Right-wingers: Is this an example of a children's show trying to "indoctrinate" children?

[Ferguson97]

Segregation was an extremely controversial subject at the time. Mr. Rogers hosted a children's show.

My question for right-wingers who oppose showing same-sex couples in children's shows: Is this an example of liberals trying to indoctrinate children against the wishes of how some parents may want to raise their children?

If you don't think that this is indoctrination, but showing a same-sex couple is, what makes those two things different?

[Del Tachi]

"Indoctrination" is an inescapable aspect of rearing children.  A child taught no values is more starved than one without food.  The issue isn't being indoctrinated, it's what you're being indoctrinated with.   

[Ferguson97]

"Indoctrination" is an inescapable aspect of rearing children.  A child taught no values is more starved than one without food.  The issue isn't being indoctrinated, it's what you're being indoctrinated with.   

And what makes the portrayal of a same-sex couple the same way that one would present an opposite-sex couple wrong?

[Del Tachi]

"Indoctrination" is an inescapable aspect of rearing children.  A child taught no values is more starved than one without food.  The issue isn't being indoctrinated, it's what you're being indoctrinated with.   

And what makes the portrayal of a same-sex couple the same way that one would present an opposite-sex couple wrong?

Well, I mean a lot of Christians and other religious people consider same-sex relationships to be sinful.  So why would they want them presented glowingly or even neutrally to kids?  They’d most likely feel the same away about positive depictions of adultery or cursing in kids shows

[Pericles]

"Indoctrination" is an inescapable aspect of rearing children.  A child taught no values is more starved than one without food.  The issue isn't being indoctrinated, it's what you're being indoctrinated with.   

And what makes the portrayal of a same-sex couple the same way that one would present an opposite-sex couple wrong?

Well, I mean a lot of Christians and other religious people consider same-sex relationships to be sinful.  So why would they want them presented glowingly or even neutrally to kids?  They’d most likely feel the same away about positive depictions of adultery or cursing in kids shows

Some people believe things that are wrong, like being racists. That does not mean they should get a veto over society's values. When you exclude people from fully equal membership in society, as you woukd by effectively telling kids that LGBT relationships are inferior to heretrosexual ones, that causes real harm. The fact that the people who believe these frankly homophobic things are religious should not matter either because the US should be a secular society where decisions are made based on evidence and facts, not a theocracy.

[Del Tachi]

"Indoctrination" is an inescapable aspect of rearing children.  A child taught no values is more starved than one without food.  The issue isn't being indoctrinated, it's what you're being indoctrinated with.   

And what makes the portrayal of a same-sex couple the same way that one would present an opposite-sex couple wrong?

Well, I mean a lot of Christians and other religious people consider same-sex relationships to be sinful.  So why would they want them presented glowingly or even neutrally to kids?  They’d most likely feel the same away about positive depictions of adultery or cursing in kids shows

Some people believe things that are wrong, like being racists. That does not mean they should get a veto over society's values. When you exclude people from fully equal membership in society, as you woukd by effectively telling kids that LGBT relationships are inferior to heretrosexual ones, that causes real harm. The fact that the people who believe these frankly homophobic things are religious should not matter either because the US should be a secular society where decisions are made based on evidence and facts, not a theocracy.

Holding a "veto" over broader society is an inherent aspect of parenting.  If parents want to do the work of pre-screening their kids' media and removing any content they find objectionable, then that is their right.  Society would indeed be healthier if parents took this role more seriously.

If you want to have this conversation, then let's get real:  there are folks out there trying to indoctrinate kids with queer gender theory.  How else would you describe a non-binary adult who insists that kids as young as 4 or 5 be taught/explained why they use "they/them" pronouns?  would a parent not be within his rights to protect his kids from this infliction of subjective identity?

[afleitch]

How else would you describe a non-binary adult who insists that kids as young as 4 or 5 be taught/explained why they use "they/them" pronouns?  would a parent not be within his rights to protect his kids from this infliction of subjective identity?

I'm a man with a husband. I have two four year old nieces. What protection is required for them and their classmates learning that they have a biological uncle who, subjectively is married and subjectively has a husband who is also subjectively their uncle?

[Del Tachi]

How else would you describe a non-binary adult who insists that kids as young as 4 or 5 be taught/explained why they use "they/them" pronouns?  would a parent not be within his rights to protect his kids from this infliction of subjective identity?

