"One-sided ... Misrepresented ... Retract My Signature"
You know that all correspondence with the school board is public domain, anybody can see it. Most of it is ultimately boring, but occasionally something interesting turns up. Like today.
The CRC is telling everybody that hundreds of doctors support their position, based on a petition that their Dr. Jacobs passed around at her workplace, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital.
Yes, a couple hundred signed it. We were told, early on, by people from Shady Grove that some of the doctors said afterwards that they didn't really understand what they were signing, and we were also told they were busy and couldn't be expected to retract their signatures. I know I wouldn't want to try to go around to all of them and explain what was going on.
Well, one pediatrician felt badly enough about it to write the school board.
[Note: I decided to remove the name, just to be prudent.]
Unfortunately, all the signers are very busy people. I don't think this is that important to them when they're running around saving lives. I don't expect to see a lot of these, but even one tells you things are not as they have been represented.
The CRC is telling everybody that hundreds of doctors support their position, based on a petition that their Dr. Jacobs passed around at her workplace, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital.
Yes, a couple hundred signed it. We were told, early on, by people from Shady Grove that some of the doctors said afterwards that they didn't really understand what they were signing, and we were also told they were busy and couldn't be expected to retract their signatures. I know I wouldn't want to try to go around to all of them and explain what was going on.
Well, one pediatrician felt badly enough about it to write the school board.
November 19, 2006
Montgomery County Board of Education
Re: Petition for Change to School Health Curriculum
To Whom It May Concern:
Dr. Ruth Jacobs circulated a petition at a Shady Grove Hospital Pediatric Department meeting recently after a brief presentation about changes to the sex ed curriculum for the public schools. Unfortunately the information she presented was one-sided and misrepresented the issues at hand. I would like to retract my signature on the petition in support of adding the statement that "anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice." This statement is not supported by scientific evidence and does not belong in the curriculum.
Sincerely,
[name deleted], M.D.
(Received November 20, 2006)
[Note: I decided to remove the name, just to be prudent.]
Unfortunately, all the signers are very busy people. I don't think this is that important to them when they're running around saving lives. I don't expect to see a lot of these, but even one tells you things are not as they have been represented.
posted by JimK at 1:10 PM
35 Comments:
Well, if this person is subject to sign things without paying attention, perhaps someone just wrote this letter for them and asked them to sign it.
Who knows how this doctor was pressured into feigning this irresponsibility but the fact remains: anal sex is dangerous, even with a condom, in a situation where there is a strong possibility one's partner has not been monogamous.
It is especially dangerous for homosexuals since their population tends toward promiscuity and has a higher prevalence of fatal STDs.
CRC knows it, TTF knows it, the CAC knows it, and a judge will be shocked by the irresposibility of the curriculum. Creating a fairy tale vision of the gay lifestyle endangers kids.
Anon, you have summarized the situation perfectly well. Given a set of negative stereotypes about gay people, and assuming that they're the ones who have anal sex, it sounds like a very dangerous thing. That's why CRC loves to talk about it so much -- the stereotypes all work together. But none of your assumptions hold for the overwhelming majority of cases.
JimK
statistics aren't stereotypes
You weren't talking about statistics.
JimK
the prevalence and persistance of fatal STDs in male gays is a statistic
the explanation is agreed upon by experts
Anon, there are nominal-measurement-scale statistics, but generally when somebody says "statistics," they mean "numbers." Just saying that there are statistics is not nearly as satisfying as producing some.
And here, let's make it hard, are you up for a challenge? See if you can produce some statistics to support your assertions without using the words "Paul Cameron."
C'mon, Big Guy, you can do it.
JimK
Why don't you admit what you and everyone else knows to be true?
You can absolutely do this!
Do you really not realize that condoms are more likely to break under increased pressure?
Do you not realize even trace substances are more likely to enter the bloodstream through this part of the body?
Do you really think that it's a coincidence that gays over decades have higher rates of AIDS than anyone else?
Do you really not know that, unencumbered from traditional social mores, gay males are much more likely to engage in random and anonymous promiscuity than normal people?
We know you can figure it out.
Don't play dumb.
"See if you can produce some statistics to support your assertions without using the words "Paul Cameron.""
Can it say CDC?
natch
JimK
I'm not sure if I'm dealing with one Real Smart Guy here, or two.
Nah, there could be two Einsteins on the blog at the same time.
