Former Orange County, CA teacher, Brenda Lebsack, has a religious objection to the existence of LGBTQ persons.
Friday, according to Heritage Foundation’s blog: I’m a Teacher. Parents Should Know That School Districts Hide an Ideology of ‘Unlimited’ Gender. The genius who authored that polemic is Brenda Lebsack.
First of all, Ms. Lebsack is not a teacher. She is a former teacher. Furthermore, Lebsack is co-pastor (with her husband, Mark Lebsack) of Plaza Bible Church in Anaheim. Plaza Bible Church is not a federally tax-exempt church.
A couple of years ago, Lebsack was claiming that there was a vast conspiracy to corrupt California school children.
In June of this year, Lebsack claimed that her union was part of the aforementioned conspiracy.
Now she is claiming that the conspiracy to fuck up kids has something to do with their gender identity.
After wading through something to do with the eternally evil Planned Parenthood:
“National Sex Ed Standards” defines gender, which it takes to encompass biological sex, as a social construct. Therefore, it’s possible to reject or modify one’s “sex assigned at birth” and develop something that feels truer to oneself (Page 58).
Lebsack did not provide a link to the document. I have the most current (2020) edition. There is nothing about gender on page 58. On page 62, however:
“Gender is neither “relativist” nor an “ideology.” The gender spectrum is a scientific fact.”
I agree that the above is a tad esoteric. The important things to understand about gender are much more straightforward:
- Gender is a construct independent of natal sex.
- Gender is formed by about two years of age.
- Gender is a continuum with male and female at the extreme ends.
- 99.5% of people have congruent gender and natal sex.
- Most people identify as either male or female.
But I digress. Eventually Lebsack gets to the religious “gender ideology” bullshit:
To understand the rest of this document, it’s vital to grasp how it subordinates the biological reality of sex to trendy, relativist, gender ideology.
That is because Christianists cannot accept the scientific reality that gender and natal sex are independent of each other. Their belief is based upon Bronze Age texts. They will defend those ancient texts without consideration for how absurd their arguments are or how out of touch with science they are.
There is nothing “trendy” about gender. It has been in the medical literature for well over a century. Gender is neither “relativist” nor an “ideology.” The gender spectrum is a scientific fact.
Frankly it scares the crap out of me that idiots like this are exposed to young children. Nevertheless (and I am grateful that Lebsack is in the “former” category):
In grades 3 to 5, teachers should inform students about puberty blockers (Page 20). The standards define the medical refusal to administer puberty-blocking drugs and other similar treatments to minors as gender-based violence (page 60).
“There is no religious duty to be cruel to children.”
In fact, there is not a single reference to puberty blocking, suppression, GnRHa or anything even close. The word “violence” appears 17 times; 13 times as “dating violence;” twice as “bullying and violence;” and twice in a footnote to the CDC’s violence prevention website.
I think I know why Lebsack did not provide a link to the document. It gets worse:
“National Sex Ed Standards” calls the right to choose one’s gender “sexual agency” (Page 64). It considers anyone who fails to affirm a student’s self-determined gender as prejudicial or transphobic (Pages 60, 67). This “sexism” or “discrimination” (Page 64), it claims, causes individual or systemic trauma (Page 67).
The term “sexual agency” is nowhere to be found. Furthermore, gender is not a choice. Nor is gender something that is “self-determined.” I cannot find the section on gender-affirming behavior by others. However, misgendering a kid is to do violence to them. It is traumatic and it is entirely unnecessary.
There is no religious duty to be cruel to children. Meanwhile the woman is profoundly confused.
The standards redefine “transgender” to be an umbrella term encompassing a large number of gender identities.
Nope. Wrong again. Not there. However, for the record, the CDC used “transgender” as an umbrella term. It describes some measure of feeling gender incongruous but is unrelated to transitioning. In other words kids we would consider to be cisgender are transgender if they feel some degree of gender dysphoria. The concept is unrelated to “a large number of gender identities.”
Then we get to begging the question:
What’s the empirical evidence for this idea of unlimited genders, or for the ideology on which it’s based?
“There is a durable biological underpinning to gender identity.”
Oodles of evidence. For example, an article in the AMA Journal of Ethics:
In fact, according to the Endocrine Society:
“Lebsack is purposely trying to over-complicate something in order to suggest that it is arcane.”
Next rhetorical question:
Who are these “experts in the field” who deign to obliterate the distinction between male and female previously recognized by every culture?
The above is biblical nonsense. The concept of gender does not affect “the distinction between male and female.” Furthermore the reference to “every culture” is incorrect. For example, references to transgender persons are included in ancient Egyptian and Hindu texts.
I would be happy to provide Brenda Lebsack with a list of the many experts known to me.
The continuum of stupidity with moron and imbecile at the extreme ends:
Officials recently changed the legal definition of “transgender” to mean a general or umbrella term of a person whose gender identity differs from that person’s “sex assigned at birth.”
Why didn’t so-called mainstream news report this major definition change about gender over three years ago?
How about because the legal definition is irrelevant to the vast majority of gender-diverse people and the lives they lead? It’s just not newsworthy. Furthermore, what media report and do not report has no relevance to standards for the education of children.
“The result of this tortured effort is an intellectually dishonest stew
The rather deranged woman does not understand what spectrum means.
Other “experts in the field” that endorse unlimited or expansive gender identities include: [blah, blah, blah, ACLU, the SPLC, blah, blah, blah]
The gender identity of the overwhelming majority of people is either male or female. Some people are gender ambiguous. It’s not conjecture. It is the scientific consensus. Lebsack is purposely trying to over-complicate something in order to suggest that it is arcane.
One more example of begging the question:
Does that mean that all professionals associated with these groups agree with a gender ideology that dissolves biological sex differences in a swirling, expansive sea of gender identities?
Again, “gender ideology” is Christianist bullshit. Opinions vary within advocacy groups. However, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding what gender identity means.
Begging the question (assuming a conclusion) is a logical fallacy. Brenda Lebsack is a logical fallacy. She needs to conform the world to Christian teachings because she is incapable of appreciating the limits of faith and belief systems based on faith.
The result of this tortured effort is an intellectually dishonest stew comprised of bits and pieces of religious doctrine competing with scientific realities.