters relative to how many human characters there were in the movies. But that also makes sense from a story standpoint (hate is part of the dark side of the Force, and Palpatine certainly had that in spades.) So the rules could very well be that human-on-human action was okay, human-on-alien was frowned upon, and alien-on-alien was right out.
So, I looked at both pages and I’m curious about the bit on your link that says “Grade 1: Graphic lesson on sexual body parts”. What part of that excerpt would you say is “graphic”? Are they actually saying that the actual, real names for body parts are “graphic”? If there is a more graphic part of the curriculum why have they listed “oh no real names for your hooha!” instead of the actual bad part?
There’s nothing at all there about “You should know these words so you can enthusiastically consent to sex”. It’s the very practical reasoning that, if you get hurt, you want to be able to tell people what you’re talking about.
When I taught preschool once, I had a 4-year-old student that fell off a tricycle and screamed “I hurt my bird!” I’d never heard “bird” used as a euphemism for penis. That’s where he’d hurt himself, by the way, and I had no idea what the problem was.
Oh fuck yes, but you know that’s not happening.
And I show my kids the basis for logic in argument and sit back and watch when teachers can’t even support their own arguments logically.
But the teachers are trade unionists first and foremost, so sometimes it’s hard to penetrate that ideological armour for even beginning to have a discussion.
