Are lgbt identities explored in the school curriculum?

Nevyn

Sex education is badly handled in most school and it's a topic most parents are awkward about around thier kids.

The crisis pregnancy agency did take the time to do research and produce booklets and a dvd but due to the ethos of the majority of schools they can not be distrubed but they can be gotten on line or posted to parents for free.
http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/parentresource.html


I do they they are hetrocentric, there seems to be a fear of telling kids about anything other then that co they may get strange notions in thier heads.

Personally I was open about it from the start with my two, and thier attitude is reflected to thier class mates and they refuse to be riled or consider it a slur and challege people who try that.

They know that I will love them no matter who they grow up and want to kiss be it
boy, girls, boys and girls.

Fad

Jakkass wrote: »

I also think people should know how exactly abortions are carried out.

If that is going to be taught, all the procedures should be explained, not just the conveniently horrific ones

It has a long way to go before anything LGBT related will be mentioned.

KnifeWRENCH

Fad wrote: »

If that is going to be taught, all the procedures should be explained, not just the conveniently horrific ones

+1.

I've heard students from other schools saying they were shown an abortion video at school, but we were never shown it. I don't think the word was ever even mentioned in any class.

Spark Boy

Are you kinding me?? LGBT the letters alone were never uttered once during my second level education. The only use of the word homosexual was in history class when we were told that hitler tried to irradicate them (too which there was a snigger n the class (from the obvious **** stirrers))..that was it. as for sexual education obviuosly its a good thing but how helpful is it to LGBT students??? Times are moving too slowly and until the church is removed fully from influencing educational policies all young LGBT pupils will be basically non existent in the eyes of the school:(

Buceph

It's a bit shocking reading what most of you posted, but I have to say my school, or at least the teacher we had was very progressive. It was an all boys private Catholic school in Cork. In third year the science teacher said that for a month or two one of our free classes would be taken up by something outside the curriculum. So he conducted sex ed classes for about two months.

A lot of it was basic biology, going over puberty, menstruation, pregnancy and that kind of thing. Then we dealt with relationships, and how that relates to sex. They basically tried to tell us to think clearly about what we want to do, and how sex shouldn't be a simple mechanical thing (although I'm not too sure on that.) Then he went on to say that in the class of thirty chances were that at least one of us was gay (still don't know who it was, but I have met people from other years who came out in University.) And then he went on to say that chances are at least one person in the school is transgendered. After that he spoke about how he knows a few graduated students who are gay and one who is now a women. All of this was dealt with matter of factly, simply saying this exists and that chances are we will have to deal with it over the course of our life. Then we had a discussion about how we would deal with it if one of our friends were gay. Progressing to how we would deal with it if we saw them kiss another guy, before asking how we'd deal with seeing two men holding hands on the street. I thought it was a good way of dealing with it all, and because it started out quite scientifically it stayed fairly mature.

I have no idea if the entirety of his teaching was sanctioned by the school or if he just glossed over the details with the Christian Brothers on the board, but every class had the same education on it.

Aard

That's great to read, Buceph. I wish more schools were as pro-active.

Lo_Ha

Not a bit of it.
A good friend tried to put up a poster, a belong2 one I think, one of those "she's gay and i'm okay with that" kind of things and she was forbidden because its a catholic school.

Infact the only times it was brought up, in my memory was when two teachers said they hoped we would have boyfriends not girlfriends and in english when studying lesbian poets and the merchaint of venice.

Sad state of affairs.

almostnever

No,they're not.
I'm repeating my Leaving Cert this year and I'm attending an all boys' school (I'm a girl.) Last year in my all girls' school anything LGBT related was addressed at all. This year...whoa.
Lets just say that the Debs is in January and the boys aren't allowed to take lads (even as friends) and us girls can't take our female friends. Because "this is a Catholic school with a Catholic ethos." Which to me makes no sense,but whatever. I think that says a fair bit about the school's attitude and what a fight they'd put up against improved sex education :rolleyes:
I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon,which is a great shame.

philologos

almostnever wrote: »

Because "this is a Catholic school with a Catholic ethos." Which to me makes no sense,but whatever. I think that says a fair bit about the school's attitude and what a fight they'd put up against improved sex education :rolleyes:

Logically it does make sense. Homosexuality is considered to be sinful in Catholicism and in many other Christian denominations, as such if they want to keep a Roman Catholic ethos, I can understand why that is the case.

