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.
· “Growing tide of outraged parents move to demolish perverted California sex ed program,” LifeSite News
No comments:
Post a Comment