Moved Thread Should the AFL have a full pride round?

[Dynamics]

Depending on your definition of transitioning, between 3% and 0.15% of people who transition regret transitioning.

Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.There is an unknown percentage of transgender and gender non-confirming individuals who undergo gender-affirmation surgeries (GAS) that experiences regret. Regret could lead to physical and mental ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I acknowledge that this still leaves a subset of the population that regrets their transition, but 3% of what is already a small percentage of the population (39 from 10,000 individuals) is much lower than the binary you're proposing as equal.

That examples exist does not entail that those examples are representative of a wider population.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a read.

 

[iameviljez]

I remember now we had this controversy before.

2000 Olympics Closing ceremony.

We’ve come a long way, the language used by the hate groups was more direct, they’ve become subtle now and shifted to “save the Kids” rheotoric:

Sydney Olympics hit by 'drag queen' controversy | Baptist Press

LONDON (BP)--Australian church groups are appalled that several dozen "drag queens" are expected to participate in the official closing ceremony of the Sydney Olympics, according to CNSNews.com. The involvement of men dressed as women, the church groups say, does little to enhance the city or...

www.baptistpress.com

Lee Atwater was a Republican strategist who outlined this very very bluntly. The quote was:
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*, n*, n*". By 1968, you can't say "n*"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff."

 

[iameviljez]

Aside living on different continents at the moment and my being relentlessly looked down upon for my pronunciation for phrases such as “hors d’ouvre” or “joie de vivre” it’s pretty great!

As a kid, I used to refer to them as "horse doovers", having only ever read the word

 

[Gough]

I remember now we had this controversy before.

2000 Olympics Closing ceremony.

We’ve come a long way, the language used by the hate groups was more direct, they’ve become subtle now and shifted to “save the Kids” rheotoric:

Sydney Olympics hit by 'drag queen' controversy | Baptist Press

LONDON (BP)--Australian church groups are appalled that several dozen "drag queens" are expected to participate in the official closing ceremony of the Sydney Olympics, according to CNSNews.com. The involvement of men dressed as women, the church groups say, does little to enhance the city or...

www.baptistpress.com

The really s**t thing about the whole Helen Lovejoy routine is that it's exclusionary in itself, when they say think of the kids they mean the straight kids because their hatred and bigotry sure as hell doesn't do much for the LGBTQI+ kids.

 

[Schneebly11]

The really s**t thing about the whole Helen Lovejoy routine is that it's exclusionary in itself, when they say think of the kids they mean the straight kids because their hatred and bigotry sure as hell doesn't do much for the LGBTQI+ kids.

In their world “let kids be kids” means until 17 years and 364 days all they do is watch wholesome cartoons, attend single sex schools, go to Sunday school, and not have a thought about sex until they hit 18. On the day they do then they are equipped with the knowledge to make adult decision on sexuality, that being heterosexual sexuality of course.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

I would like to see it myself, but unfortunately due to the Manly Sea Eagles fiasco and fallout, I don't think the AFL would ever be brave enough to introduce it here in the AFL (well at least not in the next 10 years anyway)

 

[randyzany]

I was 11 when I was first aware that I found males attractive. I’ve known people who came to the same realisation later, I’ve known people who came to the realisation earlier.

The feeling was startling to me. If I wasn’t aware same-sex attraction existed it probably would’ve been even moreso.

I don’t think anyone says kids need to learn what felching is, but they need to know that a feeling they might have isn’t wrong, isn’t to be mocked in others, and that everything is okay. Calling this tantamount to child abuse is bizarre - and this comes from someone with an inherent predisposition to the dramatic.

In the past I've come across attitudes, especially from left leaning individuals, that today's teachers are overloaded with far too many educational tasks/checklists at schools and whinge and complain constantly that it is ridiculous/insane/irresponsible/unfair/etc.. to expect them to also act as de facto parents to their students.

On this issue though, unsurprisingly, those same left leaning individuals (most teachers lean left, especially public school ones) are probably more than happy to spend hours waxing lyrical to Primary age children that are not their own about a topic that close to their hearts, sexual minorities.