BUT (the big but)

I think it is better that LGBT identities should be taught, but in an entirely neutral manner with no liberal bias chucked in.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is better that LGBT identities should be taught, but in an entirely neutral manner with no liberal bias chucked in.

But that's where the problem lies.
It's nearly impossible to teach about Homosexuality without being liberally biased

mobius42

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is better that LGBT identities should be taught, but in an entirely neutral manner with no liberal bias chucked in.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But that's where the problem lies.
It's nearly impossible to teach about Homosexuality without being liberally biased

Reality has a well known liberal bias.
:P

Iwasfrozen

mobius42 wrote: »

Reality has a well known liberal bias.
:P

Wow, what a good come back, you sure showed me.

mobius42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Wow, what a good come back, you sure showed me.

Sheesh, it was just a joke.:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

mobius42 wrote: »

Sheesh, it was just a joke.:rolleyes:

Someone doesn't recognise sarcasm without a smily face.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is better that LGBT identities should be taught, but in an entirely neutral manner with no liberal bias chucked in.

Neutral how? I'd like to understand more of what you are suggesting

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Neutral how? I'd like to understand more of what you are suggesting

The school is a place of education, not a place for advocacy. That can be done on the street.

If it is taught in a matter a fact manner:
There are people who differ in sexual orientation to others. A community has been formed around this concept and it is a worldwide movement. etc etc

Moving on to discuss the history of LGBT orientation from decriminalisation, Stonewall riots to the present.

Discussing how LGBT sexuality expresses itself.

Bring in the debate over the ethical issues surrounding homosexuality from religious sources, secular sources, and anything else that is necessary, and then allow the students to decide for themselves rather than shoving an agenda on them.

Lame Lantern

Jakkass wrote: »

Bring in the debate over the ethical issues surrounding homosexuality from religious sources, secular sources, and anything else that is necessary, and then allow the students to decide for themselves rather than shoving an agenda on them.

Yeah, it was ludicrous when those equal protection, miscegenation-huggers started shoving their anti-hatred agendas down the throats of schoolchildren without providing a voice in schools for esoteric, arbitrarily acquired ideologies like religion or general, unintelligent dislike. Just look what happened there.

Iwasfrozen

Lame Lantern wrote: »

Yeah, it was ludicrous when those equal protection, miscegenation-huggers started shoving their anti-hatred agendas down the throats of schoolchildren without providing a voice in schools for esoteric, arbitrarily acquired ideologies like religion or general, unintelligent dislike. Just look what happened there.

I often find it funny how so called liberals refuse to accept any other opinion then their own. The concerns Jakkass posted are shared by a great many people and deserve to be given weight.
I am personally an Atheist but I recognise the great work the different religious movements do with regards to lobbying for the prevention of the civil rights bill.
It seems religious belifes have become an easy target on this forum, which is a shame.

Lame Lantern

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I often find it funny how so called liberals refuse to accept any other opinion then their own. The concerns Jakkass posted are shared by a great many people and deserve to be given weight.
I am personally an Atheist but I recognise the great work the different religious movements do with regards to lobbying for the prevention of the civil rights bill.
It seems religious belifes have become an easy target on this forum, which is a shame.

The difficulty lies not with religious belief but with the insistence that religious belief should be afforded a voice in a public education. Religious views on homosexuality are demonstrably wrong: that is my opinion. Religious opinions on homosexuality should not be afforded a weight in the classroom alongside fact: that is a moral imperative if we live in a society where church and state are to remain seperate.

