The recent article Where did Queer Theory Come From, explained how University of Michigan Professor Gayle Rubin had a significant impact on society that has led to the influence of Gender Ideology in schools across America. She did this largely by attacking what society considers normally accepted behaviors, and the result has been a destabilizing effect on our educational system and culture.
(image from Queer: A Graphic History)
While school districts would never claim to teach Gender Ideology, the ideas have been woven throughout the curriculum. Although we believe that children need to learn to be accepting of others, we also believe that the political and social constructions of gender are at least confusing to most students and at worst may lead to emotional harm to students. Nevertheless, gender topics appear in many library books. They are presented in sex ed and in policies and decisions made by administrators that ultimately impact our students. Here are a few examples of Gender Ideology themes presented to children in Grand Haven Area Public Schools.
The transgender themed book Call Me Max was read to elementary students in Grand Haven
Sexually Explicit Library Books are available in Grand Haven Schools
In addition, at the state level the Michigan Department of Education advocates for Gender Inclusive Sex Ed
After years of career success, as a teacher, it is extremely difficult for teachers to come to the realization that a system they helped to build is under attack by a non-educational agenda. For example, Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is a popular gender-bending queer activity in many cities these days. Read the following passage from the paper “Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood” written by Harper Keenan, Professor of Gender and Sexuality Research in Education at the University of British Columbia:
The incorporation of play and art in the classroom is regularly justified by this category of instrumentalist claims, including their potential to bolster “academic skill development” through measurable outcomes. In effect, this framework can turn play into a “technology of governmentality in early childhood” (Ailwood, 2003, p. 292). As an organization, DQSH may be incentivized to recite lines about alignment with curricular standards and social–emotional learning in order to be legible within public education and philanthropic institutions. Drag itself ultimately does not take these utilitarian aims too seriously (but it is quite good at looking the part when necessary). Instead, drag is firmly rooted in play as a site of queer pleasure, resistance, and self-fashioning. It aims towards play without predetermined purpose.
So, basically the author is saying that the purveyors of DQSH will claim to have an educational purpose, but in reality, the primary goal is letting drag adults enter into a classroom setting for a playtime that flows wherever it goes. Further, the author says:
It is undeniable that DQSH participates in many of these tropes of empathy, from the marketing language the programme uses to its selection of books. Much of this is strategically done in order to justify its educational value. However, we suggest that drag supports scholars’ critiques of empathy, rather than reifying the concept: drag performers do not necessarily seek identification with an “other,” but rather to experience ways of embodying and expressing different aspects of themselves.
Wow. As strange as it sounds, you just need to take them at their word. They will market DQSH as a way for attendees to gain empathy for the performers, but in actuality the performers don’t care about empathy because they’re most concerned about gratifying their own narcissistic self-expression at the expense of impressionable children.
We understand that our schools want to create an environment where everyone is included. It is noble and desirable to pursue that objective. However, we can’t fail to recognize the true agendas of some of these social movements that are percolating down from higher education through the national teachers’ unions and state education departments. There are many papers like the one cited above, and the authors don’t mince words regarding their intentions. Sadly, they are actually harming children. Many children are confused about their gender and some are even committing suicide.
Prisha Mosley, a 24-year-old biological female, had a number of emotional issues as an adolescent which led to her undergoing an elective double mastectomy at age 18. The policies of affirmation have real consequences and everyone in charge of implementing such policies should have a full understanding of potential outcomes.
This video features former Grand Haven Area Public School Board President Carl Treutler talking about suicide rates of LGBTQ teens. It is unfortunate that his understanding of gender confusion issues is common among those involved in the educational system. Our experts need to have a full understanding of the issues before implementing policy.
GHAPS – It’s time for new administration.