Friday, December 28, 2007

CRC Files Papers

The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and two other groups filed a brief in court this week, trying to convince the court to overturn the Maryland State Board of Education's decision to let the new Montgomery County sex-ed curriculum proceed. The groups want the state board to review everything the county does, when it is challenged, while the state takes a cautious view about stepping on the county's authority. The CRC wants the court to force the state to review all the details they whined complained about, to micromanage the county's decision to implement the new curriculum, because ... the CRC doesn't like the classes.

I'm not one to understand subtleties of law, you might say -- generally when I've dealt with the law, the law won -- but there is one quote from the motion that I think they intend as a sort of summary of their argument:
If the State Board cannot adequately review the decisions of its local boards, who can?

It's an interesting question. The county board and superintendent initiate a project, the district works on it for several years, experts are called in, a gaggle of lawyers, a bevy of doctors, professional educators and administrators, a citizens committee reviews the new material, the board reviews it, the superintendent's office reviews it, the county board votes on it ... and then the state board, who had nothing to do with the whole thing, is supposed to review it all over again, because a small gang of cranks complains that the classes were too fair to gay people.

No, I have a better answer to the question, who can review the decisions of the local boards?

The answer is: the voters.

By the way, I should note that this is the conservative opinion that I am expressing. The CRC wants the larger bureaucracy to overrule the local community, I'm saying we can handle it ourselves. It's like states' rights, moved down a notch.

Montgomery County got this curriculum because Montgomery County citizens want this kind of curriculum. The CRC and other groups did all they could to stir up opposition, there just wasn't any. They could've run a school board candidate that would have fought against the curriculum -- in fact, even though they are registered with the IRS as a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization, they went to the local newspaper and told them what candidates they supported in the last elections. And they all lost. Badly. The candidates that the voters picked were the ones who had gone on record as supporting these classes.

The CRC can appeal to the courts to force the state board to micromanage the county's work, it's their right, and the taxpayers will pay the bill for defending the county school district's right to serve the community. But there's nothing really wrong with this curriculum -- nothing "arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal," as the legal wording goes -- the county school district approved it, the state superintendent said it was okay, the state school board said it was okay, the public is fine with it.

There will be a hearing next month, as I understand it, and a judge will rule on this. I never can tell what lawyers and judges are going to say or do, so I'm not making any predictions. Montgomery County has some of the highest-rated schools in the country, and not by accident, but because the organization is supremely capable of doing good work.


Anonymous the red baron said...

"But there's nothing really wrong with this curriculum"

What? Time to return to planet Earth, Jim. Let's go down a PARTIAL list:

1. Condom encouragement:

"Dr. Stan Weed, director of the nonprofit Institute for Research and Evaluation, which specializes in researching and advising abstinence programs and policy, has several decades of experience under his belt, and his findings are respected in government and academic circles. Weed and his staff have conducted at least 100 studies over the last 15 years, and he says his research shows that the well-designed and well-implemented abstinence programs do delay sex, reduce partners, and prompt teens who've had sex in the past to stop. In fact, a recently published study he conducted of a program in Virginia showed a 50 percent reduction in teens having sex for the first time, when compared to teens who had no significant sex education."

Even bester, George Bush will give you money to pay for the program.

2. Gay encouragement:

The curriculum inaccurately states that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. Worse, it fails to accurately describe the risks of indulging such desires.

Kids who actually are lulled into this self-actualization canard promoting homosexuality will find themselves involved in dangerous and mentally aberrant activities.

3. Transgender encouragement:

The Guardian in London recently surveyed research in this area and found no benefits of sexual reassignment surgery.

Paul McHugh, former director of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, who pioneered this type of surgery, says, in today's Wall Street Journal, that his patients were no happier after surgery than before it and "I concluded that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it." Johns Hopkins will no longer perform these procedures.

Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Nothwestern, published a book suggesting transgenders are living a fantasy. He was harassed by lunatic fringe gay advocates. They even posted pictures of his children on the internet, with sexually explicit captions.

MCPS, or any Maryland school for that matter, should not be associating with this gangrenous influence on societal structure. Did you know that in San Francisco, birthplace of these nutty ideas, kids are lined up for recess based on the color of their shoes rather than gender.

December 28, 2007 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Montgomery County vote has belonged to the Apple Ballot.

The apple ballot is determined by the MCEA.

The MCEA is run by bonnie cullison, founder of the gay and lesbian group of the NCEA.

I have also heard rumoured that Bonnie is a lesbian...

Will of the people ?


December 28, 2007 3:16 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...


You might want to avoid spreading "rumours" of this nature on the internet.

December 28, 2007 3:58 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Paul McHugh, with all due respect, is not only wrong, he has been wrong for thirty years. And he is a bigot.

Michael Bailey, a nice guy personally, published a book full of slurs and without a shred of scientific evidence. He has been demoted as a result.