JimK
It doesn't take an Einstein to see gays are doing something that causes them to get a certain fatal disease.
It doesn't take an Einstein to guess how it happens.
JK, who isn't Einstein, doesn't want kids to know what all the scientists know.
I bet I could think of a couple of hundred doctors who know it.
Anonymous, no one's advocating non-monogamous anal sex. There is no risk of disease in a monogamous relationship. As I posted earlier in the week, there are studies showing that gays are no more likely to be promiscuous than heterosexuals. If you're concerned about STDs then support and encourage marriage for same sex couples. Its not realistic to think gay or even heterosexual couples are going to abstain from anal sex. Given that its best to encourage monogamy and failing that, condoms.
Well gay people are NOT the majority of the world’s population with HIV/AIDS. Since anonymous has been so involved with the MCPS curriculum I will fill him in. In Africa there are thousands dieing everyday (that’s more then gay people for you information) because they were raped with the intent to spread AIDS. Take Darfur the government in that country purposely sends infected soldiers to rape women so that they will die. Women who get the everyday thing need in that county because it is unsafe for men to do so. In case you also haven’t realized this would make AIDS heavily spread among heterosexual people. Just for your information.
It's funny that anon makes claims about gay men engaging in so much more random sex than the heterosexual population when "hooking up" has become increasingly popular among straight young people. Babies aren't being born to single gay men and gay men are not causing STDs in teen girls. Demonizing a group rather than facing the truth is so much easier
"As I posted earlier in the week, there are studies showing that gays are no more likely to be promiscuous than heterosexuals."
Whatever study you're talking about is false. Have to look at it to say why but if it's polling data, there's no point. Are they following these guys around or just relying on self-reporting.
"If you're concerned about STDs then support and encourage marriage for same sex couples."
You've said yourself that marriage among gays is low in countries where it's been legalized. That's because gays don't really want to marry. It's a political move. They have no intention of changing their behavior because of some paper from city hall.
"Its not realistic to think gay or even heterosexual couples are going to abstain from anal sex. Given that its best to encourage monogamy and failing that, condoms."
Well, you could teach the truth- which is that while better than nothing, if used regularly in anal sex, they are likely to break. Don't take my word for it- over 200 local doctors have urged the school board to consider this.
"Well gay people are NOT the majority of the world’s population with HIV/AIDS."
You haven't been reading this blog long, ME. The above is because in most of the world, homosexuality is not tolerated as a social norm but prostitution is. In countries where homosexuality is common and open, random and anonymous sex among them is widespread and the disease spreads. It's a fact.
"It's funny that anon makes claims about gay men engaging in so much more random sex than the heterosexual population when "hooking up" has become increasingly popular among straight young people. Babies aren't being born to single gay men and gay men are not causing STDs in teen girls. Demonizing a group rather than facing the truth is so much easier"
It's nowhere near the same. Even among the most promiscuous straights, the number of partners is minimal compared to gays. The infection rates don't lie.
Anonymous said:
It's nowhere near the same. Even among the most promiscuous straights, the number of partners is minimal compared to gays. The infection rates don't lie.
What a ludicrous statement to make! 90% of the population is supposedly heterosexual; 50% divorce rate (could promiscuity be a possible cause of this catastrophe?) Please site studies or statistics to support such rantings.
Bob
... without using the words "Paul Cameron" ...
JimK
Bob
Even divorce, fornication and adultery in the wildest heterosexuals doesn't come close to the free-wheeling lifestyle these young gays engage in. Again, the infection rates speak for themselves. There is no other reasonable explanantion.
So, we shouldn't worry about it. Right, Robert? As long as you swallow about 20 pills a day at exorbinant cost, you won't die, right?
Of course, the pills keep changing because the virus keeps evolving so who knows how long even this will last.
Regarding the studies I posted earlier showing gays are not promiscuous anonymous said "Whatever study you're talking about is false.".
Anonymous, obviously if you don't know what study I'm talking about you're not in any position to make that claim. Your expectation that people will believe you're god-like only highlights how far out of touch with reality you really are.
Meanwhile, based on nothing more than your own blind, hateful desire to bad-mouth you claim "In countries where homosexuality is common and open, random and anonymous sex among them is widespread and the disease spreads. It's a fact." Obviously if your mouth is flapping thats all the evidence you need to believe what you're saying is correct.
Anonymous said "You've said yourself that marriage among gays is low in countries where it's been legalized.".
