Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday May 05 2017, @09:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the language-evolves-too dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

When uploaded to Netflix, an episode of the educational children's show "Bill Nye the Science Guy" cut out a segment saying that chromosomes determine one's gender.

[...] While noncontroversial at the time, the 1996 segment appears to contradict Netflix's new series "Bill Nye Saves the World."

The new show endorses a socially liberal understanding of gender, under which gender is defined by self-identification rather than genetics and there are more than just the two traditional genders.

People, people, people... Say it with me: The Internet Never Forgets.

Source: http://freebeacon.com/culture/netflix-edits-bill-nye-episode-remove-segment-chromosomes-determine-gender/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by theluggage on Friday May 05 2017, @03:09PM (2 children)

    by theluggage (1797) on Friday May 05 2017, @03:09PM (#504918)

    To be fair, having gone back and looked at the context for the original video, the main focus of the show is probability, not biology, which makes "censoring" a little more forgivable.

    Trouble is, how the hell do you introduce probability to kids when the interesting real world examples are all about gambling, sex or death? As someone who has actually worked on educational materials I can attest to this being a headache: we know that using entirely dry/abstract/contrived contexts for science and math turns kids off and deprives them of educational opportunities, bringing the real world into the classroom engages kids and improves their learning but opens a minefield of sensitivities: Try even stocking the imaginary school shop with items that 5/6-year-olds might realistically buy that are healthy, eco-friendly, gender neutral, race neutral, social-class neutral, hypo-allergenic, don't promote specific products or brands and cost less than 99c (because adding numbers over 100 isn't on the curriculum until next year). The kids are gonna get sick of apples.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 05 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)

    To be fair, having gone back and looked at the context for the original video, the main focus of the show is probability, not biology, which makes "censoring" a little more forgivable.

    A fair point. However (given that I haven't read TFA or watched the video -- informed discourse at its best, FTW!), I have a problem with censorship in general. I think an addendum or inserting *additional* footage would have been preferable to censoring the original.

    Trouble is, how the hell do you introduce probability to kids when the interesting real world examples are all about gambling, sex or death? As someone who has actually worked on educational materials I can attest to this being a headache: we know that using entirely dry/abstract/contrived contexts for science and math turns kids off and deprives them of educational opportunities, bringing the real world into the classroom engages kids and improves their learning but opens a minefield of sensitivities: Try even stocking the imaginary school shop with items that 5/6-year-olds might realistically buy that are healthy, eco-friendly, gender neutral, race neutral, social-class neutral, hypo-allergenic, don't promote specific products or brands and cost less than 99c (because adding numbers over 100 isn't on the curriculum until next year). The kids are gonna get sick of apples.

    Another good point. Although I would point out that even apples are problematic, given pesticides and GMO strains [scienceblogs.com].

    In fact, there isn't anything except mom (but you can't have more than one, so that's right out) and apple pie (those damn apples again! so I guess not) that you can use for this stuff.

    More seriously, it's an interesting problem. Perhaps creators of such materials could, you know, talk to young kids and get a sense of how they view such things to give them ideas as to the types of examples and comparisons to use.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday May 06 2017, @02:32PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Saturday May 06 2017, @02:32PM (#505426)

      In fact, there isn't anything except mom

      Little Alex's mommy went to hospital and is now ver "other daddy" you insensitive clod!

      More seriously, it's an interesting problem. Perhaps creators of such materials could, you know, talk to young kids and get a sense of how they view such things to give them ideas as to the types of examples and comparisons to use.

      They do. Except, its not the young kids that are filtering what you can talk about in the classroom for "triggers" - its the teachers, superintendents and upwards who are terrified and tend to turn sensible "guidelines" into iron rules.

      I suspect that you could have a great science lesson on genetics vs. gender that would elicit surprisingly mature discussions from the kids and teach everybody (including the teacher) a lot about science and tolerance. However, it would be a very, very brave teacher that would tackle it and run the subsequent gauntlet of complaints from parents (often based on incomplete responses to 'what did you do at school today?')