December 28, 2007 4:25 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

In red baron's original statement, he engages in anti-gay industry propaganda technique #2 - Repeition. This is repeating negative information about the gay community despite the fact that said information has been consistently and continuously refuted.

His incorrect assertions about the curriculum have been refuted several times on this blog.

Also, in talking about gays and lesbians, he asserts the following anti-gay industry lie - "Aberrant behavior is indicative of the gay/lesbian orientation."

In reality, no legitimate study, researcher, or physician has ever said this.

And when there are situations in which there is a rate of negative behavior or disease, outside contributing factors are cited as a reason - i.e - gay teens and depression is linked to isolation and homophobia, cancer in gays and lesbians is linked to a reluctance to trust their physicians for fear of being outed or rejected as a patient, and rate of STDs in some cases are linked to no access to decent healthcare for a multitude of reasons, including the one mention in the previous example.

December 28, 2007 4:47 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Paul McHugh, with all due respect, is not only wrong, he has been wrong for thirty years. And he is a bigot."

He's got impressive credentials and experience working with these people. And his assessment seems to coincide with other studies surveyed in the Guardian piece.

"Michael Bailey, a nice guy personally, published a book full of slurs and without a shred of scientific evidence. He has been demoted as a result."

Yes, the harassment campaign was mentioned. When evidence is lacking (and this area innately lacks verifiability), scientists should still be able to give their educated opinion. You are always in favor of baseless conjecture when it supports the gay agenda. Sadly, when sexual studies is the topic, free speech seems a casualty.

December 28, 2007 4:51 PM  
Anonymous david s. fishback said...

A response to Anon's statement about the Apple Ballot -- the endorsements from the MCEA (the teachers' union).

People in our community respect the teachers' opinions. The MCEA leadership is elected by the teachers. Most of the time (but not always), BOE candidates endorsed by the MCEA win. Most of the time (but not always), BOE candidates endorsed by the Washington Post and the Gazette win. The MCEA endorsements are not always the same as the Post's or the Gazette's.

Relatively little money is spent on BOE elections. There are lots of campaign forums and many people attend. They make up their minds, and speak with their friends and neighbors. We assess all the information and then vote.

Anon, this is democracy.

December 28, 2007 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

History speaks for itself.

Montgomery County voters need to decide if they want to take back their county government from the teachers union or now.

December 28, 2007 6:04 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Guardian published nonsense (and since when do right-wing extremists like you quote The Guardian?). Paul McHugh is respected by no one in the medical community for his opinions on sex and gender. He was finally shamed into admitting that gender identity even exists by a colleague of his back in 2004. He is a specialist in eating disorders, and was never qualified in sex and gender. He hasn't even met a trans person, let alone examined one, since the late 70's. He has also refused to discuss these issues with his medical colleagues, hiding behind the skirts of the Catholic clergy who, as well all know, are just expert in issues of human sexuality.

Bailey was taken down because his colleagues recognized that he has not, in the field of transgender medicine, ever published any data. He shares his opinions, which are those of a small group in Toronto and Northwestern. That's all.

You can keep quoting the same people over and over again, but you can't get Paul McHugh cloned in time to make any difference. Why don't you add the infamous Richard Cohen back into the mix while you're at it?

December 28, 2007 8:41 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

if what dana says is true, then red baron is also guilty of anti-gay industry propaganda technique #5 - citing phony experts.

December 28, 2007 9:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. Personal attack on McHugh with a vendetta, Dana. Hit a nerve, did we ?
Reading McHugh's article, I can see why he would annoy you.

It seems either the good Dr. or the good Dr. is misrepresenting the situation, however. It certainly seems that Dr. Mchugh has seen patients since the 1970's, and what of this Myer study ?

December 28, 2007 10:54 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

with all due respect, anonymous, dana raised some points about mr. mchugh

if his speciality is in eating disorders then how can he be cited as an expert in sex and gender.

also, you really should preface your citations. i didn't understand how it had anything to do with what is being discussed here. the journal has nothing to do with medicine. it is a religious journal.

December 28, 2007 11:21 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

AND i find it interesting that red baron did not tell anyone the name of the book published by Michael Bailey.

The book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, was controversial. Some accused Bailey of bad research tactics including basing his research on anecdotes and interviews at a gay bar.

However, Bailey DID NOT say that transgenders were living a fantasy. His conclusions are very complex and whether you agree with them or not is not the point.

The point is that I think it does a disservice for red baron to simplify Bailey's book in a manner that justifies his opinions of lgbts.

December 28, 2007 11:42 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I've been arguing with the good Professor for over 15 years now, and he refuses to meet either with me or any other scientist, for that matter.

"First Things" is a Catholic journal, not a scientific journal. There is no peer review, and Catholic theologians do not count, I'm sorry.

