“Attempting to conform science to scripture is an endeavor on behalf of ignorance.”
Family Research Council has produced a new pamphlet which is unlikely to cause the Southern Poverty Law Center to reconsider its “hate group” designation. The pamphlet is titled Sex Education in Public Schools: Sexualization of Children and LGBT Indoctrination.
“LGBT indoctrination” deserves some attention. But first, according to a 2017 CDC survey, about 40% of high school students report having had sex. Nearly 10% have had sex with four or more partners.
There is no credible evidence that sex education encourages sexual activity. Yet there is credible evidence that comprehensive sex education reduces teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. The United States is the world’s leader among industrialized nations in rates of both teen pregnancy and STDs.
Nevertheless, as a nation we are sensitive to the religious convictions of parents and allow them to opt their children out of otherwise mandatory sex education classes.
A reader is first greeted with this:
Did you know that … Some public schools teach children they
could be born in the wrong body?1
The end note leads to this news story about sex ed in Fairfax County, Connecticut:
The change that drew the most scrutiny was the proposal to change the term “biological sex” to “sex assigned at birth.”
“Born in the wrong body” is conservative Christian speak for gender dysphoria. It is a scientific fact that some children suffer with the condition. It is a scientific fact that the distress experienced by some of those kids will cause them to transition.
I did not know that we are supposed to hide accurate information from kids. FRC phrases this with “wrong body” BS to suggest that the instruction could cause children to choose to be transgender. Sadly, some Kool-Aid-drinking adherents will agree. “I knew that all along Wilbur!”
It is possible that a child will have a gender-diverse classmate. Would it be better for both if this information was not imparted?
With endnotes this is a 56 page opus magnum. Thus critiquing this thing requires an abundance of selectivity.
With respect to credibility:
A major new study reveals failure rates as
high as 87 percent for school-based sex ed programs … some programs actually result in increased sexual activity, increased number
of sex partners, and increased sexual experimentation by students.
“Major” studies are performed in an academic environment and involve original research.
The source for that interesting tidbit is a “study” done by an organization in Salt Lake City that advocates for abstinence-only education. 2018 revenues were under $125,000.
The lead investigator has an MS in educational psychology from University of Utah. The work is published, out of journal specialization, to a substandard journal. It is a literature review and 42% of the programs studied were outside the United States.
When Illinois parents started keeping their
kids home during LGBTQ Week (lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning), the
school board vice president suggested not telling
parents when it would occur: “Not telling people
the time of the curriculum is an option.”
The suggestion is that an LGBTQ Week is a sinister conspiracy. Conspiracy to do what exactly? There are only two possibilities that seem remotely plausible:
- That presence during LGBTQ Week will cause a child to choose to be part of a sexual minority or;
- that presence during LGBTQ Week will cause a child to be less prejudicial of LGBTQ people.
The first option is patently preposterous. To be fearful of the second option is what is really sinister.
Parents have no right to opt children out of attending school. LGBTQ Week is not sex education. The source for the remarks of a member of the school board (a school board VP is ordinarily not an employee of the school district) is a whacked out defender of the faith at The Federalist and the provided link doesn’t work.
Parents have two main concerns about sex ed today: That it sexualizes children and that it is loaded with LGBTQ indoctrination.
What the hell is “LGBTQ indoctrination?” Sex education doesn’t turn kids gay, … or trans. What are these people talking about?
The California Board of Education, for example,
recently implemented a radical sex and gender
education curriculum that is required to be taught
in every public school in the state. Lessons offer
“tips” like “foreplay can be enjoyable in itself and
can lead to orgasm for both partners without having intercourse.”
The endnote for that bit of blather consists entirely of: “Mary Margaret Olohan, California Implements
Extreme New Sex Ed Curriculum.” No link. I found it at the Heritage Foundation’s blog. Much of the information comes from a pastor who provided information to The Daily Caller. Nothing is verifiable and everything is out of context.
Let’s get to more about “indoctrination”
The starkest change to sex education today is that
it is now saturated with “LGBTQ sexuality.”
