1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Are you in favour of primary LGBT lessons for young children?

Discussion in 'Education news' started by TES_Rosaline, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    The only part I have commented on is the currently accepted scientific basis. I have made no judgement on whether or not it is right to teach this material to children for the simple reason that I don't know the answer to that ethical question and I'm not comfortable with saying yes or no for various reasons. For that simple reason I've avoided the ethics as far as I can. I am not an ideologue - I am a scientist and have tried to maintain a neutral stance on anything but factual evidence.

    Vince - you have made basic mistakes in your scientific knowledge all over the place and have given no evidence, I have given you proof that you don't understand and you have given nothing that supports your ideas. Please say something other than "you're wrong and I can't explain why". You didn't even know how cell receptors work yet suddenly you're qualified to say I'm wrong about basic biochemistry....
     
  2. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Keep saying it, you might begin to believe it yourself.

    I have not said you are wrong about basic biochemistry. I have said you are wrong about what you believe the study you posted says, and so you are.
     
  3. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter


    look, none of this is remotely relevant, I was just offering Lamarkism up as an area of science, similar to that of male/female brains, where mainstream science once held one view, and now hold s the opposite.


    The best thing I can do for you as a teacher is refuse to spoon feed you and leave you to work it out for yourself. Its not hard, its very very easy to find, and in the process you may discover something for yourself about how science changes, how ideas have changed, and how to keep yourself informed, without bias.

    why, because you can't find and confirm simple, basic scientific facts? That doesn't say anything about me
     
  4. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    Vince - you claimed I was wrong and said the answer is puberty after having failed to realise that I have just described the molecular basis for puberty. You're not equipped for this argument.

    The study I have posted is one of 30-40 or so on those three genes, you can find the others on PubMed - it meets the definition of scientific proof. In total there are at least 20 other identified genes - which are not as well characterised. It now has its own field of study and is taught on several degree courses and can be looked up in degree level textbooks such as those by Hoult and Johnson. These are the standard texts for this basic info for just about every university.

    If you have any proof at all for your view please share it as I have done.

    The simplest proof is twin studies - when identical twins are adopted/separated at birth, if one is transgender the other twin is also more likely to be transgender.

    Even where twins stay with their parents the difference between non-identical and identical twins (which almost but not totally excludes parenting) In fact the chance rises from 2.6% in non-identical twins to 33% in identical twins, (chance referring to the likelihood of the second child being transgender if the first twin is transgender). It is unlikely that minor variations in the parenting of each child would account for a 30% difference.
     
  5. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    It's relevant to your credibility as a scientist if you're proposing ideas that were disproven over 100 years ago as current and cannot provide evidence for any of your claims.

    All you have done is say "the proof is simple". You've got nothing.
     
  6. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    I can, but I don't need to. And it is not in dispute. Its mainstream, and universally accepted.

    The fact that you are still harking back to this over and over again, saying you can't find anything on it, and insisting I am wrong, about basic, mainstream, universally accepted science, is more relevant to your credibility as a scientist, not mine.

    It was not accepted 100 years ago. It is accepted now. Understanding grows and develops and changes. It is not disputed. You are the only person I have come across in recent decades who disputes this. And I am not sure why you are doing so, when you must know it just makes you look like you can't find and understand a scientific topic, even though you say you are a scientist.
     
  7. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    Its not even relevant to the topic we are discussing, which is forcing science teachers to teach that men can become women
     
  8. averagedan

    averagedan Occasional commenter

    I've provided evidence and explanations as to why you should try to develop a more nuanced view of sexuality. These revolve around basic facts such as cell surface receptors and so on which are not in doubt. Genes have been identified, population studies performed, etc. I have linked some of them. All you have done is claim I am wrong and done everything you can to avoid producing evidence.

    Then claim that I'm too stupid to perform a Google search, etc. Anyone reading this thread will see that. Anyone doing a Google search of Lamarkism will see how "up-to-date" you are. Unless you provide evidence and not just more insults I'm going to ignore Vince and yourself in this thread.

    Oh and please do try to explain why the results from the twin studies are incorrect. This is considered to be a golden standard of scientific proof where genetic inheritance is concerned.
     
