by Robert Fireovid
It is an established fact that some teachers, librarians, and administrators in public school systems in the United States are actively working to (1) encourage children and/or adolescents to question the reality of their sexuality and/or (2) encourage children and/or adolescents to explore non-binary sexual practices. Pedagogical practices based on “gender fluidity” or which provide information about alternative sex practices are most often administered through “comprehensive sex education” (CSE).
Gender fluidity is a religion because it affirms that individuals have an identity which transcends physical reality. Therefore, any practice within public school systems which foists the religion of gender fluidity, especially upon a captive audience of intellectually-defenseless, impressionable, and naturally-rebellious children and adolescents, is a violation of both Article II, Section 6 and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In addition to its appearance in CSE, gender fluidity is also behind the pedagogical practice of asking students to declare to teachers and/or to fellow classmates within the classroom about the sex with which they identify or about pronouns with which they want to be addressed. However, doing so is akin to having the teacher ask a student to declare his or her religion to the class. The schools have no business asking this question!
Proponents of bringing gender fluidity into the schools say that doing so supports the teeny tiny number of youths suffering from gender dysphoria. However, that their approach to support these disabled youth means taking down of most other children seems to be of no concern to them. Hello!
Pedagogy that encourages gender fluidity has a very destructive impact on most students in that it encourages children and adolescents (1) to disconnect from reality, (2) to disconnect from their own bodies, and (3) to disconnect from their parents. It’s worth noting that one of the major objectives of Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution between 1966-1976 was to replace the traditional nuclear family with the state.
In the best-case scenario, pedagogical encouragement of gender fluidity pushes children and adolescents to focus their energy and attention on wholly non-existent or unimportant considerations about their identity, rather than on matters that contribute to their success as self-reliant adults, e.g., academic proficiency.
In the worst-case scenario, pedagogical encouragement of gender fluidity disconnects children and adolescents from everything that supports, protects, and nurtures them, EXCEPT the state. It is not the job of the public school system to replace free men and women with willing servants and/or wards of the state.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that promoting gender fluidity in schools is more dangerous than critical race theory. It asks students to question the most fundamental aspect of their individual reality – their biological sex – and to reject ancestral norms passed down since humans first evolved. This weapon goes much deeper than skin color to upset a child’s psyche and cripple our society. In our open, digital society, children and their parents can access all the information they want about gender fluidity. It is completely unnecessary and inappropriate for public school teachers to provide this information to students.
Regarding comprehensive sex education, it is appropriate for the state, through the public school system, to ensure that adolescents understand the physical mechanisms and legal responsibilities associated with creating a baby. However, it is completely inappropriate for public school teachers or libraries to offer students information about sexual alternatives to male-female coitus. Teaching about alternative sexual practices encourages students to prioritize the pursuit of sexual pleasure over making efforts to avoid pregnancies. In short, such pedagogical practices both (1) encourage increased sexual activity by children and adolescents, and (2) exacerbate the common tension between adolescents and their parents.
Again, in our open, digital society, children and their parents can access all the information they want about non-coital sex. It is completely unnecessary and inappropriate for public school teachers or libraries to provide this information to students.
Here are some suggestions to help Vermonters protect children from gender fluidity and non-binary sex education in the public schools.
- Allow and encourage school boards to mandate that no teacher may teach, within the classroom, about alternatives to heterosexual practices.
- Allow and encourage school boards to mandate that no teacher or administrator may ask a student to declare his or her preferred pronouns within the classroom.
- Allow and encourage school boards to mandate that school libraries must inform the school board about books and other printed materials (offered for circulation) which contain sexual content or which discuss gender fluidity. The school board may (1) declare any book or printed material sexually provocative and offensive and (2) require school libraries to remove such material from circulation.
- Require that no teacher or administrator may be penalized by supervisors or by fellow teachers for using pronouns consistent with a student’s actual physical sex.
Let me know if you have other suggestions!
The author is a South Hero resident.
Categories: Education
Unless parents get their children out of the public education monopoly, nothing will save these kids. School Boards are structurally divisive and impotent. It’s the system in which they operate that’s problematic. Trying to affect a School Board is difficult enough. Trying to affect a school’s governace as a board member is akin to arguing with the proverbial Uncle Remus tar baby.
Those who attend Public Schools need to be protected.
Just imagine if the more conservative school districts (if there are any left in Vermont) pushed a program to teach kids about ideological/political fluidity? Imagine that they teach students that, despite the predominant and well-established leftist slant in major media, in most school districts, at institutes of higher learning and in many workplaces, that there are alternatives and that they be free to choose, and be free from peer pressure to conform with the predominant liberal worldview? Can you imagine if any public school curriculum emphasized that the CHOICE to be vaccinated or wear a face covering should be protected by law just as is the right for a pregnant person to hire someone to terminate the life of their unborn baby? Can you imagine if a school curriculum taught that substance addiction is indeed a CHOICE and that it can be overcome without professional help or massive government expenditure, just like when your mommy and daddy quit smoking cigarettes 20 years ago? Can you imagine that it be ok to teach that if we capitalize the B in Black, then we should also capitalize the W in White? Can you imagine if our bloated, public-sector-union-protected education bureaucracy focused their attention on teaching kids useful academic skills like math, science and the proper use of the English language and let them learn about sexuality, diversity and ideology at home?
