Thank you for your comment, Alex!

We are constantly evaluating our content and our approach to building the most effective and inclusive lessons for our learners. We will certainly take your feedback into account as we move forward with that process.

Thank you for taking the time to write to us about inclusivity in our content so we can make it even stronger - we really appreciate it!

Best,

Daniela
Community Support

People are not ''haters'' because they decided to disagree with your ideas.

I don't think the purpose of Khan Academy is to encourage people to be "haters" or to agree with ideas. I think the purpose of Khan is to make people think about what they're learning. It may be different from what they have learned from their parents, teachers in schools, religious organizations in which their parents raised them or they chose to join as adults, or mass media (whether the news is real or fake). No one has to agree with what is taught if their feeling is that it is not how they want to view the world (except sometimes when what has been taught needs to be answered correctly on a test - once the test is over, they can think whatever they want on the subject).

I am referring to when Alex said "You guys can be haters and say no" and explaining that people are not ''haters'' because they disagree with your idea.

I just saw a question about Brittany and Sophia taking their wives to lunch and it made me so happy. I can't even explain the feeling of finally seeing lgbtq+ rep on a major site. Thank you. 

Not trying to hijack anyone’s post! I tried to just email Khan Academy directly instead of going on the community site, but unfortunately couldn’t figure out how to do that.

Khan Academy, as a parent active in my children’s education, I do not believe it’s the job of “the internet” to teach children about things such as sexuality. It’s the parents’ job.  And no, just because people disagree with an issue, or want to be able to teach their own children about that issue, does not mean that they “hate” people that embrace said issue or want it to be at the forefront of society. What ever happened to agreeing to disagree? It doesn’t mean that anyone is hated! Apparently I should have done more research into Khan Academy before downloading the app. Why does everything have to have so many secondary agendas?

Why on earth would you want to expose children to LGBT content?

@matthew.bernatz You asked why would I want to expose children to LGBT content? Because it has come to be a significant part of life in the USA and much of the rest of the world. Yes, some parents want to keep this knowledge from their children, but others want their children to learn about it. The latter group of parents may not feel equipped to teach their kids about such things. This is where the professional educators can step in. This includes schools their children attend and organizations such as Khan Academy.

LGBT is a sexual preference so why do children need to know your sexual preference?  The subject is way too nuanced and inappropriate for young children.

"Yes, some parents want to keep this knowledge from their children, but others want their children to learn about it. The latter group of parents may not feel equipped to teach their kids about such things."  The former group of parents do not want their children sexualized.  If the latter group of parents wants this then that's on them.

lgbtqia+ subjects are not sexual. Why do you immediately think of being sexual and what people do in the bedroom when lgbtqia+ subjects are brought up? It's simply about being who you are and loving who you love. If you don't want children sexualised and learning about sexual things, then do not show them media about straight relationships, do not talk them about heterosexual love like elementary school crushes or marriages, and do not talk to your children about how they came into the world or any subject regarding the relationship of their parents. Because if any subject about lgbtqia+ people is sexual and sexualising children, and is too nuanced, then any subject about heterosexual people is as well. Children are innocent. Teaching them about lgbtqia+ subjects like gender and sexuality do not automatically become sexual in their minds. They are simply learning about other people, and gaining understanding. You don't have to explain to a child how gay sex works for them to understand that a man can love a man just like their mom loves their dad. It's not dirty in their minds unless it is explicitly made dirty. Hate and ignorance is a factor of nurturing it, it's not in their nature to be hateful unless learned. And if you're children are going to go into the world and encounter lgbtqia+ people, wouldn't you like them to have an understanding about them? Wouldn't you like them to understand our community through innocent and educational talk? It hurts when my community is immediately sexualised just for existing. How would you feel if you were at an event, and you (as a man in this scenario) introduced your wife to another guest, and they told you your relationship was disgusting and to keep your sex life and life choices at home and away from kids? it would hurt, wouldn't it? That's how we feel when people like you say things like that. It would feel hurtful and confusing and unfair. Children deserve to learn about all kinds of people, whether you agree or disagree with them. Our lives and identities are not too sexual or nuanced. We're as nuanced as the relationship of their parents.