I'm a man with a husband. I have two four year old nieces. What protection is required for them and their classmates learning that they have a biological uncle who, subjectively is married and subjectively has a husband who is also subjectively their uncle?

The level of protection required for them is a decision their parents get to make.

You don't have a right to inflict your identity on children.  That doesn't mean you can't exist in public as a married gay man, but it does mean you're not entitled to opportunities to explain your life and your decisions to people who didn't ask for it nor are you entitled to have your narrative about being gay the only one kids are allowed to hear.   

I have a friend with a non-binary family member who started to insist that their young nieces/nephews be corrected if they didn't use "they/them" pronouns to address them.  They would look for opportunities to talk about their gender/gender identity in a way that was purposefully oppressive to the parents and confusing for the kids.  Were the other adults in the family wrong to tell them to not come around after they were asked and refused to stop inflicting themself upon everyone in this way?     

[afleitch]

How else would you describe a non-binary adult who insists that kids as young as 4 or 5 be taught/explained why they use "they/them" pronouns?  would a parent not be within his rights to protect his kids from this infliction of subjective identity?

I'm a man with a husband. I have two four year old nieces. What protection is required for them and their classmates learning that they have a biological uncle who, subjectively is married and subjectively has a husband who is also subjectively their uncle?

The level of protection required for them is a decision their parents get to make.

You don't have a right to inflict your identity on children.  That doesn't mean you can't exist in public as a married gay man, but it does mean you're not entitled to opportunities to explain your life and your decisions to people who didn't ask for it nor are you entitled to have your narrative about being gay the only one kids are allowed to hear.  

I have a friend with a non-binary family member who started to insist that their young nieces/nephews be corrected if they didn't use "they/them" pronouns to address them.  They would look for opportunities to talk about their gender/gender identity in a way that was purposefully oppressive to the parents and confusing for the kids.  Were the other adults in the family wrong to tell them to not come around after they were asked and refused to stop inflicting themself upon everyone in this way?    

In what way is my nieces knowing they have two uncles the 'only narrative' they are allowed to hear? It's very strange given they know they have other uncles who are married to their aunts. I do agree that one narrative isn't helpful, and I support you in ensuring that conservatives don't inflict the norms of heterosexuality as the only narrative that children are allowed to hear.

I think we got somewhere today.

[Ferguson97]

How else would you describe a non-binary adult who insists that kids as young as 4 or 5 be taught/explained why they use "they/them" pronouns?  would a parent not be within his rights to protect his kids from this infliction of subjective identity?

I'm a man with a husband. I have two four year old nieces. What protection is required for them and their classmates learning that they have a biological uncle who, subjectively is married and subjectively has a husband who is also subjectively their uncle?

The level of protection required for them is a decision their parents get to make.

You don't have a right to inflict your identity on children.  That doesn't mean you can't exist in public as a married gay man, but it does mean you're not entitled to opportunities to explain your life and your decisions to people who didn't ask for it nor are you entitled to have your narrative about being gay the only one kids are allowed to hear.   

I have a friend with a non-binary family member who started to insist that their young nieces/nephews be corrected if they didn't use "they/them" pronouns to address them.  They would look for opportunities to talk about their gender/gender identity in a way that was purposefully oppressive to the parents and confusing for the kids.  Were the other adults in the family wrong to tell them to not come around after they were asked and refused to stop inflicting themself upon everyone in this way?     

The problem with your argument is that you’re framing being cisgender and heterosexual as normal and non-controversial, and thus not something that has to be justified.

You would never call it indoctrination if a cis man were referred to as he/him by his nieces and nephews. You would never call it indoctrination if this man introduced his new girlfriend to his nieces and nephews. But when a person uses they/them pronouns or introduces them to a same-sex partner, you consider this indoctrination.

On several occasions  you have retreated from your own argument and asserted that parents have the “right” to raise their children how they please. You are struggling to justify an action on its own merits so you regress to defending the right to do that action. Whether or not they have this “right” is irrelevant because we are discussing whether or not that decision is morally acceptable. If you’re just going to retort with “parents have the right to raise their kids however they want” whenever we try and critique certain parenting choices, then why even bother joining the discussion if you’re not willing to discuss the merits?

Parents also have the “right” to ban dating, cell phones, music, and television until their child is 18. That doesn’t mean that their decision should be treated as acceptable by society.