Presenting religious opposition in the classroom in the form of "some religious institutions object to LGBT rights on esoteric grounds" is fine, as is discussing homophobia. However, stating that "religious institutions have identified the following moral issues with homosexuality that need to be taken seriously" would be a crazy invasion of education by the church.

The comparison I made earlier still stands. In a civics class in the US it would not be tolerated for students to be taught about religious claims as to the dangers of miscegenation. Homophobia should not be normalised in schools just as opposition to civil rights more generally should not be either.

You can preach hatred in Sunday schools if you wish, but let's not pretend the dislike of LGBT people is based on anything but an arbitrarily accepted ideology (in the form of religion, white supremacy, whatever) no matter how ubiquitous homophobic opinion might be.

Nebit

y does it always have to turn to religion :rolleyes:

LGBT is an issue to be dealt within civics class
Religious views are issues to be dealt within religion class

you can talk about church oppositions in religion class where it would be understandable that the church will say its bad mkay but h8 the sin not the sinner.

But LGBT has to be taught in a liberal atmosphere so people can properly be taught tolerance.

Iwasfrozen

Lame Lantern wrote: »

The difficulty lies not with religious belief but with the insistence that religious belief should be afforded a voice in a public education. Religious views on homosexuality are demonstrably wrong: that is my opinion. Religious opinions on homosexuality should not be afforded a weight in the classroom alongside fact: that is a moral imperative if we live in a society where church and state are to remain seperate.

Why do you think that religious belief should not be afforded a voice in public education ? Is it not the parents choice what their children are taught ? This is a democracy after all and state run schools should express the faith of the majority of the people, much like the government that runs it. In this case the majority of Irish people (86.8%) are catholic.

Lame Lantern wrote: »

Presenting religious opposition in the classroom in the form of "some religious institutions object to LGBT rights on esoteric grounds" is fine, as is discussing homophobia. However, stating that "religious institutions have identified the following moral issues with homosexuality that need to be taken seriously" would be a crazy invasion of education by the church.

Again your contradicting yourslef, you say we should teach homosexuality in the classroom but not present religions moral opposition of homosexuality ? Why ? Why should children not be taught both sides of the story and allowed to form their own opinions instead of having pro homosexuality shoved down their gullot holes.

Lame Lantern wrote: »

The comparison I made earlier still stands. In a civics class in the US it would not be tolerated for students to be taught about religious claims as to the dangers of miscegenation. Homophobia should not be normalised in schools just as opposition to civil rights more generally should not be either.

I don't see the connection, as far as I'm aware the RCC doesn't object to Miscegenation.

Lame Lantern wrote: »

You can preach hatred in Sunday schools if you wish, but let's not pretend the dislike of LGBT people is based on anything but an arbitrarily accepted ideology (in the form of religion, white supremacy, whatever) no matter how ubiquitous homophobic opinion might be.

Could you please tell me what in the sunday school curriculum would you call hatred ?

Lame Lantern

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why do you think that religious belief should not be afforded a voice in public education ? Is it not the parents choice what their children are taught ? This is a democracy after all and state run schools should express the faith of the majority of the people, much like the government that runs it. In this case the majority of Irish people (86.8%) are catholic.

We live in a plural society in which church and state and constitutionally separated. We are a constitutional democracy, not a state that caters to the whims of 50%+1. As such, the majority of people do not have the right to force catholicism on the minority. Moreover, while a massive majority identify as catholic, the majority of the state is not homophobic. The majority does not endorse church catechism and ideas like the opposition to contraception etc.

Education, by constitutional mandate, must reflect our mature plural society and not afflict people with a religious belief that can be acquired by volition elsewhere.

Again your contradicting yourslef, you say we should teach homosexuality in the classroom but not present religions moral opposition of homosexuality ? Why ? Why should children not be taught both sides of the story and allowed to form their own opinions instead of having pro homosexuality shoved down their gullot holes.