Nope. I can’t imagine it…. no matter how much Kool-Aid I’ve been drinking.
Thank you for taking the time to get this down on paper. I agree with your assessment and also your suggestions for how to begin to remedy the situation. It is truly remarkable just how quickly newfangled conjecture about gender identity has become part of the pedagogical vernacular and now taught to young children – as a matter of course – as if it were indisputable fact. We abandon classical education at our peril!
However “appropriate” one may feel it is for the state, through the public school system, to ensure that adolescents understand the physical mechanisms and legal responsibilities associated with creating a baby, as Robert stated in his article, I argue, is it actually necessary that our public schools teach this? I don’t think so.
Basic biology of all our bodily systems is all that is necessary.
But I agree wholeheartedly with, H. Jay Eshelman, get your kids out of the public schools! ( Loved de tar baby example. Too funny!)
Considering what we have learned about reading material found in school libraries, CRT indoctrination, transgender in full drag reading hours at public libraries, assorted sexual misconduct allegations between students and student/teachers, a CNN producer luring a teen by paying off the mom, etc. etc. Pervmont is no longer the State where most people referred to as a “great place to raise kids” It’s a great place to groom kids to be manipulated, abused, uneducated, and their futures ruined. Well done Dem/Progs!
Excellent article, Bob. I cannot emphasize enough to parents that, no matter how difficult it seems t first, you must get your children out of the public education system if you do not want this very serious stuff to affect their young minds. 5 days a week, 7 hours a day, and whatever time you allow your child to access their peers through social media and texting: that’s a lot of time your children receive positive reinforcement for subjects, such as gender fluidity.
Great article! I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote.
Don’t forget that if a professional works with the child and states that the child is merely confused and anxious rather than “gender dysphoric”, that professional will be mobbed and canceled.
In a discussion between two experts in human behavior, Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt, the prospect of ‘fantasy play’ and ‘identity play’ by young children is, described as being essential to childhood psychological development. Kids pretend to be Animals. They pretend to be their Parents. They pretend to be various Superheroes, Wizards and Warriors, Cowboys, Indians, actors, actresses, and sports celebrities. Boys pretend to be girls. Girls pretend to be boys. It’s normal behavior. Peterson and Haidt explain why it’s so important that children be able to adopt different identities in the development of their actual character.
This is an hour-long plus discussion about education in general, and well worth the watch. But if you’re short on time, go directly to the 1 hour and 12 minute mark for their discussion on child ‘fantasy play’, and why stifling it, or trying to arbitrarily modify it, is so damaging to a child’s psyche.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA
And the title of this discussion [The Perilous State of the University] is no exaggeration. It would be better presented as [The Perilous State of the Education System]. The discussion characterizes the public education monopoly as having become ‘perilous’ indeed. And the sooner parents realize this, the sooner they can save their children from this dystopian threat to our culture.
At one time in South Hero, there was a resident named Arthur Klepps. He was the founder of the Neo American Church. To make a long story short, his belief system failed to gain recognition as a legitimate religion by the supreme court, which disallowed them from using first amendment rights to justify their use of sacraments. If that church failed to gain religious legitimacy, I find it hard to believe “gender fluidity” would ever be validated as a religion. Until it does, the above thesis has no legs. You could just as easily argue that a collective of people donning red hats, worshiping a publicity-hungry, sexually libidinous billionaire who claims to represent working class interests is a religious movement. Not a bad idea though, as he’d get tax-exempt status.
Springfield’s sex curriculum is provided MOSTLY by planned parenthood. Nuff said on THAT one.
Most public school sex-ed is founded in Alfred Kinsey but , once that midset was fully integrated into the public schools , we ALL found out that Alfred was a….pedophile and a major sex pervert
https://canadianliberty.com/the-children-of-table-34-alfred-kinseys-pedophile-based-research/
https://dauntlessdialogue.com/the-disturbing-truth-about-alfred-kinsey-father-of-the-sexual-revolution/
Alfred is the Father of Public school sex ed
This is an incredibly bigoted article. Does the author have any close friends who are transgender, or gay? I’d encourage him to listen to them. Growing up queer in Vermont isn’t easy and it would have been so helpful for my school to let me be who I was.
My daughter is 5 years old and will be attending school soon. I am concerned about CRT and all that goes with it. I want my daughter to receive a traditional education and to respect others but I do NOT want my tax dollars wasted on lifestyle and sexuality education. I would prefer that students learn respect for others starting with the pledge of allegiance and a solid academics to prepare for college. After that, I can respect a child’s lifestyle choices and personal preferences but that does NOT belong in a classroom. That is something that families discuss. But of course, I see that in this “woke” world, the family is seen as something to be disrespected and destroyed. Sad.