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.