Jon Meyer was hired by McHugh to do a hit job because he himself was brought in by the Hopkins administration (never known as paragons of decency, going back to their studies on mental illness in the 20's through the pervasive racism still prevalent on campus into the early 70's) to end their gender reassignment program. That study was biased from the start and has never held up to scientific scrutiny. The research since then shows a 98.5-99% success rate, which I'm sure gives the good doctor many sleepless nights. Regardless, the patients chosen by the Hopkins program were few and had to fit their standards for who was "qualified" to undergo transition -- a very paternalistic, sexist approach since John Money began the program in 1966.

Thankfully, McHugh and Meyer succeeded in shutting down the Hopkins program, as their actions successfully privatized the medical treatment of transsexual and intersexed individuals, and instead of the two dozen or so done annually at Hopkins, the number quickly climbed to thousands throughout North America (to say nothing of Europe and Asia). I guess "Be careful what you wish for" applies to good Professor, too.

As I said -- you can keep dragging out the same people, but you don't get credit for cloning. McHugh and Meyer, Meyer and McHugh. Let's throw in Michael Bailey for good measure, since he knows how to find his scientific subjects -- all eight of them in an Hispanic gay bar in Chicago.

That's it. The medical profession has left you in the dust. The brain research continues to come out, proving that trans women have female brain structures. Deny it all you want, call in the Catholics while you're at it as well. The medical profession reads The New England Journal of Medicine, not First Things.

December 28, 2007 11:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The brain research continues to come out, proving that trans women have female brain structures"

Dana, What are you referring to here ?
Brain sex ?

I just reviewed a number of sites, and these appear to be personality tests....quite stereotypical ones, which I would have thought you would disdain.

December 29, 2007 1:29 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Are you interested, anon, or are you just taunting me? I have been posting on this stuff for over two years, giving examples of neuroscience where neuroanatomy, neurochemistry and now neuroimaging show distinct male-female dimorphic patterns in various brain regions. My point has been that the results for trans women are identical to those of non-trans women. I've been saying for years that trans individuals are intersex individuals, and while I understand that most people have never heard of intersex conditions, I've discussed them as well and all you have to do is JFGI, as my son likes to say. Transsexual is nothing more than a dichotomy between brain sex and genital sex, which is to be expected because the genitals develop along a different track than the brain. That's all.

Very simple, actually. Anyone who has taken developmental biology understands this, even those who've only taken biology. But we still have people who think that being transsexed means you're a pedophile out to rape and murder little girls in elementary school, or failing that, your whole purpose in life is to make Theresa Rickman uncomfortable at Bethesda Sport and Health.

Here's a delicious irony for you. The man Paul McHugh was hired to depose, John Money, was to some people the most brilliant sexual researcher of the twentieth century. He did breakthrough work on intersex conditions, and then opened the Hopkins clinic to begin sex-reassignment, the first in the nation.

Money believed that it was nurture, and not nature, that determined gender identity and hence, gender expression. You could take an intersex child with a Y chromosome and functioning hormonal system and surgically construct a vagina and that child would be content to be a girl with a female gender identity. You could cauterize a boy's penis into ashes, construct a vagina and raise that child as a happy girl.

Well, not quite, as it turned out. But before we knew the truth, Money became the darling of the incipient feminist movement which developed its theories of social constructivism, that all gender manifestations were socially induced; his program was a success though with very low volume, and even so the reactionaries at Hopkins couldn't take the heat and hired McHugh to depose him.

That he did, using Jon Meyer's tendentious and flawed studies, and ending up privatizing gender reassignment for the betterment of all. In the meantime, that poor boy who lost his penis and was raised as a girl, forced into it by Money and his unyielding advice to the child's parents, was miserable, and eventually the story broke, the truth came out, Brenda reverted to David, and Money was excommunicated from the scientific community, eventually dying an outcast a year ago.

At this time the scientific data to which I have referred was beginning to trickle out, scientists were beginning to take seriously the impact of the fetal environment on sexual development, genetic analysis was exploding, and we finally had a re-examination of the entire nature vs. nurture debate.

Today it is Paul McHugh who is unyielding in his beliefs, which are founded on nothing more that historical religious bigotry and ignorance, and he, too, will pass away on the margins of the scientific community.

And in another irony, it is the religious extremists, of whom we have a few here, who have strayed from their beliefs in essentialism -- that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and you are what you are, based on the presence or absence of a penis -- and strayed into Freudianism in a last ditch effort to validate the work of NARTH and Richard Cohen and his crowd that you can overcome biology (which really isn't important anyway since that would mean we would have to believe in evolution)
and "fix" the aberrant sexuality, whatever it may be.

So we've come full circle, from Money to McHugh and now to CRG, all because people who think they can control the lives of others have insisted that a small number of us must fit into the patterns they have imposed upon their world.

If life were only so simple.

December 29, 2007 3:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home