Is LGBT+ acceptance campaign starting to backfire?

Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
268
Likes
527
#81
The only topics you have commented on this forum are this one, “transgender abuse” and the “socialized to be rapist” thread where in each case you come down on the right.
First off, the very first comments I made had nothing to do with any of those. Ive only been posting a week. And if you actually looked at my replies you'd see they aren't random ramblings bolstered by religion or politics. I didnt align myself to any particular ones. My opinions on transgender ideology with regards to children and the LGBT community being used as a scapegoat to push an agenda has nothing to do with right wing ideology because there are LGBT individuals who ARE actually in fact right wing. And who themselves have actually spoke out with similar views to mine about these topics. Seriously, google conservative LGBT youtubers and they'll pop up. And the article I linked in the r*pe thread came from a FEMINIST criticising myths about r*pe culture and reverse sexism. I don't know why you're so insistent on categorizing people according to what little you grasp on an internet forum about their "alleged" beliefs. But it honestly makes you look like a self-righteous asswipe.

Whether it’s insinuating that there is an agenda behind the LGBT movement or going on anti-feminist rants. You can pretend it’s above politics but it shows.
What does not believing men are socialised to be rapists have to do with politics? What does believing four year olds shouldn't be taught about the "gender and sexuality" spectrum before their time have to do with politics? Not everything is about politics.

Sharon Slater is opposed to all sex-Ed due to religious beliefs and has a crusade of dis-information and pseudoscience.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/...lot-to-make-money-off-hiv-treatments-condoms/
Okay so . . . . Did I say anything about Sharon Slater? If people's personal convictions are such an obstruction to material they're affiliated with then you should be completely disregarding r*pe culture because of the stances of several of It's forerunners from the 70s who basically attributed sexual violence as an inherent part of ALL men. And for the record I am not against sex-ed but this is taking it too far especially when parents can't remove their kids from certain classes.

First I don’t just accept something I see on YouTube as truth without verification like most people in the conspiracy community. She seizes on parts of curriculums out of context and puts her spin on it to make it seem like it’s something it is not. I wouldn’t be surprised if she just printed some of those pamphlets her self either. I wasn’t convinced watching a person hold up an article they printed from their computer to be honest.
It's a good thing you don't but I'm pretty sure this isn't fear-mongering. I looked into some of the source material and yep, it's pretty much telling the truth. California's new sex ed curriculum? AB-329 allows for parents to opt their children out of sexual education. However, the bill prohibits parents from opting their children out of materials that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. If there's no agenda, why can't parents pull their kids if they are not comfortable with the materials used? Especially when the Health Education Framework affirms language in AB-329 and included books and supplemental materials such as the Amazon bestseller “S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties,” a book that describes sexual activity and gender theory.

The California Board of Education removed this book and several others from the curriculum after outrage from Californian families. Just so you get an idea of what was going on those supplementary materials (though not all of them have even been removed), it includes descriptions of anal sex, bondage and other sexual activity. And the author is Heather Corrina -"Heather Corinna is an author, activist, and Internet publisher with a focus on progressive, affirming sexuality. She is a self-described "queer, rabblerousing, polymath." She was one of the pioneers of positive human sexuality on the Internet." Going by her bio and your logic you'd think she most likely is more liberal right? So why can supplementary materials be affiliated with one kind of political ideology but whenever it's anything right of you, it's a problem? And yes, the other programmes mentioned in the video do exist.

https://www.ippf.org/resource/healthy-happy-and-hot-young-peoples-guide-rights
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
2,531
Likes
3,739
#83
Hi, I’m Awoken2 and I claim to oppose religion but when it suits my agenda
.....MY agenda?...... ohhh come on shorty, your credibility will soon measure less than your stature.

You are now struggling to differentiate between somebody exposing an agenda to somebody having an agenda.....

....and anyway, how can a single person have an agenda anyway?....explain that one to me?
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,797
Likes
6,366
#85
Pretty sure the company is fine here. If the company owns said intranet why should they allow this man to post religious propaganda? Other employees could see it, they have every right to fire him, just like I couldn’t make post’s calling Christians delusional children who believe in fairy tales and use their religion as a weapon of oppression.