If a parent issued a rule that their child is not to watch any media that has an interracial couple, you would (hopefully) condemn this decision and see them as bigots.

Why not extend the same logic to parents who object to same-sex couples? Religious belief is not a valid justification for bigotry.

[Meclazine for Israel]

But his feet are white. Just jokes. (But they are).

How you treat other races is something you get from your parents, your school, your friends.

I think Australians are very accepting of race, as long as you don't come via boat. There is a big stigma about boat arrivals in this country.

As for the video, I wouldn't call that indoctrination, more basic education.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

"Indoctrination" is an inescapable aspect of rearing children.  A child taught no values is more starved than one without food.  The issue isn't being indoctrinated, it's what you're being indoctrinated with.   

And what makes the portrayal of a same-sex couple the same way that one would present an opposite-sex couple wrong?

Well, I mean a lot of Christians and other religious people consider same-sex relationships to be sinful.  So why would they want them presented glowingly or even neutrally to kids?  They’d most likely feel the same away about positive depictions of adultery or cursing in kids shows

Some people believe things that are wrong, like being racists. That does not mean they should get a veto over society's values. When you exclude people from fully equal membership in society, as you woukd by effectively telling kids that LGBT relationships are inferior to heretrosexual ones, that causes real harm. The fact that the people who believe these frankly homophobic things are religious should not matter either because the US should be a secular society where decisions are made based on evidence and facts, not a theocracy.

Holding a "veto" over broader society is an inherent aspect of parenting.  If parents want to do the work of pre-screening their kids' media and removing any content they find objectionable, then that is their right.  Society would indeed be healthier if parents took this role more seriously.

If you want to have this conversation, then let's get real:  there are folks out there trying to indoctrinate kids with racial equality theory.  How else would you describe a non-white adult who insists that kids as young as 4 or 5 be taught/explained why they use "non-pejorative" pronouns?  would a parent not be within his rights to protect his kids from this infliction of subjective identity?

FIFY.

[Del Tachi]

How else would you describe a non-binary adult who insists that kids as young as 4 or 5 be taught/explained why they use "they/them" pronouns?  would a parent not be within his rights to protect his kids from this infliction of subjective identity?

I'm a man with a husband. I have two four year old nieces. What protection is required for them and their classmates learning that they have a biological uncle who, subjectively is married and subjectively has a husband who is also subjectively their uncle?

The level of protection required for them is a decision their parents get to make.

You don't have a right to inflict your identity on children.  That doesn't mean you can't exist in public as a married gay man, but it does mean you're not entitled to opportunities to explain your life and your decisions to people who didn't ask for it nor are you entitled to have your narrative about being gay the only one kids are allowed to hear.   

I have a friend with a non-binary family member who started to insist that their young nieces/nephews be corrected if they didn't use "they/them" pronouns to address them.  They would look for opportunities to talk about their gender/gender identity in a way that was purposefully oppressive to the parents and confusing for the kids.  Were the other adults in the family wrong to tell them to not come around after they were asked and refused to stop inflicting themself upon everyone in this way?     

In what way is my nieces knowing they have two uncles the 'only narrative' they are allowed to hear? It's very strange given they know they have other uncles who are married to their aunts. I do agree that one narrative isn't helpful, and I support you in ensuring that conservatives don't inflict the norms of heterosexuality as the only narrative that children are allowed to hear.

I think we got somewhere today.

Stop being opaque; you know what I'm talking about.  The "narrative" you tell about being gay is that you have no other choice than to be with another man, so for that reason your relationship is no more or less moral than a heterosexual one.   People do and are entitled to teach their kids otherwise (and this isn't "erasing" of LGBT people.)

[Ferguson97]

The "narrative" you tell about being gay is that you have no other choice than to be with another man, so for that reason your relationship is no more or less moral than a heterosexual one.

"Narrative"? What the hell are you talking about? That's not a narrative, that's literally just... how sexual orientation works. Gay men and straight women are exclusively attracted to men. Straight men and lesbians are exclusively attracted to women.

Unless you're suggesting that a gay man should remain in the closet and date a woman as a cover, because... yikes.

People do and are entitled to teach their kids otherwise (and this isn't "erasing" of LGBT people.)

Define entitled here. They are legally permitted to do this, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable.

And as I said above - again, you're retreating to the "well they have the right to do it!" defense, which is not a defense at all.