Homosexuality is not something that is "taught." Homosexuality exists and in school, where sex, family and social interaction occur as topics, LGBT identities should not be ignored. It's not a case of being actively "pro-homosexuality" but rather reflecting the fact that gay people, you know, exist.

I don't see the connection, as far as I'm aware the RCC doesn't object to Miscegenation.

I'm pointing to the fact that in the US, many organisations objected to miscegenation based on their own esoteric ideological whims (much like religious objections to homosexuality). However, nobody advocates the integration of such views held privately into public education.

Could you please tell me what in the sunday school curriculum would you call hatred ?

That's not what I said. I said you're free to discuss prejudicial concepts such as religious homophobia in the context of your own esoteric discourse, but you can't inflict it on public education.

Iwasfrozen

Lame Lantern wrote: »

We live in a plural society in which church and state and constitutionally separated. We are a constitutional democracy, not a state that caters to the whims of 50%+1. As such, the majority of people do not have the right to force catholicism on the minority. Moreover, while a massive majority identify as catholic, the majority of the state is not homophobic. The majority does not endorse church catechism and ideas like the opposition to contraception etc.
Education, by constitutional mandate, must reflect our mature plural society and not afflict people with a religious belief that can be acquired by volition elsewhere.

Can you back this statement up in any way ?
Nearly everybody I know is anti-homosexual (I hate the term homophobic), why should pro-homosexuality teachings be forced onto their children ?
Basically what you are saying is that we should censore the church and all oposition to homosexual teachings, while forcing pro-homosexual propaganda onto impressionable minds. Weather their parents like it or not.
Can't you see why I have a problem with that ?

Lame Lantern wrote: »

Homosexuality is not something that is "taught." Homosexuality exists and in school, where sex, family and social interaction occur as topics, LGBT identities should not be ignored. It's not a case of being actively "pro-homosexuality" but rather reflecting the fact that gay people, you know, exist.

My apologies, I made a mistake in my post, I should have said "teach tolerance to homosexualtiy".

Lame Lantern wrote: »

I'm pointing to the fact that in the US, many organisations objected to miscegenation based on their own esoteric ideological whims (much like religious objections to homosexuality). However, nobody advocates the integration of such views held privately into public education.

But that's a straw man, we don't live in the US and what goes on in the US is not what we where discussing.

Dwn Wth Vwls

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why do you think that religious belief should not be afforded a voice in public education ? Is it not the parents choice what their children are taught ? This is a democracy after all and state run schools should express the faith of the majority of the people, much like the government that runs it. In this case the majority of Irish people (86.8%) are catholic.

The approximate 86% of people in this country are baptised and thus registered as catholic. If you honestly think the real figure of practising catholics is anywhere near that then you haven't talked to many people in the last decade. You certainly haven't looked inside a church either (unsurprising as an Atheist), because they're mostly empty or have only pensioners.

The majority of schools are still run by the church. Many parents have no choice of schools and must send their child to a catholic run school whether they like it or not. Many of these schools put catholics at the top of the waiting list, and so parents must have their children baptised if they hope to get in. The schools are then entitled to enforce a "catholic ethos" on the pupils.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again your contradicting yourslef, you say we should teach homosexuality in the classroom but not present religions moral opposition of homosexuality ? Why ? Why should children not be taught both sides of the story and allowed to form their own opinions instead of having pro homosexuality shoved down their gullot holes.

It's not "a story" and there aren't two sides. Sexual orientation is a biological component of every person. It should be explained like any other information in a science class, that there is a natural variation. The same way they teach you about the colour of your eyes. Why on earth would they suddenly bring in the objections of the catholic church to the subject? It would be like interrupting a class on the digestive system to discuss gluttony and the seven deadly sins.

Lame Lantern

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Can you back this statement up in any way ?
Nearly everybody I know is anti-homosexual (I hate the term homophobic), why should pro-homosexuality teachings be forced onto their children ?
Basically what you are saying is that we should censore the church and all oposition to homosexual teachings, while forcing pro-homosexual propaganda onto impressionable minds. Weather their parents like it or not.
Can't you see why I have a problem with that ?

