Well after catching up on the thread, am I the only one disturbed that they are using unicorns, gingerbread man cookies and graphs that look like boobs to discuss sexuality?

As I've already stated, I disagree with this. I think it is ignorant to assume that these kids aren't picking this stuff up already at a young age and it is best for them to hear this responsibly.

And again, starting kids in age appropriate sexual education courses is not some radical suggestion. Every set of guidelines that I can find suggests beginning this teaching in primary school:

http://www.futureofsexed.org/documents/josh-fose-standards-web.pdf

https://siecus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Guidelines-CSE.pdf

Countries like the Netherlands already employ comprehensive sexuality education and they find outcomes are far more positive than what is typically seen in countries such as the United States which tends to shy away from Sexual Education:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/spring-fever

"The Dutch approach to sex ed has garnered international attention, largely because the Netherlands boasts some of the best outcomes when it comes to teen sexual health. On average, teens in the Netherlands do not have sex at an earlier age than those in other European countries or in the United States. Researchers found that among 12 to 25 year olds in the Netherlands, most say they had  “wanted and fun” first sexual experiences. By comparison, 66 percent of sexually active American teens surveyed said they wished that they had waited longer to have sex for the first time. When they do have sex, a Rutgers WPF study found that nine out of ten Dutch adolescents used contraceptives the first time, and  World Health Organization data shows that Dutch teens are among the top users of the birth control pill. According to the World Bank, the teen pregnancy rate in the Netherlands is one of the lowest in the world, five times lower than the U.S. Rates of HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases are also low."

That article also links several study which suggests that starting sexuality education in primary school widely improves health outcomes:

http://irh.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Investing_in_VYAs_SRH_2014.pdf

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000183281

"" We should not deny the identity of a trans individual on the basis of biology""

what exactly does this mean? are you implying that a man becomes a woman by simply stating he is one? i really would like clarification on this point

" These ideas that you object so vehemently to are actually not very radical at all"

and yet you can't answer a simple question that addresses the very core of your argument and as a a result you continue to show me that even you don't believe in this nonsense and yet expect me to do so

that is a really difficult issue and I believe is one of the reasons far right is getting popular among lgbt+ community in Europe at least... integration policies should help in these cases to respect the laws and fundamental rights assumed in each country. Keep religion away from public schools.

It means that we don't know all of the complicated factors that contribute to an individual's biology by simply looking at their genitalia at birth. As previously stated, many transgendered individuals are biologically more similar to those of their identified gender than typical of those of their assigned sex. There is evidence that gender identity is at least in part biological. Twin studies have shown that identical twins are more likely to both be transgendered than fraternal twins which implies a genetic component to transgender identity (which is further supported by studies showing certain genetic differences between transgendered and cisgendered individuals). Some studies have shown that brain structures in transgendered individuals (pre-transition) tend to more closely resemble those of their identified gender than their assigned sex.

This all indicates the "but you are going against biology" argument is fundamentally misguided, as at its core, biology is a core component of transgender identity. Individuals are often not "going against" biology but instead being led by it.

"many transgendered individuals are biologically more similar to those of their identified gender than typical of those of their assigned"

and yet they feel dysphoria over not having a particular body type and have to transition and this somehow is consistent to you

"Twin studies have shown that identical twins are more likely both be transgendered than fraternal twins which implies a genetic component to transgender identity. Some studies have shown that brain structures in transgendered individuals (pre-transition) tend to more closely resemble those of their identified gender than their assigned sex."

other research either shows the opposite or points out that the brains children are very plastic and can adopt to certain stimuli such as a parent affirming a gender identity that was just a phase

regardless this presents problems as shown below

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/27/feature/seeking-a-scientific-explanation-for-trans-identity-could-do-more-harm-than-good/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1c43fd111fd7

https://thinkprogress.org/transgender-brain-scan-study-68f9ba4b1c43/

"This all indicates the "but you are going against biology" argument is fundamentally misguided, as at its core, biology is a core component of transgender identity." 

ok, whatever, you haven't made a biology argument here anyway, so can you please stop dodging and actually answer the question?

"" We should not deny the identity of a trans individual on the basis of biology""

what exactly does this mean? are you implying that a man becomes a woman by simply stating he is one? i really would like clarification on this point""

isn't it interesting that after about 10 times now you still can't answer despite being in support of this idea?

I feel that you are overcomplicating the simple here.

This is how I see things:

People are naturally assigned their sex via their chromosomes by nature so that they may procreate and mix genetic information (in order to try and get the best qualities of each parent via natural selection). Trans people have something abnormal occurring in their  brains/hormones/etc. that prevents them from accepting this natural assignment (causing them to reject their naturally assigned sex). That abnormality is the (by definition) not the norm and trying to blur the lines due to how nuanced this abnormality is (the same way that genetic mutation may be nuanced in cause/manifestation).

Yes, we get that there is a stigma and persecution here and that people need to be more sympathetic to those who suffer from abnormalities. But I believe the stigma people need to remove is the stigma against abnormality. In fact, it is far more common for one form of abnormality to exist in all of us either psychological or physical, and we should embrace this abnormality, not deny it even exists.

1) I'm not sure what you are asking/implying here

2) Twin studies are important in distinguishing between environmental or genetic factors, because the environment for fraternal and identical twins tends to be very similar, so if there is a significant difference between outcomes between the two groups, it implies that there is a genetic component at play, which has been demonstrated through twin studies.

3) I don't believe you actually read either of those articles because they do not really argue against any of my points, especially in the context my points were used. Again, my argument here is in relation to "biology based transphobia", that is to say, the idea that a transgender identity is "against biology". This is simply not the case. These articles state that some people may misuse this information in ways which far more closely mimics arguments that you've made than arguments I have made. You have not posted a valid counterargument to this idea throughout this post or throughout any others.

4) I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here.

5) You asked me to clarify what I said. I did. Now you are complaining that I wasn't implying what you thought I was implying so you are mad that I didn't say that I was. Come the fuck on, man. If you want me so badly to answer your question, my answer is "no". Happy now? I am not implying what you think I am implying. Now fucking move past that terrible question. The reason I haven't answered it is because it is a stupid question and it only gets stupider every time you shove those words into my mouth.

I find it quite ironic that these muslims protest against the "No Outsiders" program because the very same program also gives muslims a representation in children's school books. This shows that some groups are only interested in minority right as long as they benefit them.

I also think that the left political sphere ignored, out of a hyper tolerance, problems like these and in doing so they basically betrayed the progressive voices within the muslim community.

the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a bad advice. If we really think that muslims are a part of our western societies we have to hold them by the same standards as everyone else, for a lefty this means criticising the archaic beliefs, practices and hierarchies within Islam without fear of being called islamophobic.

We already clarified that that was a misunderstanding on your part about what that image meant. I thought were were past that...