Tuesday, a hate group expresses concern that the California Department of Education is revising the Health Education Curriculum Framework for California public schools.
American Family Association propagandist, Chris Woodward, writes about Orange County teacher, Brenda Lebsack. Ms. Lebsack is obsessed with an apparent LGBT conspiracy to corrupt California’s public school children. Woodward forgot to mention that Brenda Lebsack is also co-pastor (with her husband, Mark Lebsack) of Plaza Bible Church in Anaheim.
There is nothing wrong with being a Christian minister. However, it is important information to consider in regards to someone’s opinions. My views, for example, on many issues might have a different resonance if readers do not know that I am gay.
According to Woodward and referring to Brenda Lebsack:
California’s Department of Education will be voting on an updated “Health Framework” in May that one public educator calls a flagrant, far-left attempt by LGBT activists to ignore biology and indoctrinate children.
This revision has been in the works since September, 2016. California being California, the revision has been completely transparent to the citizenry.
With respect to sexual health, students in grades seven to twelve must receive comprehensive sexual health education. This is in accordance with the California Healthy Youth Act of 2016. In other words, the legislature — the people’s representatives — have already dealt many of the cards.
According to the same law, it is permissible to teach elements of sexual health and HIV prevention in elementary schools providing that it meets certain requirements. This means that local school boards make determinations regarding what instruction K-7 students receive.
Yet the two groups are lumped together:
Orange County teacher Brenda Lebsack has been speaking out about the future “framework” for K-12 curriculum in which the current push for transgenderism includes instructing students there are “unlimited genders” and not to assume people are simply male and female.
Ms. Lebsack is intellectually dishonest because of her failure to separate grades K-6 from 7-12. In point of fact, the established science does not necessarily conform to Lebsack’s ancient manuscripts. Gender and sex are separate constructs. Gender is, in point of fact, a continuum. What might be conveyed to the younger group and what will be conveyed to the older group of students is a separate issue.
In a December commentary about the framework at education website EdSource.org, Lebsack quotes directly from a draft copy in which students are advised to use the term “partner” out of respect for “non-monogamous” relationships. Students are also advised about relationships with multiple partners known as “polyfidelity.”
Again, for which group of students? K-6 or 7-12? EdSource is a private website unaffiliated with the state. Lebsack is referring to a November draft which states:
The second 60-day public review period will be held from November 1, 2018 through
January 11, 2019. Public input can be submitted to the California Department of
Education (CDE) via email or regular mail.
In other words, what Lebsack is citing is not what will be voted on in May.
Here come those ubiquitous (and mythical) evil activists:
In another section, the influence of LGBT activists — and the absence of normalcy — is evident. She writes about that section:
In Chapter 5, Line 643, the draft introduces sexual orientations as a spectrum as well. LGBTQ+ is defined as an ever-changing spectrum with expanding concepts to include “queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, allies and alternative identities (LGBTQQIAA).” Other sexual orientations introduced in Chapter 6, Line 938 include “pansexual and polysexual.”
Absence of normalcy? Tell me that this woman is not a bigot. Let’s quote from the draft rather than offer interpretations. After noting the requirement for schools to be safe and inclusive for LGBTQ students, starting at line 643:
The usage of LGBTQ+ throughout this document is intended to represent an inclusive
and ever-changing spectrum and understanding of identities. Historically, the acronym
included lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender but has continued to expand
to include queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, allies, and alternative identities
(LGBTQQIAA), as well as expanding concepts that may fall under this umbrella term in
So this is not what is conveyed to students. It is nomenclature for the purpose of understanding the draft.
Spectrum in the draft refers to the many variations of sexuality. Ms. Lebsack does not like that for religious reasons. Like gender it is a scientific fact that sexual orientation is also a continuum. There are endless possibilities. People tend to identify as heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. Depending upon the alignment of the planets, ambient room temperature, the phase of the moon and other factors I am gay or bi. I feel most comfortable identifying as a gay man.
In the above quote, Lebsack refers to line 938 which, see says, includes references to sexual orientation. That is incorrect. It is part of the section on “Healthy and Unhealthy Relationships” which begins at line 936. There is no mention of sexual orientation. (Wonk vs. wonk)
Lebsack also warns parents about the book Who are You? that is described as a guide for children as young as pre-K. In the book, young children who are still learning letters and numbers will be instructed that gender means “boy, girl, both, neither, trans, genderqueer, non-binary, gender fluid, transgender, gender neutral, agender, neutrois, bigender, third gender, two spirit.”
I cannot determine even if, let alone how, that book might be used. It is a book that Lebsack doesn’t like for obvious reasons.
According to the page at Amazon:
This brightly illustrated children’s book provides a straightforward introduction to gender for anyone aged 5+. It presents clear and direct language for understanding and talking about how we experience gender: our bodies, our expression and our identity. An interactive three-layered wheel included in the book is a simple, yet powerful, tool to clearly demonstrate the difference between our body, how we express ourselves through our clothes and hobbies, and our gender identity. Ideal for use in the classroom or at home, a short page-by-page guide for adults at the back of the book further explains the key concepts and identifies useful discussion points.
Lebsack is likely to be upset that gender, as a separate construct from natal sex, will be understood by young kids. The author of the book is also a public school teacher and a parent of three.
Lesback [sic] tells OneNewsNow she has personally seen the list of books in a digital library provided by the California Dept. of Education, and some controversial books mentioned in the framework are already in the digital library with lesson plans available.
In other words, the pro-LGBT forces are already at work before parents, and educators such as herself, have an opportunity to fight back.
“We haven’t even finished the process yet,” she warns, “and they’re already implementing it. That’s deception.”
Lebsack does not indicate which books she disapproves of and why she doesn’t like them. Just because she claims that they are controversial doesn’t mean that they are controversial. The fact that lesson plans are available might be for evaluation purposes. Implementation is different from available.
Lebsack probably does not realize that she is her own worst enemy. Given that there are, according to her, “pro-LGBT forces,” the logical implication is that she is part of anti-LGBT forces. This woman seems unable to accept the fact that public education is a secular endeavor.
Ordinarily I would write the title of a post in the first paragraph. I saved it for last: English-only framework tried to hide the crazy in CA. Yes, it is all part of the conspiracy:
Another deceptive tactic, she says, is the controversial “framework” is available only in English despite California’s famous melting pot of numerous cultures and languages.
Lebsack has claimed that the California Department of Education is deceptive due to nefarious LGBT activists. She is projecting. Deceptive? Lebsack, who is clearly biased, has engaged in selective observation, fear mongering and promoting assumptions as fact. Where she is vague it seems that she is being disingenuous. There are things that she does not want the reader to know.
So you see that, yet again, Christians have been victimized by queers. The children, however, seem to be getting a very good education with curricula conforming to state law that is designed by professional educators, available for two cycles of public comment and in progress for nearly three years.
The most unfortunate thing about all of this is that a highly prejudiced person who preferences ancient texts over science is in a classroom. Brenda Lebsack has demonstrated that she is unqualified to teach.