Friday, March 02, 2007

Junk Mail from CRC

The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum have been mailing stuff to the homes of students at the schools where pilot testing of the new sex-ed curriculum will be taking place.

First of all, they sent the wrong letters to people -- the Sherwood High School families got mail addressed to BCC, and BCC families got Sherwood letters. Oh, and some at BCC got Watkins Mills letters.

Second, you might remember that last year the PTA passed a formal resolution against them for using the PTA directories for addresses. Looks like they used them again. It sounds like the PTA won't bother going through the motions of passing a resolution against them again. The CRC are disreputable, lacking conscience, unable to work within the system -- but we knew that already.

I'm not going to post the whole thing, but here's the guts of it:
Here are some specific examples of areas that we find especially disturbing:
  • The curriculum, entitled "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality," promotes cross-dressers, homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, the intersexed, and other non-heterosexuals. It teaches children about "coming out" as gay, "gender identity" for men who think they're women and vice-versa, and "homophobia" as a label for anyone who disagrees.
  • In one lesson, a boy begins to wear dresses to school, calls himself "Portia," and wants to be known as a girl. The principal gives him a key to a private restroom and a new student ID identifying him as a girl. Although transgenderism is considered a gender identity disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, the lesson plan falls to recommend counseling. Instead, it implies that our school should create new unisex bathrooms for cross-dressing students. The lesson also refers to "Portia" as a 'she' when the law and biology classify "her" as a "he." This gender bending forces students to acknowledge 'Portia' as a female when he is not and creates gender confusion for our children,
  • Actively encourages 10th graders to self-identify their sexuality early on, even though their sexual orientation is still in flux at this age and isn't fixed until early adulthood. In fact, delaying self-labeling is beneficial. Studies show teen suicide rates declining precipitously by 20% for each year a young person delays homosexual or bisexual labeling.
  • Normalizes transgender and sex change operations, "While cross-dressers change their clothes, transsexuals sometimes change their body by means of hormone therapy or sexual reassignment surgery to match how they feel." No mention that no major U.S. medical facility will perform sex change operations.
  • Teaches sexual orientation is "innate," period. Even though there is no research to support this. In fact, there is no DNA or other physical medical rest that could be used to determine a person's sexual orientation.
  • Makes students memorize gay bullying statistics provided by a gay advocacy group which conducted an online survey. In fact, after sending a Freedom of Information letter to the Board, CRC found that MC doesn't even collect data on any such harassment
  • Minimizes life threatening risks in its condom video. Over 270 medical doctors in Montgomery County petitioned the Board asking it to include this simple statement of the Surgeon General of the U.S. in the lesson on condom use: "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice." The Board refused the petition in its effort not to stigmatize homosexual sex.
  • Teaches children that homosexuality is normal, natural, unchangeable, and morally correct, even thought that viewpoint may be against a student's personally held religious or moral belief. No discussion of or dissent from this view will be allowed. In fact, those not holding that opinion are characterized as "homophobic," "prejudiced." or "uneducated." The lesson gives "laughing at a gay joke" as an example of 'homophobia'
  • Requires reading undocumented "personal" stories which will introduce transgender and bisexual - enclosed. After reading them students will break up into groups and analyze the stories. Students are required to give the stories moral approval under the guise of 'tolerance', and notice no heterosexual, or ex-gay stories are included.

Do I need to go through these?

Same as the last post, if you suspect that any of these statements have any truth to them at all, please click HERE to see the actual curriculum documents.

OK, I know I've gone through this a gazillion times, but in case you're new to the blog, here we go again ... I'll be brief.
  • The curriculum doesn't promote anything.
  • Yes, it will teach about homosexuality and gender identity -- so what?
  • "Homophobia" is clearly defined, and there are statements making it clear that there's nothing wrong with somebody holding an opinion about something.
  • There is nothing wrong with addressing a person the way they wish to be addressed. If they feel like a girl, dress like a girl, act like a girl ... it's simple decency to call them a girl, where's the harm in that? I mean, it doesn't happen very often, it's not that hard to accommodate them. Get over it.
  • Nothing encourages anybody to "self-identify." They used to say that about the last curriculum, too, and it wasn't in that one, either. Pure lies. It just simply is not in there.
  • Nothing "normalizes" anything. The classes will tell students that some people change their bodies. That's a fact.. It does not try to recommend a U.S. medical facility where you can get this done, or discuss whether it's easy or hard to find one.
  • I've never heard that no medical center will do sexual reassignment surgery. You know, you probably can't get a tooth extracted at a major medical center, either. So what? I did find a very helpful page on the web at Children's Hospital, called "If You Are Concerned About Your Child's Gender Behaviors: A Parent guide." They don't rule out sexual reassignment surgery, if it turns out the person needs it. For some reason, the CRC thinks it's wrong to mention gay and transgender people without insulting them.
  • Innateness: see my last several posts. Of course sexual orientation is innate, everybody knows that. Some things don't need to be "proven scientifically." Some people are attracted to the same sex, by nature.
  • MCPS doesn't collect data on bullying because the regulations just changed and the bureaucracy to support the reporting is not in place yet. They know that. What -- are they saying gay kids don't get bullied?
  • The busy doctors at Shady Grove Hospital were tricked into signing a petition without knowing what it was or what it would be used for. CRC shouldn't be bragging about that, they should be ashamed of themselves.
  • The "simple statement of the Surgeon General of the U.S." was made by a retired Surgeon General nearly twenty years ago. It's bad medical advice and it's irrelevant to these lessons -- information on sexually transmitted diseases is found, oddly enough, in the sexually transmitted sections of the health curriculum.
  • "Teaches children that ..." look, I just posted something about this, earlier today. These are lies. Look at the curriculum, this stuff isn't in there.
  • So, you read some vignettes about what it's like to be gay, or transgender, or whatever. What would be the problem with that?
  • No heterosexual or "ex-gay" stories ... because 1.the whole world is a heterosexual story, and 2.nobody could find an "ex-gay" to write one. C'mon, of course there's no "ex-gay" story, how dumb do you think we are?
  • "Required to give moral approval" -- of course students are not required to make a moral judgment at all about any of this. Ridiculous lies.