  9. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    No, I said you described puberty however, as I will never tire of repeating, puberty does not cause transgender people.

    Nobody is disputing the existence of any genes however you are incorrect to say that the study you posted proves a particular cause of transgender people. If you believe that it does then you do not know how to read scientific studies.
     
  10. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    we are not even discussing sexuality.In fact you could get sacked and arrested for equating transgenderism with sexuality!

    I don't think anyone else looking into Lamarkism would fail to find the new understanding on how it works.

    But again, this also has nothing to do with what we re discussing
     
  11. TheOracleAtDelphi

    TheOracleAtDelphi Occasional commenter

    I was curious to know what Lamarkism was so I googled it. First of all, it says 'did you mean Lamarckism?' do I mean that? Is it just a variant spelling or is it something different? Incidentally, autocorrect wants to change it, so I've gone with that elsewhere in this message.

    Then I get a dictionary definition and a link to Wikipedia. Then there are a couple of links to researchgate, one of which doesn't appear to take me to the link suggested by Google which sounded promising and the other was a question and answer page (some interesting responses). The next article is from chemistryonline which seems to deal with the historical aspect. The next article is to a link in Estonian on Wikipedia. Then I get a link to the amateur Entomologist's Society's glossary which the heading includes 'Lamarckism is an obsolete theory' so I didn't bother clicking in. The next one is a forum and then we get to something called the rap guide to evolution which I haven't clicked yet either, as it didn't sound terribly promising.

    Anyway I went back to wikipedia, and yes, usual provisos re fact checking etc. apply. Most of it was about the historical context but there was also a section about epigenetics which referred to some more recent research. Is that what you are referring to? Granted I'm very much a layman and it is from Wikipedia but the implication was that there wasn't a strong consensus, with some suggesting that although the effect appears Lamarckian the mechanism is in-line with the traditional viewpoint.
     
  12. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    This thread successfully shows that a great deal of training needs to take place before any lessons are delivered on the topic.
     
    bexallya and kswatson like this.
  13. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Prior to this an immense amount of successful justification would be required to show that these lessons are necessary.
     
  14. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    What is it with you and twins?
     
  15. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    Have you ever been a teacher? Neither success in justification nor proof of necessity are traditionally part of the process by which initiatives are rolled out in education.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019
  16. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Yes. Have you ever been a teacher?

    This is not always the case but their absence here is clearly a problem else it would not be an issue of widespread public concern.
     
  17. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    Ah yes. I had momentarily forgotten your talent for flexibly choosing the side of a "case" which will score a minor point and niggle other posters. Well done, back to the ignore list you go.
     
  18. neddyfonk

    neddyfonk Lead commenter

    Regardless of what you teach or how you do it we all have limits to acceptance / tolerance of other peoples lifestyles / sexuality / attitudes, much of which is dictated by your parents , friends and religious doctrine. Challenge a religious belief and you will be 'corrected' by being given quotes from a sacred text - often the bible , koran or torah.
    Although I am atheist and very tolerant, having friendships with people of colour and different beliefs, I squirm when I see men kissing and campness is something I avoid watching on tv ( my apologies to Graham Norton, Julian Clary, Larry Grayson el.al).
    This is no different from my dislike for the comedy of Harry Hill or the way Jeremy Paxton interviews people but, providing they are not hurting anyone they are simply put in the 'not interesting' category. For many children that is the best you could hope for: " I did not ask you to like them, but you should not make fun of them or do anything to harm them".
    So endeth the nth lesson ?
     
    guinnesspuss likes this.
  19. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Amazing how few people here can tolerate any disagreement before they must resort to the Ignore facility. Oh well, snowflakes keep falling in my feed, was ever thus.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    upload_2019-4-23_10-31-30.jpeg

    upload_2019-4-23_10-31-44.jpeg


    Crikey! We can't even talk to primary kids about male plugs in female sockets. How the hell we can talk about gay sex?!

    I am firmly in the school of telling kids everything so I wouldn't hold back. We can talk about wars and killing but we can't talk about sex? It's pathetic. Parents give kids toy guns? But are shy of talking about a penis? When half of them are sitting there playing with it???

    What's wrong with us?
     
    bevdex likes this.

Share This Page