If you raise your kids with the belief that homosexuality is wrong, you are a terrible parent.

[Del Tachi]

The "narrative" you tell about being gay is that you have no other choice than to be with another man, so for that reason your relationship is no more or less moral than a heterosexual one.

"Narrative"? What the hell are you talking about? That's not a narrative, that's literally just... how sexual orientation works. Gay men and straight women are exclusively attracted to men. Straight men and lesbians are exclusively attracted to women.

Unless you're suggesting that a gay man should remain in the closet and date a woman as a cover, because... yikes.

People do and are entitled to teach their kids otherwise (and this isn't "erasing" of LGBT people.)

Define entitled here. They are legally permitted to do this, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable.

And as I said above - again, you're retreating to the "well they have the right to do it!" defense, which is not a defense at all.

If you raise your kids with the belief that homosexuality is wrong, you are a terrible parent.

I'm not defending any specific belief or parenting style.  If you want to know how I would raise my kids, then ask that.  But your OP was about what gets to count as "indoctrination" and my answer was quite clear:  "literally everything."

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

[afleitch]

The "narrative" you tell about being gay is that you have no other choice than to be with another man, so for that reason your relationship is no more or less moral than a heterosexual one.

"Narrative"? What the hell are you talking about? That's not a narrative, that's literally just... how sexual orientation works. Gay men and straight women are exclusively attracted to men. Straight men and lesbians are exclusively attracted to women.

Unless you're suggesting that a gay man should remain in the closet and date a woman as a cover, because... yikes.

People do and are entitled to teach their kids otherwise (and this isn't "erasing" of LGBT people.)

Define entitled here. They are legally permitted to do this, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable.

And as I said above - again, you're retreating to the "well they have the right to do it!" defense, which is not a defense at all.

If you raise your kids with the belief that homosexuality is wrong, you are a terrible parent.

I'm not defending any specific belief or parenting style.  If you want to know how I would raise my kids, then ask that.  But your OP was about what gets to count as "indoctrination" and my answer was quite clear:  "literally everything."

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

I'm sorry you weren't through that.

You don't need to defend the parental styles or 'rights' of people who would put some other kids through the same. Even if we love them.

[Ferguson97]

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

Don't you want the next generation to have an easier time accepting who they are than you did?

[Schiff for Senate]

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

Don't you want the next generation to have an easier time accepting who they are than you did?

You're not wrong, but homophobia will exist in the next generation, and millions of homophobes will always be there. Showing them or their kids TV programs with gay characters won't change their stance on gay people; in fact, I suspect they'll become even more hostile and anti-gay. Obviously movies and TV shows with gay characters are fine and should continue, but not everyone will accept them and you really can't change the hate and bigotry in their mind by just showing them gay TV characters or what not. I get what DT is saying. Just because he acknowledges that homophobia exists and always will, does not mean that he condones that fact.

[Ferguson97]

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

Don't you want the next generation to have an easier time accepting who they are than you did?

You're not wrong, but homophobia will exist in the next generation, and millions of homophobes will always be there. Showing them or their kids TV programs with gay characters won't change their stance on gay people; in fact, I suspect they'll become even more hostile and anti-gay. Obviously movies and TV shows with gay characters are fine and should continue, but not everyone will accept them and you really can't change the hate and bigotry in their mind by just showing them gay TV characters or what not. I get what DT is saying. Just because he acknowledges that homophobia exists and always will, does not mean that he condones that fact.

I completely disagree with your premise. Showing gay people as normal, everyday people will make it far harder for parents to indoctrinate their children with anti-gay propaganda.

[Schiff for Senate]

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

Don't you want the next generation to have an easier time accepting who they are than you did?

You're not wrong, but homophobia will exist in the next generation, and millions of homophobes will always be there. Showing them or their kids TV programs with gay characters won't change their stance on gay people; in fact, I suspect they'll become even more hostile and anti-gay. Obviously movies and TV shows with gay characters are fine and should continue, but not everyone will accept them and you really can't change the hate and bigotry in their mind by just showing them gay TV characters or what not. I get what DT is saying. Just because he acknowledges that homophobia exists and always will, does not mean that he condones that fact.