If there’s a problem with IKEA it’s that it’s a mega-corporation who pushes the idea that you won’t be happy unless you spend the bucks to deck out your house with Swedish furniture.

I just love the right wing victimization machine.





You shouldn’t eat Oreos because they are awful for you, but sure get offended over some limited release packaging.
Since when is expressing personal opinions on a private employee only forum a sackable offence?!

If this is happening overseas what makes you think it won't come to the USA as well?
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
4,083
Likes
7,715
#87
First off, the very first comments I made had nothing to do with any of those. Ive only been posting a week. And if you actually looked at my replies you'd see they aren't random ramblings bolstered by religion or politics. I didnt align myself to any particular ones. My opinions on transgender ideology with regards to children and the LGBT community being used as a scapegoat to push an agenda has nothing to do with right wing ideology because there are LGBT individuals who ARE actually in fact right wing. And who themselves have actually spoke out with similar views to mine about these topics. Seriously, google conservative LGBT youtubers and they'll pop up. And the article I linked in the r*pe thread came from a FEMINIST criticising myths about r*pe culture and reverse sexism. I don't know why you're so insistent on categorizing people according to what little you grasp on an internet forum about their "alleged" beliefs. But it honestly makes you look like a self-righteous asswipe.


What does not believing men are socialised to be rapists have to do with politics? What does believing four year olds shouldn't be taught about the "gender and sexuality" spectrum before their time have to do with politics? Not everything is about politics.


Okay so . . . . Did I say anything about Sharon Slater? If people's personal convictions are such an obstruction to material they're affiliated with then you should be completely disregarding r*pe culture because of the stances of several of It's forerunners from the 70s who basically attributed sexual violence as an inherent part of ALL men. And for the record I am not against sex-ed but this is taking it too far especially when parents can't remove their kids from certain classes.


It's a good thing you don't but I'm pretty sure this isn't fear-mongering. I looked into some of the source material and yep, it's pretty much telling the truth. California's new sex ed curriculum? AB-329 allows for parents to opt their children out of sexual education. However, the bill prohibits parents from opting their children out of materials that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. If there's no agenda, why can't parents pull their kids if they are not comfortable with the materials used? Especially when the Health Education Framework affirms language in AB-329 and included books and supplemental materials such as the Amazon bestseller “S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties,” a book that describes sexual activity and gender theory.

The California Board of Education removed this book and several others from the curriculum after outrage from Californian families. Just so you get an idea of what was going on those supplementary materials (though not all of them have even been removed), it includes descriptions of anal sex, bondage and other sexual activity. And the author is Heather Corrina -"Heather Corinna is an author, activist, and Internet publisher with a focus on progressive, affirming sexuality. She is a self-described "queer, rabblerousing, polymath." She was one of the pioneers of positive human sexuality on the Internet." Going by her bio and your logic you'd think she most likely is more liberal right? So why can supplementary materials be affiliated with one kind of political ideology but whenever it's anything right of you, it's a problem? And yes, the other programmes mentioned in the video do exist.

https://www.ippf.org/resource/healthy-happy-and-hot-young-peoples-guide-rights
I’ve gone through the text of this bill numerous times at this point... parents can excuse their children from all or part of the sexed curriculum. There is no limit on that. They most certainly can excuse them from the portions you are claiming they can not.
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
4,083
Likes
7,715
#88
Since when is expressing personal opinions on a private employee only forum a sackable offence?!

If this is happening overseas what makes you think it won't come to the USA as well?
There are always guidelines about how employe s can use company provided internet services. Most companies limit the expression of personal political or religious views. The company provided internet is typically limited to company related usage. This isn’t really anything shocking.. why didn’t this person just post this stuff on Facebook?

Here’s the deal... I agree there is an agenda to sexualize children and even short of that I definately believe how society is set up is sexualizing children even if it’s not intentional (it probably is), however, the knowledge that gay people exist and should be treated equally isn’t what’s doing it.