Marriage, sex/gender, and sexuality are the subject of profound debate in the culture and the
courts. Yet many school districts have, effectively,
chosen sides on these issues and are using sex education as the vehicle to enforce conformity with
If school districts have “chosen sides” as the author claims it is on the side of scientific accuracy. It is a fact that neither sexual orientation nor gender identity are choices. It is a fact that conversion therapy is toxic pseudoscience. Those are not “views” or opinions. Those are scientific facts.
It is a fact that transgender youth exist as do gender nonconforming youth. Kids are going to have LGBTQ classmates. How they treat those other children may depend upon their age-appropriate understanding of human sexuality
Lessons can be highly manipulative—carefully
designed to get children to approve of the concept of sexual rights and fluid sexual “identities,”
and to reject their religious beliefs, the authority
of their parents, and even physical reality itself.
And these lessons are given to young children today.
Nonsense. These people are obsessed with the concepts of approval and shame. What they are afraid of is children learning the truth. Are we obliged to lie to kids lest we create a contradiction with religious beliefs? This is the same argument that these same people have made for years over creationism.
Public schools should not have to “indoctrinate” children in stupidity due to the superstitions of their parents. They can home school or send their kids to religious schools and make their kids as stupid as their parents are.
Parents in Illinois were alarmed when they
learned that their preschool children were being
instructed: “If you have two mommies, they can
be called LESBIANS.”
The above is from an article in The Federalist based upon a local newspaper. The link to that paper does nor work. I am also confused. If they are preschoolers then how are they receiving instruction in school? I am quite certain that children are forever damaged when they learn that gay women are called lesbians. Woe is us!
California law instructs public school teachers to
emphasize homosexual relationships: “Teachers
should… actively use examples of same-sex couples in class discussions.”
This applies to grades nine through 12. The actual quote from Education Department reads:
Teachers should affirmatively acknowledge the existence of relationships that are not heterosexual by actively using examples of same-sex couples in class discussions and using gender neutral language when referencing gender identity and relationships to create an inclusive and safe environment.
The actual text has an entirely different intent than FRC presents. The obvious intent is being inclusive and not to “emphasize” (as FRC claims) non-heterosexual relationships.
Many public schools are beginning to teach the
radical, anti-science proposition that biological
sex is meaningless, that some kids are born in the
wrong body, and that some girls have penises, too.
The American College of Pediatricians calls this
psychological child abuse.
No one says, or teaches, that “biological sex is meaningless.” That is religious hyperbole. A very small percentage of the population has incongruent gender and natal sex. When gender and natal sex are in competition, gender almost always prevails if the condition causes severe distress.
Is FRC trying to pass off American College of Pediatricians as a legitimate health organization? ACPeds is a tiny Christian anti-LGBTQ hate group out of Gainesville, Florida with annual revenues just over $100,000.
The real peer group is the American Academy of Pediatrics whose clinical practice guidelines provide for the gender-affirming care model.
Gender-inclusive sex education does not change any child’s gender identity. Knowing that transgender people exist and understanding why people are transgender provides an adolescent with scientifically accurate information.
There is nothing “radical” about gender diversity. Claiming that established scientific facts are “anti-science” is not only dishonest but downright idiotic. Attempting to conform science to scripture is an endeavor on behalf of ignorance.
“Sex assigned at birth” is transgender
“newspeak” to support the idea that a person’s sex
can change; that a male-bodied person can have
a female brain.
No it is not and a person’s sex cannot change.
Apparently young people have to be scared away from transitioning if they have gender dysphoria.
In Fairfax, sex ed lessons present transgenderism
as a healthy sexual identity, without any mention
of the health and medical risks associated with so-
called sex transition.
Nonsense. People are transgender to mitigate the effects of a medical condition — gender incongruence. There is no such thing as “sex transition.” Transitioning means presenting as one’s gender rather than as one’s natal sex. There are no “health and medical risks associated” with transitioning.
Prior to puberty, transition means clothing and, perhaps hairstyle. Who would have guessed that pigtails can endanger one’s health?
After entering puberty an adolescent might take puberty blockers prescribed by a qualified medical professional. Puberty blockers have minimal potential adverse consequences and are fully reversible.