You don't go in an event and say 'I am straight or gay' unless you want to approach someone with sexual intent... Presenting your family is not telling your sexual preference. It is your family member. 
Teaching lgbtq is not about presenting someone. It is presenting one's personal liking.
The problem with learning LGBTQ stuff is that it opens the door to sexual life style.
Trying to make it kid-friendly is not what makes the subject innocent.
Look at the drag-queen show for Christmas that they called kid-friendly. 
Children don't need to be sexualized and know about sexual preferences while they are young. 
Let them be kids. You don't teach children to have a liking to a girl or a boy, they just have a feeling. 
We don't need adult to push their sexual preference to children and give them idea before they know who they are first.
Wait for the children to mature.

I don't think this would be a good subject to talk about in Khan because of 2 reasons

• Subject is Way too, How do I say it.. Mature for kids.

• It Would be inappropriate in some countries/religions.

The second reason would be a really good reason as some countries Prohibit this entirely

Yep  I agree this stuff is a bit too much for little kids

Absurd. I am a kid and I think Khan shouldn’t do this because other younger kids with Anti-LGB+ parents will have totally different views and the parent will sue Khan

As a child, I think that Khan Academy is about learning, meaning I want to be taught math, history, science, and other school subjects. I am perfectly fine with Khan Academy not teaching about Christianity even though I am a Catholic. Some people just do not agree with me, and that is fine! I can always peacefully bring up the subject later to someone of different beliefs who is willing to hear my message and I think the LGBTQ+ community should do the same. What I’ve learned is that forcing an ideology on someone is not going to make them agree with you. And sometimes, at the end of the day, it’s just better to leave a person be. I understand that this can be frustrating, but sometimes it is the best thing you can do, and maybe, instead of talking, you could take up listening. I myself have a hard time with this, but I do try, and when I succeed, I learn something new! So my point is, I think we should keep school… well school! It doesn’t matter what one’s beliefs are, we just come here to learn peacefully and sometimes even make new friends! I really hope no one takes this message the wrong way, Jesus said “Love your neighbor as yourself” and that is what I try to do every day. My goal is not to offend and hurt, but to understand. I hope you can too! And I hope that each of you has a blessed day!

Folowing your logic, the fact that Khan academy does not teach Talmudic classical logic [Rambam and other medival books], Khan is showing it's antisemitic ? I think that if LGBT is teached here, religion values must be teached also, else, leave Khan only with science, that is good enough and neutral for all the planet. Keeping Khan neutral is respecting ALL the ideologies and religions.

Henry, doesn't that imply that Khan Academy should be neutral to racism, sexism, and slavery? Are you suggesting that rape is okay as long as a religion believes it's good, and we should avoid taking a position because we might disrespect someone by saying rape is bad?

Again, I believe that Khan Academy should only teach school subjects. Instead of being neutral, they could stay out of religion, politics, and that sort of thing in general. It would make things much easier for their platform and their users. However, you could have been a little less arrogant when saying so John Moser.

There's no such thing as neutrality; you also assert that these things aren't school subjects.  Part of the purpose of school--the larger purpose, in fact--is to socialize students.

You could have attempted to address my framing, but that wouldn't have worked anyway: you'd have to dip into the philosophy of ethics to determine what is right and wrong, and that quickly goes into human rights and undermines your own position.  The problem is you have no basis for your position, and have to rely on handwaving.

It'd also be difficult to separate politics from history. Slavery is political, and the entire human rights movement is deeply connected to racial disparities; LGBT stuff shows up in our history with obvious court cases shaping our application and understanding of constitutional law, but also more fundamentally the philosophy of law has explored things such as whether fornication should be illegal (the last case of which I'm aware of anyone being imprisoned for the crime of fornication was in San Francisco, 1962).