Have you seen cheerleading practice for little girls? It’s disturbing.
Have you looked in the store for shorts for toddler girls that don’t expose the bottoms of their bums? I have, pretty much nonexistent...
Have you listened to the songs schools play at dances/events? I almost complained this school year the music was so inappropriate for the age group..
Have you seen the children’s television shows marketed to older grade school age kids? They introduce dating and crushes way too early and the clothing choices are not ok etc

We have a million things negatively impacting our children in this area (and plenty of others) and instead of looking at it comprehensively most people are choosing this ONE specific thing to latch on to and complain about when it’s probably at the bottom of the barrel of things we should be complaining/worried about, if at all.

Knowledge that gay people exist isnt going to make someone gay. Learning that they should be treated equally like everyone else is not going to make them gay.

Would it have made you gay?

Do you remember why or when you started thinking about relationships? About sex? Do you remember what the influences were in your life around that time?
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
268
Likes
527
#89
I’ve gone through the text of this bill numerous times at this point... parents can excuse their children from all or part of the sexed curriculum. There is no limit on that. They most certainly can excuse them from the portions you are claiming they can not.
Opt-out laws only apply to comprehensive sexual health education topics such as human development, pregnancy, family planning, and sexually transmitted diseases and not topics like sexual orientation and gender identity lessons, which are (by law) woven throughout other curricula.

"California's new sex ed curriculum? AB-329 allows for parents to opt their children out of sexual education. However, the bill prohibits parents from opting their children out of materials that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation."
Thats what I said.
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
4,083
Likes
7,715
#90
Opt-out laws only apply to comprehensive sexual health education topics such as human development, pregnancy, family planning, and sexually transmitted diseases and not topics like sexual orientation and gender identity lessons, which are (by law) woven throughout other curricula.

"California's new sex ed curriculum? AB-329 allows for parents to opt their children out of sexual education. However, the bill prohibits parents from opting their children out of materials that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation."
Thats what I said.
The gender and sexuality topics are part of the comprehensive sexual education. There is no where in the text of the bill that specifies you can not opt out of any portion of it. You can opt out of the whole thing if you want. Where are you getting the idea/information they can not?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB329
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
268
Likes
527
#91
The gender and sexuality topics are part of the comprehensive sexual education. There is no where in the text of the bill that specifies you can not opt out of any portion of it. You can opt out of the whole thing if you want. Where are you getting the idea/information they can not?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB329
From the bill itself.

"As stated in Education Code 51932(b)
, the opt-out provision of the California Healthy Youth Act does not apply to instruction or materials outside the context of comprehensive sexual health education, including those that may reference gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, discrimination, bullying, relationships, or family. For example, the opt-out rule associated with comprehensive sexual health education would not apply to a social studies lesson on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage."
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/he/cf/cahealthfaq.asp


"This chapter does not apply to instruction, materials, presentations, or programming that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions."
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 398, Sec. 4. (AB 329) Effective January 1, 2016.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum=51932.

I'd don't entirely trust Snopes but:
Are California Parents Barred from Withdrawing Their Children from Sex Education?
Mostly False
What's True
Parents in California may not remove their children from instruction related to sexual orientation and gender identity due to non-discrimination laws.

What's False
Parents in California may remove their children from the entire sex education curriculum as a whole, and they can specifically withdraw their children from instruction related to prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
12
Likes
28
#92
I think they are profiting from these movements, like VC once said "Every person has the right to decides what they do with their lives" but the thing takes another direction when it is constantly thrown down in our faces.
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
4,083
Likes
7,715
#93
Ok... so let me try to parse this out.

Parents can opt out of the entire sex Ed curriculum but you are upset that they can’t only opt out of those topics?

Or you are upset that they can’t opt out of natural mentions of gender or sexuality in core curriculum subjects?

Or both?
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
268
Likes
527
#94
Ok... so let me try to parse this out.

Parents can opt out of the entire sex Ed curriculum but you are upset that they can’t only opt out of those topics?

Or you are upset that they can’t opt out of natural mentions of gender or sexuality in core curriculum subjects?