I honestly cannot. You're objecting to the mere mentioning of homosexuality as a facet of an individual's identity. That isn't activism, it's an honest and responsible reflection of our society. "Gay people exist and they can be happy too" is the extent of what's being proposed. Your "anti-homosexual" opinion should no more colour decisions as to what is or is not acceptable in public education that being anti-Muslim, anti-women or anti-Polish.

But that's a straw man, we don't live in the US and what goes on in the US is not what we where discussing.

It was an apt analogy, not a straw man. You can easily address the substance of arbitrarily inflicting an esoteric ideology on public education which was the sum of my point.

Nebit

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Can you back this statement up in any way ?
Nearly everybody I know is anti-homosexual (I hate the term homophobic), why should pro-homosexuality teachings be forced onto their children ?
Basically what you are saying is that we should censore the church and all oposition to homosexual teachings, while forcing pro-homosexual propaganda onto impressionable minds. Weather their parents like it or not.
Can't you see why I have a problem with that ?

What kind of crowd do you hang out with
I'm sorry but a lot of people i have met including those who are religious believe that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, even in the west the majority are like that. so the fact that you may know people who don't like it does not make it the majority.

Also if parents have such a strong dislike in homosexuality, then they will condition their children to think like wise even if a school taught tolerance.
By the way i would not put tolerance under "pro-homosexuality" you can tolerate something but choose not to like it or agree with it.

No one is censoring the catholic teachings, that would be highly unlikely in this country tbh. However saying things like its against nature to be gay is 1)scientifically wrong and 2)spreading hatred ergo in that sense has no place in schools.
One could argue that it is the church taking advantage of impressionable minds too, preaching this that and the other.
If LGBT issues were discussed in schools; which they should be; they would be based on facts ie 1 out of 30 statistically is gay, etc and stories of predudice should be put out their, this doesn't say oh be gay now does it it mearly shows people that there are gay people out there, you will most likely know someone who is gay and that you don't ridicule them for being so.

philologos

How isn't that reasonable?

A presentation of both sides of the ethical argument (homosexuality is moral vs homosexuality is immoral, homosexuality is biologically determined vs homosexuality is not biologically determined), and an explanation about the LGBT community worldwide. I don't think you can get any more objective than that. Why is it so wrong to allow students to make up their own mind on contentious issues rather than passing an agenda through the education system?

Tricity Bendix

Ha. If only religion was taught in such an "objective" manner.

Dwn Wth Vwls

Jakkass wrote: »

How isn't that reasonable?

A presentation of both sides of the ethical argument (homosexuality is moral vs homosexuality is immoral, homosexuality is biologically determined vs homosexuality is not biologically determined), and an explanation about the LGBT community worldwide. I don't think you can get any more objective than that. Why is it so wrong to allow students to make up their own mind on contentious issues rather than passing an agenda through the education system?

Why should sexual orientation be introduced as an "ethical argument"? How is a moral opinion of it relevant? The proper way to be objective is to supply actual facts. People of different sexual orientations exist. Done.

philologos

Why shouldn't it? In order not to bias the minds of people it is more reasonable to put what is the real situation to the class. I'd also support this in relation to abortion, presenting both pro-choice sides, and pro-life sides, and in sexuality itself, with the concept of pre-marital sex and who agrees and disagrees and why.

Ethics is something that is important to our lives. Living without ethics is just plain absurd. It is up to us to think of what is right and wrong, and more importantly it allows for people to work out what is ethical for themselves (autonomous) rather than just adopting what people tell them (heteronomous).

Lame Lantern wrote:

Homosexuality is not something that is "taught." Homosexuality exists and in school, where sex, family and social interaction occur as topics, LGBT identities should not be ignored. It's not a case of being actively "pro-homosexuality" but rather reflecting the fact that gay people, you know, exist.

I would agree with this, if it were done in an entirely neutral manner as I've described.