> Another example is a 5th-grade lesson, where a problem with Ms. Hernandez knitting a scarf for her grandson is labeled noninclusive and then modified to one w

> Another example is a 5th-grade lesson, where a problem with Ms. Hernandez knitting a scarf for her grandson is labeled noninclusive and then modified to one where Mr. Hernandez is knitting a scarf because “guys can knit too.” Unless the authors intend to imply that women should never knit, it is a crime against fundamental logic. What the hell is up with that weird example? The link sends me to a YouTube video completely devoid of context and in very poor quality. I don't know who made that video and in what way (if in any way) it is related to this proposed curriculum. If it is, the article should make this connection clear. Moreover, as much as it may be pointless to replace "Mrs. Hernandez" with "Mr. Hernandez" in that question, it's certainly not "defying logic", it's just arbitrarily redefining the (irrelevant) context for a maths problem. I find people who complain about such a change at least as annoying as the ones arguing incessantly for these kinds of changes. As the article is otherwise very light on details about what's wrong with the curriculum (the example with the fence is the only concrete thing that is being referred to that is not ridiculous, and even that is arguable), this just looks to me like some opinion piece that tries to fan the flames of some culture war. It's quite possible that there are problems with this proposed curriculum (I don't live in California, I know nothing about it), but this article is not making a very clear case.