Or both?
I'm not upset about either. I merely pointed out I find it odd that parents can't pull their children out of those discussions when they are free to not attend more pertinent classes addressing topics like family planning for example, or STD prevention. The only thing I was upset about was the statement that there is no agenda to sexualize children through the school curriculum (yes despite the opt out rule) especially when taking some of the supplementary materials into account. That goes for mentions of sex with any gender configuration. That's all.
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
4,083
Likes
7,715
#95
I’m sorry... but I’m still not clear

If parents can opt out of the whole thing - including those portions - then what is the problem? If as a parent, I did not want my child learning those things I would just opt out entirely. I wouldn’t want my child removed from the classroom only on specific days which would make it more obvious then just not being in the class at all.

How exactly is mentioning gay people exist and that they should be treated equally sexualizing children? Would being told that as a child have made you gay?

There are many ways children are being sexualized I’m just not sold that is one of them. Or that the onus of responsibility for it lies on the schools. And I’m saying this as someone who has pulled my own child from the public school system over irreconcilable differences.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
268
Likes
527
#96
I’m sorry... but I’m still not clear

If parents can opt out of the whole thing - including those portions - then what is the problem? If as a parent, I did not want my child learning those things I would just opt out entirely. I wouldn’t want my child removed from the classroom only on specific days which would make it more obvious then just not being in the class at all.

How exactly is mentioning gay people exist and that they should be treated equally sexualizing children? Would being told that as a child have made you gay?

There are many ways children are being sexualized I’m just not sold that is one of them. Or that the onus of responsibility for it lies on the schools. And I’m saying this as someone who has pulled my own child from the public school system over irreconcilable differences.
Why is supplementary material being offered that teaches about anal sex and bondage in the first place? That's the problem, regardless of whether it's compulsory or not. That's why I'm saying there is an agenda. Those kinds of books would never be able to be mandated as compulsory in any case, that would be way too obvious.

I don't recall ever saying anything to the effect of gay people shouldn't be mentioned in schools or that it would make children gay. But like I said earlier, children are very impressionable and a lot of what these non-sexual topics talk about include challenging concepts of gender and sexuality. No, I probably wouldn't have but then again things were very different then. I didn't grow up in front of a phone screen. A lot of the LGBT lifestyle is glamorized through entertainment, they are over-represented in media. I actually do believe that there is a difference between organic and manufactured LGBT individuals. There are definitely folks born like that but there are also, very prominently among younger generations, hordes of people choosing to "identify" as this or that because to a very large extent this is in vogue -which is quite harmful to actual LGBT individuals who just want to live their lives peacefully. If children experience non-conventional attractions or self-identification issues, then of course schools should be a place where they are not made to feel lesser. But it's still the minority and much of the material projects these as being just another natural variant so why would children not be more curious?

I also never said the onus of responsibility for it lies on the schools. I said the school system is ONE way in which they are furthering it.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
4,083
Likes
7,715
#97
Why is supplementary material being offered that teaches about anal sex and bondage in the first place? That's the problem, regardless of whether it's compulsory or not. That's why I'm saying there is an agenda. Those kinds of books would never be able to be mandated as compulsory in any case, that would be way too obvious.

I don't recall ever saying anything to the effect of gay people shouldn't be mentioned in schools or that it would make children gay. But like I said earlier, children are very impressionable and a lot of what these non-sexual topics talk about include challenging concepts of gender and sexuality. No, I probably wouldn't have but then again things were very different then. I didn't grow up in front of a phone screen. A lot of the LGBT lifestyle is glamorized through entertainment, they are over-represented in media. I actually do believe that there is a difference between organic and manufactured LGBT individuals. There are definitely folks born like that but there are also, very prominently among younger generations, hordes of people choosing to "identify" as this or that because to a very large extent this is in vogue -which is quite harmful to actual LGBT individuals who just want to live their lives peacefully. If children experience non-conventional attractions or self-identification issues, then of course schools should be a place where they are not made to feel lesser. But it's still the minority and much of the material projects these as being just another natural variant so why would children not be more curious?