I'm sympathetic to your own experience and others like it, but never-the-less I stand firm in the belief that teachers do not have the automatic right to broach a subject with Primary school aged students that is considered a fairly delicate one by the vast majority of parents unless they have had permission beforehand from them to do so.

It is the height of arrogance to dismiss and potentially circumvent the parents wishes on how this topic should be approached with their own children and think that some unrelated adult knows better. Many children would not be mentally mature enough to fully comprehend and process what they've been told. Parents are the ones best placed to know when their own children are mentally ready to process that information and how it should to be delivered to them. This stance shouldn't be controversial but here we are.

The same applies to religion or any other subject matter that's not a core age appropriate school subject. I say age appropriate because as I've said previously I'm 100% for sex ed/sexuality being taught in High Schools. Students aged 13 and over should definitely be taught about sex ed/sexuality as part of the school curriculum, no issues with that and I'll go as far as to say that it should be a core essential subject.

Primary schools (it seems it's mostly public ones that want to overstep the mark in this matter) though should stick to teaching typical school curriculum material and discussions revolving about sexuality should be left to their own parents unless the parents themselves have requested and confirmed that they're okay with Primary school teachers taking on that responsibility.

 

[Chief]

Students aged 13 and over should definitely be taught about sex ed/sexuality as part of the school curriculum, no issues with that and I'll go as far as to say that it should be a core essential subject.

I think we started in about grade 5.

Why do you want to pretend it doesn't exist?

 

[the_interloper]

I think we started in about grade 5.

Why do you want to pretend it doesn't exist?

How early would you want to start sex ed in schools?

 

[Gough]

How early would you want to start sex ed in schools?

Same age it's always been taught which never seemed to be a problem when sex was taught as only being between a man and a woman. As soon as it deviated from that the usual suspects lost their minds.

 

[the_interloper]

Same age it's always been taught which never seemed to be a problem when sex was taught as only being between a man and a woman. As soon as it deviated from that the usual suspects lost their minds.

I went to a Catholic school, I don't recall learning about gay sex surprise surprise, I do recall being told that we shouldn't wank though.

 

[Gough]

I went to a Catholic school, I don't recall learning about gay sex surprise surprise, I do recall being told that we shouldn't wank though.

It was worse for you sad buggers when you had sex God was caught up in it too which must have been a touch confusing.

 

[madmug]

In the past I've come across attitudes, especially from left leaning individuals, that today's teachers are overloaded with far too many educational tasks/checklists at schools and whinge and complain constantly that it is ridiculous/insane/irresponsible/unfair/etc.. to expect them to also act as de facto parents to their students.

On this issue though, unsurprisingly, those same left leaning individuals (most teachers lean left, especially public school ones) are probably more than happy to spend hours waxing lyrical to Primary age children that are not their own about a topic that close to their hearts, sexual minorities.

I'm sympathetic to your own experience and others like it, but never-the-less I stand firm in the belief that teachers do not have the automatic right to broach a subject with Primary school aged students that is considered a fairly delicate one by the vast majority of parents unless they have had permission beforehand from them to do so.

It is the height of arrogance to dismiss and potentially circumvent the parents wishes on how this topic should be approached with their own children and think that some unrelated adult knows better. Many children would not be mentally mature enough to fully comprehend and process what they've been told. Parents are the ones best placed to know when their own children are mentally ready to process that information and how it should to be delivered to them. This stance shouldn't be controversial but here we are.

The same applies to religion or any other subject matter that's not a core age appropriate school subject. I say age appropriate because as I've said previously I'm 100% for sex ed/sexuality being taught in High Schools. Students aged 13 and over should definitely be taught about sex ed/sexuality as part of the school curriculum, no issues with that and I'll go as far as to say that it should be a core essential subject.

Primary schools (it seems it's mostly public ones that want to overstep the mark in this matter) though should stick to teaching typical school curriculum material and discussions revolving about sexuality should be left to their own parents unless the parents themselves have requested and confirmed that they're okay with Primary school teachers taking on that responsibility.

Gross over generalisation & simplification.