In late teens an adolescent might be prescribed cross-sex hormones to better present in accordance with their gender. These do come with potential adverse consequences. The adolescent, parents and their doctors carefully weigh the benefits against the intense discomfort caused by gender dysphoria.
No one volunteers to be transgender. A transgender person is healthier than they might be if they are in distress from gender dysphoria and do not transition.
I get it. The existence of transgender people conflicts with scripture. That is no reason to force people to suffer and it certainly should not incentivize either ignorance or intolerance.
The new curriculum in Austin teaches middle
school children that doctors assign a sex to babies
based on their genitalia but that “sex does NOT
always match with their gender identity.”
That is absolutely correct. Missing, however, is the fact that differences in sex and gender are very rare.
According to leading parent advocacy group NC
Values Coalition, the curriculum uses psychological reconditioning techniques to cause children
to question their sex through strategies such as
role-playing, games, videos, and affirmation statements like “I used to think, but now I know.”
“Psychological reconditioning techniques?” So now children are being brain-washed. Is the technique working? Are hundreds of North Carolina kids suddenly becoming transgender in response? This is crazy-talk.
Teaching kindness is dangerous:
In health class—in any class—students might
be encouraged to attend “Pride” parades or to
become an LGBTQ “ally.” They may receive
lessons on how to denounce “homophobia” and
“challenge” others who do not agree.
That’s right. Children should know that different isn’t bad. Children should be taught not to be hateful and, possibly, how to challenge those who are. There exists no logical reason to be unkind to LGBTQ children. Just as there is no reason to be unkind to kids who are not white or who not Christian or those with red hair or those who are left-handed.
There is no adverse effect to teaching tolerance.
The pronoun issue is very serious. Propaganda expert Stella Morabito says coercive speech practices
have historically been used as a form of psychological manipulation.
This treatise gets more bizarre by the paragraph. Ms. Morabito’s expertise is in irrationality on behalf of Jesus. It is not coercive to treat others with respect. It is generally agreed, in polite society, that we refer to people with pronouns which are consistent with their presentation.
These people will go to any lengths in their effort to deny the existence of transgender folks. Would anyone be so obtuse as to go up to Caitlyn Jenner and ask her a question beginning with “Mr. Jenner?” What would be the point of so obviously an intentional insult?
I will tell you what the point is. The objective is to convey disapproval. Some people feel more important when they have the opportunity to demonstrate their disapproval because they believe that their approval has been solicited and they have the power to deny someone what the other person desires.
The reality is that LGBTQ people do not seek and do not require anyone’s approval to be who they are. I have theorized that much of the hate that exists toward LGBTQ people reflects the frustration by the haters that their approval is not seen as important. Thus the person feels less important.
Approval and shame are the principal levers of conformity in conservative religious circles. We have evolved to deny them any effect from either. We turned “queer” into a familiar term of distinction. We laugh every time they use the phrase “homosexual agenda.” Above all we demonstrate a consistent indifference to their opinions of us.
I am going to quote just one more section and then I am done … for now.
Some school districts are beginning to teach
LGBTQ history, thanks to the Southern Poverty
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the
discredited, anti-Christian “hate” profiteer, has
created a campaign for public schools called
The Southern Poverty Law Center is only considered to be “discredited” among hate groups. No matter how often they repeat this propaganda, most people know what is true.
Family Research Council is one of those hate groups. The very fact that they see evil in teaching kids about the contributions of LGBTQ people speaks volumes. Every LGBTQ person in the world needs to know that a gay man, Alan Turing, did more to defeat the Nazis in World War II than any general.
Every LGBTQ kid needs to know that Sally Ride, a gay woman, remains the youngest American astronaut to have traveled to space and was also an important physicist.
I want every LGBTQ kid to know that the CEO of one of the world’s largest corporations, Apple, is a gay man.
The LGBTQ kids need this information so that they know that they are not limited because of their sexuality. Their peers need to know that they might be working for an LGBTQ executive one day. None of this would even be necessary were it not for the hateful efforts of organizations like Family Research Council.
For whatever reasons, the haters hate. Then they hate the steps that society takes in response to the hate. Then they hate science, accurate history and anything else which proves that their hate is based on, and fostered through, sophistry.