Look, pilot testing is going to start pretty soon. These guys, as usual, are doing everything they can think of to disrupt it, because ... that's what they do. They couldn't get their stupid ideas into the school curriculum, even when they had people on the citizens advisory committee, and now they're going to try to interfere with lies and bull-oney.

This curriculum was initially written by a team of pediatricians. They picked out the Holt resource (the CRC is sending a page of that with the letter). They liked it because it's accurate. Some people are gay. Check. Some people are transgender. Check. Here's what that's like. Check.

We expect the radicals to turn up the volume as pilot testing approaches. For some reason, this just scares them to death, the idea that Montgomery County students are going to learn some facts about sexual variation.


Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I'm sorry they're so depressed about these vignettes. They might be interested in viewing the episode of "All My Children" on March 9th when Zoe attends a support group in a rare, unscripted discussion with six trans persons.

Maybe CRC will get lucky and one of them will be named Portia.

To show you what is possible, last night I spent my time in Annapolis at the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee hearing on SB516, the Transgender Equality bill. This was the first time such a bill has been presented to an American legislature without opposition.

Anyway, Peter Sprigg was there (for the marriage amendment), but didn't stay for this bill's testimony. But Rick Bowers, head of "Defend Maryland Marriage," was. And to my surprise, at the conclusion of the testimony he approached me cautiously, fearful I would ignore his proferred hand. I didn't and we talked for ten minutes. Turns out he was blown away by the testimony, never having really considered the lives we lead, the pain we suffer, or the difficulties we face. His words were sympathetic and heartfelt, and he remarked that while we may be diamterically opposed on some issues, we weren't on this one.

You never know, do you?

March 02, 2007 10:36 PM  
Blogger digger said...

You do never know. People change their minds and their hearts, they forgive, they learn to understand and accept. It never hurts to reach out.

I think the CRC people and PFOX are stuck in their own momentum. Their kind of like a hamster running on its treadmill, getting more and more frantic but unable to stop.

Wish us luck with our conference.


March 03, 2007 7:32 AM  
Blogger grantdale said...

Hmmm, I know we're dealing with kids and education here... but if P"F"OX insisted, why not tell the exgay story?. /sarc

And I mean all of it. The whole lot. All of it. With a spotlight and microscope provided to each student.

The problem, for PFOX, is actually nominating a real person we can examine. They have plenty of paper testimony, but no real live person.

> Paulk: and we'll need permission (happily granted no doubt) from Wayne Besen showing Paulk waddling out of a gay bar... ooops, maybe not him.

> Johnston: an old friend of PFOX, and we'll also add the bit about HIV+ him having secret sex with men without telling them... ooops, maybe not.

> Chambers: the "completely heterosexual" man who took 9 months to consumate his marriage (shut yours eyes and think of Jesus) and who says he's still sexually attracted to men (and all that quite apart from the blatant lies he tells in public about himself)... ooops, maybe not.

And keep going. Each and every one of them. All of them. All.

Or is CRC / P"F"OX in reality asking for exgays to be taught about in the same way one would teach about unicorns -- yes, they exist... apparently.. I wish... I know they do becase I want them to... but just don't ask me to produce one.

March 04, 2007 3:26 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

The hypocritical CRC says "Although transgenderism is considered a gender identity disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, the lesson plan falls to recommend counseling." - they want to quote the APA here, but when the APA and other major metal and physical health organizations say being gay is innate, not a choice and that "reparitive therapy" is not recommended they don't want those quotes included.

They whine that being gay can't be innate because there's no DNA or medical test to prove it. By the same token there's no DNA or medical test to prove handedness but no one questions that that is innate.

March 05, 2007 12:15 PM  
Anonymous ellaffsalot said...

I continue to be amazed at the incivility or deliberate hurtfulness of those who insist on referring to trans people by their "legal" or "biological" gender. It happened in a committee mtg (a member of the cmte referred to Dr. Dana as "he"), and when i emailed the member to inquire as to whether this reference was deliberate or a mere slip of the tongue, i got no reply. It is clear in light of documents issued by CRC since that this needless, counterproductive and hateful conduct is deliberate. Interesting principles for people who are so publicly "Christian". (I don't mean to paint all with the same brush--for the most part, the mtgs and members were at least polite.)

March 05, 2007 4:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home