Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Transgender Curriculum for Kindergarten
Our schools have been corrupted in many ways that are difficult to fathom: U.S. History has been distorted, English composition has been bastardized, standards continue to be lowered to accommodate the worst students. And now we are brainwashing students as early as kindergarten, saying that transgender students are normal. How did we arrive at this place?
We often point to the Leftist agenda for these changes in education. Just to give you an idea of how sophisticated these efforts are, we can look at Washington State, where the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) has established new requirements. This summary gives you the highlights, from K-12. In the case of the OSPI, parents were not notified of these changes.
There is abundant data, which the mainstream media ignores, to show that allowing children to pursue changes to become transgender is child abuse. The potential damage these efforts can cause to our children are frightening. Michelle Cretella, M.D., pediatrician and president of the American College of Pediatricians, warns:
These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled and unconsented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases. Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage.
Yet Harvard Medical School has started a project:
. . . ‘The Sexual and Gender Minorities Health Equity Initiative,’ [is] styled as ‘a three-year plan to amend the core MD curriculum’ to reflect recent beliefs about transgenderism and gender ideology. The program is meant to teach medical students how to ‘provide high-quality, holistic health care for sexual and gender minority patients of all ages.’
The new program seeks a broad overhaul of the medical school’s curriculum in order to eliminate ‘assumptions or errors about sex and gender, such as conflating sexual orientation with gender identity, presuming gender is immutable or treating heterosexuality as a default.’
The thought of a six-year-old child who is trying to figure out his or her place in the world being bombarded with data that insists on “gender fluidity” is unconscionable.
And yet parents are believing this claptrap. Why?
The Progressives in our society have a tremendous advantage in spreading these lies. First, they rely on “authorities.” These authorities thrive on touting the latest thought and innovations in their fields, whether they are therapists, doctors, scientists or other professionals who tend to be elevated by the rest of society. They are, after all, “in the know.” They are supposed to be the guardians of society, the people who care for us, heal us, alleviate our pain and doubts.
Next, parents want their children to be special, to be seen by others as different from the rest. What better way to have a special child than to have him or her (or her or him) on the forefront of acknowledging their own gender fluidity? He or he is free to choose who they are and to do everything they can to realize and complete their own identity. And of course, parents want to be known as loving and supportive and caring, so they encourage these children to express and live their sexuality, however they “feel.”
Another reason that may be discussed less often is the single parent family or the socially isolated family. They have been raised with little or no religious identification, and do not see a religious community as a source for companionship, fellowship or counseling. Those communities are demonized in every way possible, so if a parent is looking for guidance in trying to decide how to respond to a child in distress about his or her sexuality, where should a parent go? Even if they went to a church or synagogue, the church leader could support gender fluidity and criticize parents for not supporting a confused child.
Not only are medical professionals seen as reliable authorities, but the education system is still held in esteem by many. If a teacher assures parents that they are doing the right thing to encourage a child to switch genders, they must know what is the proper thing to do — right? Many schools are now providing curricula that teach these distortions, and the curricula look professional and age-appropriate. Why should parents question what is true, when the schools have gone to all this trouble to educate their children?
A caring parent wants to do everything he or she can do to make a child feel whole and complete. The “abuse” from the school authorities needs to be offset by loving, protective parents, according to supporters of this movement:
Too often, school officials themselves single out these youth by refusing to respect their gender identity and even punishing them for expressing that identity. For example, 59% of trans students have been denied access to restrooms consistent with their gender identity. Rather than focusing on their education, many students struggle for the ability to come to school and be themselves without being punished for wearing clothes or using facilities consistent with who they are. Some are denied opportunities to go on field trips or participate in sports. Together with bullying and victim-blaming, these conflicts can lead to disproportionate discipline, school pushout, and involvement in the juvenile justice system.
I believe we live in a society of fools; of people who have forgotten, or never had a clear idea of what evil looks like; of how in trying to help our children we can destroy their lives; of how the pressures to conform can cloud our vision, distort our understanding and turn the meanings of good and evil on their heads.