I completely disagree with your premise. Showing gay people as normal, everyday people will make it far harder for parents to indoctrinate their children with anti-gay propaganda.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't show gays in media or television or film to avoid antagonising the bigoted religious right AT ALL. All I'm saying is, if you think showing gay characters will make anybody see the light or stop spouting their homophobia, you're wrong. It won't reduce the number of raging homophobes in this country by any means. Perhaps you aren't wrong about kids knowing better, though. Perhaps this will help reduce the number of future homophobes. I don't know.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

Don't you want the next generation to have an easier time accepting who they are than you did?

You're not wrong, but homophobia will exist in the next generation, and millions of homophobes will always be there. Showing them or their kids TV programs with gay characters won't change their stance on gay people; in fact, I suspect they'll become even more hostile and anti-gay. Obviously movies and TV shows with gay characters are fine and should continue, but not everyone will accept them and you really can't change the hate and bigotry in their mind by just showing them gay TV characters or what not. I get what DT is saying. Just because he acknowledges that homophobia exists and always will, does not mean that he condones that fact.

I completely disagree with your premise. Showing gay people as normal, everyday people will make it far harder for parents to indoctrinate their children with anti-gay propaganda.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't show gays in media or television or film to avoid antagonising the bigoted religious right AT ALL. All I'm saying is, if you think showing gay characters will make anybody see the light or stop spouting their homophobia, you're wrong. It won't reduce the number of raging homophobes in this country by any means. Perhaps you aren't wrong about kids knowing better, though. Perhaps this will help reduce the number of future homophobes. I don't know.

The idea behind support of showing LGBTQ+ people in media, especially childrens' media, isn't necessarily to convert bigots though, it's more a matter of showing that people of a different sexuality/identity are normal and acceptable also to allow them and their perspectives to be fairly represented.

[Ferguson97]

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

Don't you want the next generation to have an easier time accepting who they are than you did?

You're not wrong, but homophobia will exist in the next generation, and millions of homophobes will always be there. Showing them or their kids TV programs with gay characters won't change their stance on gay people; in fact, I suspect they'll become even more hostile and anti-gay. Obviously movies and TV shows with gay characters are fine and should continue, but not everyone will accept them and you really can't change the hate and bigotry in their mind by just showing them gay TV characters or what not. I get what DT is saying. Just because he acknowledges that homophobia exists and always will, does not mean that he condones that fact.

I completely disagree with your premise. Showing gay people as normal, everyday people will make it far harder for parents to indoctrinate their children with anti-gay propaganda.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't show gays in media or television or film to avoid antagonising the bigoted religious right AT ALL. All I'm saying is, if you think showing gay characters will make anybody see the light or stop spouting their homophobia, you're wrong. It won't reduce the number of raging homophobes in this country by any means. Perhaps you aren't wrong about kids knowing better, though. Perhaps this will help reduce the number of future homophobes. I don't know.

I'm not expecting this to persuade the Fuzzy's or Mr. R's of the world, but perhaps it will give their children a fighting chance.

[Schiff for Senate]

It's unfortunate that not every kid gets raised by LGBT-affirming parents, but that didn't stop me from becoming/identifying as gay.  I knew and understood what my parents believed; contending with that was part of my process of coming out and creating an identity separate from them.  Everyone, both gay or straight, partakes in a similar journey in the universal process of "growing up", more or less. 

Don't you want the next generation to have an easier time accepting who they are than you did?

You're not wrong, but homophobia will exist in the next generation, and millions of homophobes will always be there. Showing them or their kids TV programs with gay characters won't change their stance on gay people; in fact, I suspect they'll become even more hostile and anti-gay. Obviously movies and TV shows with gay characters are fine and should continue, but not everyone will accept them and you really can't change the hate and bigotry in their mind by just showing them gay TV characters or what not. I get what DT is saying. Just because he acknowledges that homophobia exists and always will, does not mean that he condones that fact.

I completely disagree with your premise. Showing gay people as normal, everyday people will make it far harder for parents to indoctrinate their children with anti-gay propaganda.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't show gays in media or television or film to avoid antagonising the bigoted religious right AT ALL. All I'm saying is, if you think showing gay characters will make anybody see the light or stop spouting their homophobia, you're wrong. It won't reduce the number of raging homophobes in this country by any means. Perhaps you aren't wrong about kids knowing better, though. Perhaps this will help reduce the number of future homophobes. I don't know.

I'm not expecting this to persuade the Fuzzy's or Mr. R's of the world, but perhaps it will give their children a fighting chance.

Fair enough.