Monday, December 2, 2019

No Means No When Parents Speak

Last spring I wrote a couple of posts (here and here) about what we learned from Kelly Litvak about human sex trafficking—and how one of the steps of recruitment was desensitization. That is, introducing things that are gross, ugly, taboo, socially unacceptable, to condition a dulled response, and finally acceptance of the aberrant behavior as normal. 

Courtney and Kelly Litvak
image from Epoch Times

There’s a follow-up story about Litvak’s work and experience from a couple of weeks ago, here

But I’m looking at another story, out of Austin, Texas, where the school district voted unanimously—over the outcry of parents—to instigate a sex-ed curriculum for children in grades 3-8 that looks designed to do what Litvak says sex traffickers do to normalize the unacceptable.

The Texas legislature, earlier this year, passed legislation intended to prevent this type of sex ed. SB 22 made it so that schools could not contract with abortion providers. This thwarted Austin Independent School District’s plans to adopt a Planned Parenthood-provided pro-LGBT sex ed curriculum called Get Real. Not to be deterred, they assigned internal staff to write their own. They did this in a hurry, without expertise in the subject matter. Mostly, it appears they borrowed large portions from a Canadian program.

The writers failed to alter details where laws are different. For example, the Austin ISD program tells 6th graders (who are 11-12 years old) that the age of consent is 16; in Texas, however, it is 17.

The program labels disagreement with the homosexual agenda as simply homophobia, and is categorized “along with other forms of discrimination,” and says such views “should be challenged.” In other words, if you’re a Bible believing religious person who saves sex for within traditional marriage, you are simply a homophobic bigot, and your beliefs should receive public scorn.

The program does spend a large portion, however, on not accepting bullying—toward LGBT-believing people.

But Christians are used to the schools dealing unfairly with us. And we have been able to mostly counter the attacks with good teachings at home. So, can this new sex ed be as radical as all that? Is this just alarmist? You judge.

You can find more commentary on the Austin ISD program here, which includes links to the actual 6th-8th grade curriculum. But I’ll share a few of my impressions.

There’s a graphic aimed at the younger students. You’ll note that there is nothing scientifically accurate about it. It doesn’t clarify; it confuses. According to the program, there are four aspects of sex:

·        Your sexual identity, your woman-ness or man-ness, which is what your brain tells you that you are, which can be male, female, or whatever else.
·        Your attraction, which is what your heart tells you to be attracted to, which can be to women and/or feminine and/or female people; or to men and/or masculine and/or male people.
·        Your anatomical sex, which isn’t necessarily related to your attraction, but can be to women and/or feminine and/or female people; or to men and/or masculine and/or male people.
·        Your expression, which is your femininity or masculinity as you choose to appear to others, regardless of your biology, the gender you identify as, or whatever type(s) you are attracted to.
They say that identity ≠ expression ≠ sex; gender ≠ sexual orientation. And that sex is assigned you at birth based on the appearance of your genitals—which they’ve just told you is not related to your gender, identity, expression, or whatever.

graphic from Austin ISD's sex ed curriculum
image found here

They fail to note that every cell of your body has contained the DNA determining you to be either a male or a female since you were an embryo. They fail to note that 99.98% of humans recognize themselves and others based on these inborn characteristics—so to say there is no correlation is not only confusing; it is a lie.

Lying would be bad enough. But among the evils that they do in this effort to sexualize young people is to expose them to the details of perverted sex, without ever countering with an example of a married couple—as though normal was whatever LGBT people do, but what the students’ parents do would be so abnormal as to not get a mention.

What the overwhelming majority of us actual normal people want our children to know is the basics about how their bodies will change during puberty, and why—so that they can have children when they are grown and ready for that step in their adulthood. They don’t need to be confused. They don’t need to be exposed to what qualifies as pornography in any other setting.

In our Texas Republican Party 2018 platform, we had a plank that would remove the pornography exemption for schools. That means, if it would be ruled as porn in any other setting, it is not exempt in a school setting. This would disallow many of the visuals and demonstrations included in the curriculum—and other versions like it. But that didn’t come out of this legislative session; there were a great many other SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) issues to deal with.

