But the TQ+ brought the children into this crap, while force teaming and using the #LGB as shields.
And we have every right to be pissed off.
#LGBWithoutTheTQ”
Cutting to the heart of the matter as usual, J.K. Rowling on single sex spaces.
Unfortunately male socialization and the violence that is inherent with it remains the problem. This isn’t a plea to ‘sensitize’ men. Nothing of the sort, males, in the process of their socialization need to be taught to respect the boundaries and rights of others. They need to be taught to be cognizant that other people experience and act in the world differently than they do.
I am all for a rough and tumble socialization experience for both sexes, we need to seek environments for our children that encourage the adoption of anti-fragile attitudes and strategies. Our lives are filled with challenges and hard tasks that require the habits physical and mental resiliency to be in place before reaching maturation. We need to steer away from male and female socialization and more toward “good people” socialization – in which people are raised to be assertive, creative, and respectful of themselves and others.
“Good people” socialization is an end goal though, first we must deal with the sex stereotypes that harm both women and men – that is the first step.
This from X user America 2100. This post describes the hollowing out of support for the rights and liberties that the LGB movement fought so hard to obtain. Support for gay marriage in America is trending downward.
One of the major reasons for this decline is that the LGB movement has been parasitized by the TQ+ activists who are trying to destabilize society rather than integrate into it. TQ+ activism requires a constant stream of people that are at odds with all the norms in society, who see the normative values as oppressive and structures that must be burnt to the ground. In other words, a revolution, and in the new society that rises from the ashes with themselves at its centre.
These activists do not know history. If they did they would see that every revolutionary vanguard is mercilessly destroyed once the society is burnt down and reforming. The powers that be have no need for radical activists whose only goal is to destabilize society. See what happened to the Red Guard after the revolution in China as proof of this assertion.
Support those who want to integrate into the current society – the one that guarantees personal liberty, freedom of thought and speech, and private property. Fight to maintain our democratic principles and effect incremental positive change within the society. Because the oppression that will be visited upon all of us by revolutionary regime will be magnitudes greater than what is being experienced now. Count on it.
“🏳️🌈”Pride Month” begins tomorrow. But here’s what they won’t tell you: The LGBT movement is losing—badly.
Let’s look at some of the polls.
Just a few years ago, it seemed like the LGBT revolution had won, once and for all. By 2020, even a majority of Republicans supported gay marriage.
But the Left overplayed their hand. What began as a backlash to gender ideology and the indoctrination of kids is now turning Americans against the entire LGBT project, including gay marriage—something that would have been unthinkable just five years ago.
Rather than continuing to climb, American support for gay marriage has dropped 7 points in just one year (from 2022 to 2023).
Republican support for gay marriage dropped 15 points over the same period. In 2022, 56% of Republicans supported gay marriage. By 2023, that number had fallen to 41%—the lowest it’s been in a decade.
Even amongst Democrats, support for gay marriage dropped 6 points from 2022 to 2023. (Source: Gallup)
Among young people, too—the most liberal and LGBT-friendly demographic—support for gay marriage is going down, not up. From 2018 to 2024, support for gay marriage among 18-29 year olds dropped by 8 points.
That decline appears to be overwhelmingly driven by Generation Z. From 2021 to 2023, Gen Z’s support for gay marriage dropped by a full 11 points. (Source: PRRI)
This wasn’t supposed to happen. “History” was only supposed to move in one direction—and gay marriage was supposed to be a “settled issue.”
The majority of Americans still support gay marriage. But the trend lines should serve as a bright-red warning sign for the Left. If they’re losing ground on this issue, they’re in big, big trouble.”
A primer on the sad state of Canadian Universities.
University of Toronto Professor Leigh Revers and Peter Boghossian discuss challenges in STEM education, including the integration of indigenous science and the use of diversity criteria in academic evaluations. Leigh highlights the need for academic rigor and criticizes oversimplified teaching methods, emphasizing the importance of maintaining intellectual diversity in education. His experience with this is firsthand – this year, the University of Toronto Mississauga sanctioned him for using Spectrum Street Epistemology in the classroom. Leigh Revers is an Associate Professor at the Institute for Management & Innovation at the University of Toronto Mississauga.
It so very important to know how the activist Left uses words. Logan Lancing helps illuminate all that goes into the term “Culturally Relevant Teaching”.
“Ok,” I thought. “Let’s figure out what culturally relevant teaching is.” I was curious. I wanted to know what it was and how it was tied to “equity.” I wanted to know how I had never encountered the term in my early schooling, yet it was now ubiquitous on every district page I looked at. “It had to have come from somewhere,” I thought. Who created it?
I moseyed on over to Google Scholar for the first time in over a decade. I searched for “culturally relevant teaching,” and hit “enter.” I received over three million results in a tenth of a second. Whoa! The results overwhelmed me, so I set my eyes on the two most cited – Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy (over 12 thousand citations); and But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy (over 6 thousand citations).
Both articles were authored by Gloria-Ladson Billings in the mid-1990s. I started with Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, the most cited result. It was there that I first encountered the term “critical consciousness,” which Billings identifies as the central learning objective culturally relevant teaching. “Culturally relevant teaching must,” she wrote, “[lead to the] development of a sociopolitical or critical consciousness.” I now know that critical consciousness is the cult belief that everything in society is designed to oppress you, and the only way to come to know “the truth” of the world is to become a Marxist committed to the “prophetic vision of social justice,” to quote Henry Giroux (writing about Paulo Freire’s critical theory of education.) But, at the time, all I knew was that I needed to know more. “Wait… what? The central goal of education is the development of a *political* consciousness,” I thought. “What the hell is going on here?” I was curious.
In But that’s just good teaching, I encountered Paulo Freire’s name for the first time. I learned that culturally relevant teaching is an “approach similar to that advocated by noted critical pedagogue Paulo Freire.” I also learned that “critical consciousness” was something Ladson-Billings wasn’t mincing words about. “Students,” she said, echoing her statement in Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, “must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current social order.”
“Excuse me?!” Culturally relevant teaching was all the rage in every school district I investigated. I now recognized Gloria’s name all over the source documents I found. Why on earth are all of the schools invested in a program that teaches kids to “challenge the status quo of the current social order?” Who is Paulo Freire? What are “inequities,” and why must students learn to “critique the cultural norms, values, mores, and institutions that produce and maintain” them? How did all of this become “good teaching”?
When I was learning to become a teacher this stuff was just starting to be integrating into the teaching curriculum. What sticks out now is a workshop I attended during one of the many teaching conventions I attended. They suggested that instead of the teacher following the curriculum and laying out the school year to be taught, instead, the first step was to ‘brainstorm’ with the students to see what they were interested in and then plan backwards from the student responses. I actually tried with my class to do that. The project got as far as tabulating the results on the board.
It turns out that retrofitting the curriculum into the specific interests of the class was a colossal project and since I was (and still am not) made of time we would be following a more traditional path. Now having looked at the genesis of ‘student centred learning’ I can see what I was eventually going to be signing up for. The teaching of critical consciousness instead of reading, writing, and arithmetic… Not a good trade off if my intended goal was to prepare children for a successful path in the current society.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…