We would need to ban everything regarding civics from the education system; in large part, it would look like (and be conducive to establishing) a totalitarian regime.  Part of the socialization function of school is to avoid making people vulnerable to social control by political figures.  In the early history of Baltimore, without exposure to such concepts, people were controlled by taking advantage of their ignorance in this respect.  Employers would frequently make job postings labeled "colored preferred" or "no Irish need apply" or "no negroes."  Facing a large number of workers from different backgrounds including Black workers, Polish immigrants, Irish immigrants, German immigrants, and other white Europeans, the employers essentially gave everyone a way to notice that these "other" people were taking their employment, because you notice positive things a lot less than negative things.  Instead of banding together to pressure employers into better wages and working conditions, these different people all hated each other.  Nice trick if you're Kim Jong-Un or Adolf Hitler.

Overall you're trying to work from an "I know it when I see it" position, which amounts to not having a real criteria except that you've decided certain things are bad and others are good.  In this case, certain things are bad to teach in school, and others are good; but why?

@FisherCat & matthew.bernatz & LoveBeingMom & others:

"Brittany and Sophia taking their wives to lunch" can only be sexual if "Brittany and Sophia taking their husbands to lunch" is also sexual.  If couples or families are referenced, it is no more sexualized to talk about same-sex couples than different-sex couples.  Including various family structures is not pushing an agenda, it's reflecting reality -- there are kids using Khan Academy who have same-sex couples as parents, and other kids who will hear their classmates or friends talk about their same-sex couple parents.

This is the worst thread I've read in my life, holy. How is it morally wrong to want to teach children that it's okay to have feelings? To love who you want to? That there have been literal centuries of indoctrination telling people you can only love a certain gender? Or you can only BE a certain gender? You can't "agree to disagree" when it comes to a literal person's identity. What are you disagreeing with? That this person is making up their emotions? That they shouldn't exist? Sure, you aren't harassing them, but the bar doesn't need to be that low. It's still valid to be off-put or even a little saddened/angered if someone doesn't believe the way your brain is, is acceptable. That they, as a person, as an identity aren't acceptable. Imagine someone said the same thing about being straight, said the same thing to you. "We don't HATE you, we just don't think you actually exist and are just lying to yourself!" would it feel nice to be teated so condescendingly everyday by multiple people and get downvoted to oblivion for simply how you are? Y'know what's also sad? How you all treat this subject as if it's too "adult" and "sexual" or how one person (probably a child) says "ermm...how do I put this...mature" (ironically an immature way to put it, we shouldn't be scared of the es ee ex word) It isn't. It isn't in the same way explaining what straight means. It isn't in the same way multiple lessons on here talk about how 'historical figure liked x historical figure'. It isn't different. It isn't sexual. Someone being straight isn't sexual. How is being gay? How is being a man sexual in the same way a trans man is? None of those are sexual in the slightest. It's so hypocritical how ya'll would faint if a man said he had a husband, but a man saying he has a wife is totally normal. If parents disagree with the ideology, they can go to a conservative school or whatever. Same as how if they disagree with the Earth being round. Or the evolution theory that Khan Academy puts front and centre. They can get away with that truth but when it's LGBTQ, a significant portion of the population, yet an oppressed one, people of which are in my family, in my friend's familes, in my schools, in my damn life for cryng out loud, no talking about them. Silence. Zilch. Nothing. Sickos. 

With thanks to Daniela, an employee of Khan Academy who was honest, brave, and nice enough to consider the opinions of others. I understand that maybe most of people on this thread are children who have yet to develop their brains and experience enough of life to give a proper analysis on such a universally hated and misinformed topic, getting most of their information through a biased lens of parents, teachers and adults in their lives who preach "DEI = bad" (despite official Khan Academy strongly associated themselves openly with DEI) or perhaps associated themselves with media that strongly proclaim the opposite. I hope that they learn, grow, and get out of their bigotry. One final Thank You to Daniela, once again.