In the Austin ISD 6th grade sex ed, drawings of male genitalia are beyond diagrams to very realistic. 

In the section for this younger age group about abstinence, it goes into what behaviors qualify as abstinent and what doesn’t—including descriptions of vaginal sex, oral sex, and anal sex—because, I guess, they think a pre-adolescent can’t get through the 6th grade sexually abstinent without knowing what those various things mean. Descriptions of which body parts fit where for each were included. But at least I didn’t see them diagrammed.

There’s a section of the Austin ISD 8th grade sex ed that focuses on why women are paid less than men. Not whether they are, but only why. However, the fact is, when you compare apples to apples, women and men are paid virtually equally for equal work. And women at this time are more likely to have college education opportunities for higher paid work. So—why this section?

There’s a section for 8th graders (age 13-14) to help them figure out who/what they are. Because, they tell your child, you might not be what your biology tells you, or what you’ve always thought you were. And you might not be attracted to whichever types you thought, because now you're being introduced to this new array of types.

Can I just say, this is not information that would lead my child to a healthy, happy marriage relationship in which they can bring children into the world. So, no, I would not want it inculcated into my children.

And, by the way, there’s a pretty strong assumption that pregnancy is just one of those bad risks, like STDs. And while abstinence works 100% of the time (the only time I saw this is mentioned in the 8th grade curriculum), there are many many options for contraception to suit you and your teenage lifestyle, because we know you’ll be choosing to have sex (wink, wink).

There’s a section on being able to tell flirting, which is legal in schools, from harassment, which is illegal. It comes down to whether it is two-way. In other words, if a person flirts—which in most generations has meant putting oneself out there in a playful way to encourage a similarly playful reaction—and the person doesn’t respond, then it’s harassment. But you won’t know that until you’ve done it. Not helpful information.

The program spends a large portion telling the students of the various combinations of gender, identity, expression, and orientation—with an emphasis on “and they’re all OK.” Nevermind that there’s only one combination that leads to procreation, and only one place—within marriage—that it creates a family. The youth are told these various forms are all equally acceptable. Marriage isn’t mentioned.

There’s a small portion of one lesson that talks about values and where they come from, including from family and church. This is followed by an exercise in which the students label various beliefs with Agree, Disagree, or Pass—in front of their peers. So that there is peer pressure to agree with the lessons and beliefs of peers, even after being told pressuring for agreement is unacceptable. That’s not realistic. The school authority tells them what to believe even though it may differ from what the family or church has taught them, and then challenges them to share publicly whether they dare to disagree with what the school authority has told them.

I thought the California version, Teen Talk, was more explicit than what I’m seeing (outside the videos, because I didn’t view them all) in the AISD program. But it’s still definitely not what I would want my children to be taught.

Parents resist in Downey, California
image from here

Everywhere these things are incorporated in schools, the implementers count on parents not being informed. Because informed parents always object. What an inconvenience for these people who claim to know more than you do about what your child should be taught!

Think about this: Whose values on sex do you want to be inculcated in your child? Yours, or LGBT activists? It’s an either/or question. Do you want your child to understand the way abstinence before marriage followed by complete fidelity within marriage is the path to a healthy and happy love life—which has been known for millennia and which social data confirms? Or do you want a radical pro-sex-without-consequences of all types and in all situations.

By the way, the original instigation of sex ed in schools was ostensibly to lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. Those rates were at that time on a downward trajectory. But rates went up from that point on, while abortions rose as well, until plateauing in recent years. When schools say, “Think how bad things would be if we hadn’t acted,” think again.

You need to be willing to remove a child from school to avoid their exposure to the normalization of perverted sex. When parents do that, schools cave to the pressure. But you have to actually stand strong. Be informed. And take action to protect your child.

Besides those I’ve linked above, here are additional places I’ve written about explicit sex ed in schools, as well as a couple of the news stories I mentioned above.

·         Worth Standing Up” 
·        Teachers’ Unions Harm Education” 
·        "Too Much Savagery
·        Worse than We Imagined” 
·        Worse than We Imagined, Part II        
·         Surprise at Old News” 

No comments:

Post a Comment