Should we let children identify as animals?

[oldschooler]

Ummmm, except that child play is a vital piece of post modernist thinking if you look into educational philosophy, as I was forced to do at length not so long ago. Letting children have free rein of their imaginations with regard to their development of self, gender and identity is a common theme.

And after all, is it so far away from adults having spirit animals to guide them, or imagining an entire pantheon of gods and angels and devils to do the same.

The day we let raving idiots like Piers Morgan be taken seriously is the day we should abandon all sense of being intelligent beings and go join the rabbits in the fields.

But I am not against child's play.  Childs play has been around long, long before post modernism.  The issue is that children are being coerced.  It is not about play it is about play being crossed out and real being inserted.  It is the same mentality as pregnant persons or a pregnant man.  Or do you believe the 'pregnant man' should be treated as a man or a woman when they go into hospital with compications?  What is a woman?  Or does the pregnant man suddenly have a uterus after all?  Or maybe you are in favour of the doctors and specialists playing and pretending instead of following the science and real biology?  Or is that up for grabs in the play department as well according to you?  It is about consistency.  Oh and you accuse Piers Morgan of being a raving idiot.  How do you know you are not one?  You speak of idiot and in the next breath intelligence but who are you to say which is which and is it all about whether you agree with their stance?  You are sounding like speech police.  Who are you to say that intelligence is real and is not merely play?  How intolerant is that?  But then post modernism was never really about tolerance.  It's about no objective right and wrong.  Right?  But you are too sure you are right not merely concerning yourself but concerning others!  You are certainly displaying those intolerant characteristics.  Like I said: (though I am about to say it in another way but same idea) postmodernism will always fall on its own sword.  The other thing that strikes me is that you elevate the right of the child to have free reign but there is a scoffing of sorts re what you call adults and ''imagining an entire pantheon of gods''.  And let's just say that these adults believe this right?  I mean really believe it ok?  You are all for the child ''development of self..."  Right?  But only so long as they DON'T follow the biology.  Right?  Why not the child into adult life?  Adult?  Why do you even speak of developing.  The child could still be a child at age 60.  Why not if that is their self identity?   Ok with that?  Pay no taxes!  Fully funded by the state....  You really need to spend more time constructing your posts as there is way too much inconsistency.  Ah!  inconsistency!  Consistency does't fit the paradigm of post modernism.  Right?  That's where the post modernist borrows from other paradigms to shout out a judgement like yours re Piers Morgan.  And that's because you cannot live within the strait jacket of post modernism which pretends to be tolerant.  Play again!  And that's it actually: post modernism is a game of pretend.  A house of cards.  Do you see that?  Now try to be consistent in your reply so no judgements and abuse such as "raving idiot" oh and you are not to think that either.