I also never said the onus of responsibility for it lies on the schools. I said the school system is ONE way in which they are furthering it.
1) do you have a source proving this is actually being taught? I’ve looked through the thread and can’t find one. I’ve worked in a lot of schools, have yet to see anything even remotely like that. Open to being shown otherwise but all I can find is that there were books in the original recommendations that included these topics which were then removed. There is no commentary on why they were originally included and what parts of those books were intended to be used in instruction. I highly doubt those specific topics were the intended reason for inclusion or that those books would have just been handed to kids to peruse on their own rather than used as resources for teachers to make their lessons from.

2) kids aren’t becoming gay because it’s taught about or being shown in media, nothing can make you gay. Girls even when I was a kid often engaged in sexual behavior with other girls even when they weren’t gay to impress boys. There weren’t any gay media messaging or school lessons at that time.

3) do you remember the drama club from school? Many of the kids - especially boys - that were drawn to that instead of something like football were gay or before that was openly acknowledged feminine. Did you ever think the overrepresentation of gay people in media is more likely to be caused by the fact that gay people are more drawn to theater/drama? And now that they are out of the closet they are letting who they are be known instead of unhealthily hiding it?

And again seeing a gay person on tv isn’t going to turn someone gay.

4) why are topics about gender and sexuality challenging? What aspects of these issues do you object to being in schools? We’ve already established you can opt out of sex Ed, that leaves natural mentions of these issues in context in core curriculum... so a history lesson on the feminist movement? Is that a problem? A current events lesson on marriage equality? Is that a problem? An English lesson on Anna Karenina? Is that a problem? An English lesson on a book with a gay character? Is that a problem?

If your parameter isn’t any and all mention of gender and sexuality in any context - then what is it and how do you qualify what’s ok vs what’s not? And what are your concerns specifically regarding what it will do or potentially do to the child?

5) if you are that concerned about exposure in school you can always choose to enroll your child in a religious school or homeschool them yourself. I just hope this decision is paired with an equal decision to bar them from all media and anywhere else they might be exposed to this knowledge in a way you can’t control.
 





Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,841
Likes
3,439
#98
kids aren’t becoming gay because it’s taught about or being shown in media, nothing can make you gay. Girls even when I was a kid often engaged in sexual behavior with other girls even when they weren’t gay to impress boys. There weren’t any gay media messaging or school lessons at that time.
I think kids are thinking more about it because for years there were homosexual’s in many movies and television shows and that turned around how people viewed homosexuals. Put them in a more positive light, pop culture does influence people and it does impact children.

Being homosexual is a choice people make, for whatever reason.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
268
Likes
527
#99
1) do you have a source proving this is actually being taught? I’ve looked through the thread and can’t find one. I’ve worked in a lot of schools, have yet to see anything even remotely like that. Open to being shown otherwise but all I can find is that there were books in the original recommendations that included these topics which were then removed. There is no commentary on why they were originally included and what parts of those books were intended to be used in instruction. I highly doubt those specific topics were the intended reason for inclusion or that those books would have just been handed to kids to peruse on their own rather than used as resources for teachers to make their lessons from.

2) kids aren’t becoming gay because it’s taught about or being shown in media, nothing can make you gay. Girls even when I was a kid often engaged in sexual behavior with other girls even when they weren’t gay to impress boys. There weren’t any gay media messaging or school lessons at that time.

3) do you remember the drama club from school? Many of the kids - especially boys - that were drawn to that instead of something like football were gay or before that was openly acknowledged feminine. Did you ever think the overrepresentation of gay people in media is more likely to be caused by the fact that gay people are more drawn to theater/drama? And now that they are out of the closet they are letting who they are be known instead of unhealthily hiding it?

And again seeing a gay person on tv isn’t going to turn someone gay.

4) why are topics about gender and sexuality challenging? What aspects of these issues do you object to being in schools? We’ve already established you can opt out of sex Ed, that leaves natural mentions of these issues in context in core curriculum... so a history lesson on the feminist movement? Is that a problem? A current events lesson on marriage equality? Is that a problem? An English lesson on Anna Karenina? Is that a problem? An English lesson on a book with a gay character? Is that a problem?