No, I never said that, I said that in countries with equal marriage the vast majority of marriages are opposite sex - because the vast majority of people are heterosexual.
"Anonymous, obviously if you don't know what study I'm talking about you're not in any position to make that claim."
All one has to know is that the only way to confirm this is to follow people around 24/7 and we're all quite sure this didn't happen.
"Meanwhile, based on nothing more than your own blind, hateful desire to bad-mouth you claim "In countries where homosexuality is common and open, random and anonymous sex among them is widespread and the disease spreads. It's a fact.""
Oh, really. AIDS serves as a marker to observe the spread of AIDS. Why do you think most sexually transmitted cases of AIDs in America are from male-to-male contact? Why?
Again more claims without proof. You aren't following gays around 24/7 to prove your claim that married gays are promiscuous, in fact you don't have any evidence to back that up whatsoever.
"Why do you think most sexually transmitted cases of AIDs in America are from male-to-male contact? Why?"
AIDS erupted in this country in the 1980s. Please recall how long it took President Reagan to even say "AIDS" let alone begin to address the problem. Since conservatives have held sway in our government and expecially since they began pushing faith-based initiatives "down our throats," all federally funded sex education has to be based on the religious concept of "abstinence until marriage" (which gays can only legally do in Massachusetts so far) and has to include only limited and misleading information on the use of contraceptives. None of these federally funded sex education programs is allowed to give any guidance to gay teens. None of these federally funded sex education programs is allowed to give ANY teens guidance on the proper use of life-saving condoms.
If you want to prevent any population from getting sick and spreading a disease, you must give them the tools to do so. Since most Americans first become sexually active in their teens, it makes the most sense to provide this education before they become sexually active so they have the information needed in time to protect themselves. Ignoring the problem by failing to address sexual orientation and safer-sex practices, as everyone can see, is no solution.
Aunt Bea
So Francis, you think the only reason gays get AIDS at such a high rate is because they haven't received as much education as heterosexuals?
That's a new one. I'm sure they'll get a good laugh at the CDC.
Anonymous, closeted gays are the ones seeking out anonymous sex in order to conceal their sexual orientation - people like Ted Haggard. Those who refuse to cave in to pressure to remain hidden are able to have open steady relationships.
You know, Robert, not very long ago the only "young people" having gay sex were so isolated, they'd never have a chance to spread disease. Social norms encouraged good health. Now, because of groups like the ones you work with, this is a danger.
You're right, it's a shame that many suffer with this disease. Still, it serves as an indication that can't be denied about the nature of the gay lifestyle. People who deny this are to blame.
Anonymous,there is no risk in a committed gay relationship something much easier to adhere to than the total abstinence of sex bigots like you propose.
Digger, you're correct, anonymous couldn't care less about anyone getting AIDS, its just something he uses to disparage gays. In fact, he'd hate it if gays never got AIDS, it'd deprive him of a criticism.
"there is no risk in a committed gay relationship something much easier to adhere to"
Don't you see that this is hypothetical, Randi? I looking at the AIDS statistics make one wonder if it will ever be anything more.
Anon said "It is especially dangerous for homosexuals since their population tends toward promiscuity and has a higher prevalence of fatal STDs..."
"their population" equals what number?
"higher prevalence" equals what number?
Wild assertions are not statistics.
And why does this argument seem to be ignoring lesbians? Or is the definition of 'homosexual' exclusively male, Anon?
What all you people seem to be oblivious to is some info I found out while on the CAC. In a part of the curriculum or teachers' information that isn't about sex there was a chart of the disease rates in Montgomery County, Maryland, and the United States. *In Maryland, the predominant method of HIV/AIDS transmission is through drug use.* Not gay sex. Not even sex at all. Drug use. All this talk about gay sex spreading HIV/AIDS and causing an epidemic is simply not the case in Maryland.
Also if I remember correctly, one of the most common STDs in MoCo (and by common, we're talking a couple of cases per school, not a pandemic) is HPV. It's one of the few diseases that condoms do not fully protect against. Yet now there is a new vaccine out for the most common types. HPV isn't a gay disease either. Studies cited by the CDC show that 50% of sexually active people will get HPV in the course of their lives. http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm#hpvvac5
Jim, maybe you could find that data and post a link to it so that everyone can see the truth in numbers instead of assertions.
Post a Comment
<< Home