As Ryan T. Anderson said and elaborates on in his book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment :
We should begin by recognizing that sex reassignment is physically impossible. Our minds and senses function properly when they reveal reality to us and lead us to knowledge of truth. And we flourish as human beings when we embrace the truth and live in accordance with it. A person might find some emotional relief in embracing a falsehood, but doing so would not make him or her objectively better off. Living by a falsehood keeps us from flourishing fully, whether or not it also causes distress.
I have no remedies. Do you?
Published in Culture
It sounds like the same thing, doesn’t it @aardovozz? I hadn’t thought of that. Good call!
Dreher has cited them before for that reason.
Wot, no trigger warning?
I think that this is confusing conservatism and libertarianism.
Many leading commentators on the right are more libertarian than conservative. I think that they adopt an unwise approach to a difficult issue. Jonah Goldberg is an example. I’m an admirer of his work, but his attitude on this is what you describe — local is always better.
No, local is not always better. Local is what gets you transgender reading sessions to little kids at public libraries. Local is what gets you the craziest sort of anti-discrimination laws and pronoun requirements.
I know that entire states have enacted kooky policies sometimes, but it’s far more likely that certain localities will enact the kookiest.
State or federal is not always better, either.
It seems to me that the wisest course, in many cases, will be relatively broad policy “guard rails” at the federal or state level (or both), with some latitude for local variation, as long as they stay within the guard rails.
You’d rather have these things handled at the national level??
I hope not. I think he’s saying that the lowest level is not always the best answer. Until recently I felt pretty good about having an FBI that could deal with state police malfeasance and suchlike. But it appears they are themselves corrupted.
I would say that the lowest level actions are not always the best actions, but maximizing the amount of decision-making at the lowest levels is good. We’ve decided in our country that we don’t want issues like slavery or Bill of Rights freedoms decided at the lowest levels, and that is good. It’s good for local governments and the national government to check and balance each other. But just because local decisions can be bad doesn’t mean localities shouldn’t be allowed to make those decisions. I’d rather have local decisions on transgender reading sessions than national decisions on that topic, even if those decisions are wrong.
I think that your first and third sentences contradict each other.
I think that you can fix this by using a term other than “maximizing” in your first sentence. “Maximizing” implies that local is always better. Perhaps your position could be better described as a presumption in favor of decision-making at a lower level.
I suppose that would be a good way of saying it. To use a mathematical metaphor, what I meant was maximizing subject to certain constitutional constraints, not maximizing subject to no other constraints.
It would seem that one of the biggest divides in our upcoming City Council elections is that the lefties want Our Fair City to adopt all the left-wing-nuttery we see on the national scene no matter what effect it might have locally, whereas the opposition wants Council Members who are focused on Our Fair City, and leave the national stuff where it belongs.
Local politics is far more important than people realize, and I think ’round here people are starting to wake up to that fact. Our City Council has swung hard-left in recent years, and there seems to be a backlash building. I hope. I really want to see the lefties get smacked around more. Preferably before they start raising all our taxes to pay for their nutty ideas.
Bad enough that we have a lefty tool as a governor now. I fear for my city and my state in the coming years.
Some of our current problems stem from the fact that our national shared cultural mores are dissolving. There didn’t used to be a need for a law to keep perverts away from children, let alone seek them out on purpose and put them together consciously. If my father came back to life and saw this, I hate to think. And while local control is my preference for many issues, and I don’t have to live in a place where they’ve lost their damn minds, I also don’t want my child to grow up and maybe meet and marry one of those poor damaged children.
The effects of exposing young children to big hairy men in lipstick and a damn dress will be far-reaching, and all those who have a hand in any activity of this nature, including the schools inviting lesbians in to read “Heather Has Two Mommies” to 7-year-olds, will go to a special room in Hell. And it doesn’t mean I have any problem with gay people. It’s a matter of age-appropriateness, and 7-year-olds should also not be exposed to matters involving straight sex or sex of any kind. And I am sorry but if every liberal were brutally honest with themselves, they’d admit that the sight of grown men in makeup and women’s clothes is as creepy as hell.
Sometimes the locals get it wrong, and it affects us all.
Apropros of the last few comments; I believe in the Laboratory of Democracy. I don’t believe that makes our children their guinea pigs.