Teachers cop all sorts of criticism because RW politicians & RW parents like to blame someone else for their own failings.

Its a fact that the attitudes & sociability of children is/are formed in the first 4 years of life. ie the biggest influence on the children are the parents themselves.

So any failings are invariably caused by the parents themselves, especially in that first phase of life, at home!!

One might suggest any later negative changes in some children may be the fault of religious brainwashing & abuse in Religious schools. The community wide problem of bullying doesn't help either. But thats another question.

 

[Pistol Night]

I went to a Catholic school, I don't recall learning about gay sex surprise surprise, I do recall being told that we shouldn't wank though.

Did you take this advise on board?

 

[the_interloper]

Did you take this advise on board?

I'm not sure anyone did, I think we all guiltily beat our old fellas like it owed us money

 

[Chief]

How early would you want to start sex ed in schools?

We started in about grade 5 with the mechanics mainly.

Did us no harm.

 

[the_interloper]

We started in about grade 5 with the mechanics mainly.

Did us no harm.

So is this the right age in your opinion, would you do it earlier?

I'm not quite sure of the right age really, I'd say high school though

 

[Chief]

So is this the right age in your opinion, would you do it earlier?

I'm not quite sure of the right age really, I'd say high school though

I really don't know. There are professionals who would probably say there's a line, but plenty of kids are mature enough to learn things earlier.

Childhood education is a big shield against abuse, too.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It was year 7 (12 - 13yo) that as student, we had an official class on (the mechanics of) sex education. That was in 1983.

I don't think this should be in the realm of primary school age or at least grade 6.

Anything earlier than that is not really required, and let's be honest most kids up to the age of 11-12 are probably not interested.

Not to mention kids at toddler age and early primary are in their formative mind ages, sponges if you will, they'll soak up anything and everything that is shown / told to them. It's where they pick up their good and bad habits.

I'd say high school it's absolutely necessary curriculum, both from a raw mechanics point of view and a societal standards point of view i:e tolerance of society members that may have a different natural inclination to ones self.

 

[Chief]

Anything earlier than that is not really required, and let's be honest most kids up to the age of 11-12 are probably not interested.

But creeps are. The kids should know.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But creeps are. The kids should know.

Not sure what you're getting at Chief.

Could you please explain your point?

 

[owen87]

Not sure what you're getting at Chief.

Could you please explain your point?

Kids having a better understanding of what sex (or sexual activity) is, helps them better identify if they're being abused.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Kids having a better understanding of what sex (or sexual activity) is, helps them better identify if they're being abused.

Of course I know this, probably not suited to children of formative minds who are not interested in or wouldn't have any knowledge of.

Not sure what Chief is getting at with the 'creep' element, sounds like a 'stranger danger' element which kids are taught about from kindy age anyway (I'd hope so anyway). Sex education is not required to inform kids about 'creeps' to avoid.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Of course I know this, probably not suited to children of formative minds who are not interested in or wouldn't have any knowledge of.

Not sure what Chief is getting at with the 'creep' element, sounds like a 'stranger danger' element which kids are taught about from kindy age anyway (I'd hope so anyway). Sex education is not required to inform kids about 'creeps' to avoid.

They are more likely to be abused by a family friend or relative, so it’s not so much about stranger danger.

 

[madmug]

They are more likely to be abused by a family friend or relative, so it’s not so much about stranger danger.

Yes Its not so much the 'creeps' one should worry about, rather the 'grooming' of children by generally trusted people.

 

[Carringbush2010]

They are more likely to be abused by a family friend or relative, so it’s not so much about stranger danger.

Actually this is an excellent point. (congratulations, not a trolling post which is your usual mo)

However I don't think attempting to teach children of toddler age the mechanics of sex and / or societal variances as far as sexual preferences go among individuals will help them avoid creepy family member.

When I was in kindy like nearly 50 years ago, we were taught that >no one< is allowed to make you feel uncomfortable or weird or touch you physically where you don't want to be touched.

Of course that is not exactly a silver bullet solution to the pedo family member, neither is.

Getting back on topic, I don't see an issue with the AFL having a full pride round, hopefully builds acceptance among societies members.