If your parameter isn’t any and all mention of gender and sexuality in any context - then what is it and how do you qualify what’s ok vs what’s not? And what are your concerns specifically regarding what it will do or potentially do to the child?

5) if you are that concerned about exposure in school you can always choose to enroll your child in a religious school or homeschool them yourself. I just hope this decision is paired with an equal decision to bar them from all media and anywhere else they might be exposed to this knowledge in a way you can’t control.
1. I don't see how you can think there's wiggle room for these books to include anything but those topics considering they literally revolved around them. It wasn't as though there were sections dedicated to discussing these things, they were specifically written to discuss these them -here's an extract from the would-be lesson plan for one of the books that were removed:

Key Terms

  • Body – Grown-ups look at a baby’s body when they are born and make a guess. This is the sex assigned at birth: male or female. (Sometimes people get this confused with gender. But gender is much more than the body you were born with.)
  • Expression – what you like, how you dress and act
  • Identity – who you feel like inside, who you know yourself to be
Part 1 – Read Aloud (15-30 minutes)
  1. Invite children to think about themselves as you read. What is your story? What do you like? How do you feel? Who are you?
  2. Read Who Are You? The Kids’ Guide to Gender Identity.
  3. Discussion questions:

  • BODY: Do you know any babies who have been born? What did people say about them?
  • EXPRESSION: What do you like? Have the things you like changed since you were younger? Are there things you like sometimes but not other times? Have you ever heard someone talk about ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ clothes/hair/toys/colors?
    How did you feel?
  • IDENTITY: Who are you? What makes you you? How do you know? Has this changed
    since you were younger? What are the words you use to describe yourself? Are there other words you have heard people use to describe themselves?
Part 2 – Gender Wheel Activity (15-30 minutes)
  1. Review the three layers of The Gender Wheel. Mix and match to explore the infinite possibilities for how people experience gender.
  2. Use books to put different characters on the wheel Watch video clips of children telling their stories and show them on the wheel. (“This person has…feels like…likes…”).
  3. Invite children to use the wheel to show themselves (“I have…I am…I like…”).
https://kidsguidetogender.com/lesson-plan/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9njBaZTrCfSc1htYzlaV2JSUnllVVRiaEZPd1c3cUNoUktj/view

This came from the Transitional Kindergarten Through Grade Three section. There are also plenty of articles discussing parents who are not happy with some of the content being handled in classrooms and yes there is a lot of fear-mongering and exaggeration but that doesn't discount that there may be cases where this is true.

2. Did you read what I said? There's a difference between people are born with same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria and those who choose to do these things usually for attention. You mentioned somewhere else that you're not really on social media. You don't see it. The LGBT community on Youtube boasts some of the most subscribed channels and largest social media followings. And a large part of these personas are built on their sexual or gender identity. Would you like me to give you a list? Then take a look at some of the comment sections and you'll see what I mean. I also have a brother in high school, I'm in college. The world isn't like it was back then -the cultural and generational perception of sexual and gender minorities has drastically changed. There is a glamour to it now.

3. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not referring to the number of gay people working in the entertainment industry. I'm talking about LGBT characters. And there is increasing push for even more representation. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have representation at all, I'm saying that the numbers are being over-inflated and do not reflect reality. You'd be surprised at the number of people who think the LGBT population makes up more than a quarter of any given population. Why do you think they believe that? Remember what I said about projecting this a natural variant? That's I mean.

No. Seeing a gay character on TV will not magically turn someone who does not have some kind of latent tendency gay. But it can induce bi-curiosity. The same principle applies with people who develop fetishes because of porn. It can spark an interest where previously there had been none.

4. Lol. The only issue I have with the topic of gender discussions is anything beyond two biological sexes being taught in schools. Anything moving into sociologically constructed aspects of gender will ALWAYS have some kind of bias and kids should figure that out for themselves. And even if I don't have a problem with anything you mentioned, what if other parents do? Should they not have a right in saying what they want their kids exposed to? Many of those topics are controversial.

5. I would not put my hypothetical child in a public school system. There's no way to control everything a child sees but it might help if parents didn't leave their seven year olds with smartphones and access to the internet.