Second grade. This is happening a second-grade classroom somewhere:
To the folks who find LGBTQ language “confusing”: If my daughter’s second grade class gets it, so can you. pic.twitter.com/kgDKlZH5jP
— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) April 20, 2018
Valenti is a “feminist author” and lives in Brooklyn. Let me guess: Park Slope.
A few other commentators had similar reactions, about Valenti making the case not only for homeschooling but religious schools as well. Inez Feltscher-Stepman accurately pointed out that the Valenti post was ultimately just an advertisement for school choice activism:
— Inez Stepman (@InezFeltscher) April 23, 2018
The option to homeschool or send kids to religious schools isn’t open to many Americans; let alone most of them. For one of the most important decisions parents can make — who educates their children and how — it’s taken out of our hands and is left up to geography and how much individual teachers have decided to prioritize indoctrination over education.
Why is it that children need to learn the sexual orientations and leanings of the adults in their lives? How is this relevant for a seven-year-old and what subject matter could this material possibly fall under?
I wrote recently about the turn sexual education has taken towards indoctrination in gender and sexual identity issues. The focus is no longer teen pregnancies and STDs, but instead on sexuality and gender identification, as defined by far-left activists looking to create a new base of activists. After a decade of criticizing conservatives about how ineffective abstinence-only education is, these curriculums devote the vast majority of their focus on sexuality and gender, not actual sex and its ramifications.
For second graders, what might this focus mean for students and what may have been pushed off of the curriculum in its stead? For children around the age of seven, there is little that they need to know about sex and sexuality; they’re still spending the majority of their time avoiding the opposite sex, for fear of cooties (and developmentally, rightfully so). What is concerning about this indoctrination of a sexual nature of children this age isn’t just exposing them to grown-up ideas regarding sex (which is also extraordinarily problematic) but the potential that sexual education developmentally appropriate for that age range is being scaled back to make time for this gobbledygook, as it has been for older children already.
Children that age need to have clear ideas about body parts without jumbled ideas of sex and gender confusing them. They need to know the names of their sexual organs and what their basic functions are. They need to know this not only to be able to accurately describe an injury or issue to a parent or medical professional, they also need to be able to understand what might be sexual abuse.
Shamefully, it seems some in the teaching profession believe that it’s their job to teach our kids the “right” ideas regarding sexuality and gender. Valenti’s tweet is a reminder that parents should have the choice to decide whose job it is to educate our children and to make sure that those doing so believe their primary job is education, not indoctrination.