STOP the War on Children

July 27, 2011

Why Are Schools Teaching “Gender Identity”?

by Karen Gushta

A California school recently gave students “gender identity” classes featuring “single-sex geckos and transgender clownfish.” An outside group called Gender Spectrum taught the lessons with a grant from the California Teachers Union to teach the 350 children at the Oakland Redwood Heights Elementary School.

Fox News reporters were allowed to observe classes taught to kindergartners and 4th graders by Gender Spectrum director, Joel Baum. The name “Gender Spectrum” reflects the definition of “gender identity” Baum taught the students. “‘Gender identity’ is a spectrum where people can be girls, feel like girls, they feel like boys, they feel like both, or they can feel like neither,” he said. “Gender identity is one’s own sense of themselves. Do they know themselves to be a girl? Do they know themselves to be a boy? Do they know themselves to be a combination?”

As Fox reported, “He suggested that even if someone was born with male ‘private parts’ but identified more with being a girl, that was something to be “accepted” and ‘respected.’” This must have come as a surprise to the 4th graders listening to Mr. Baum.

No doubt these children scratched their heads in puzzlement to hear that they could “know themselves to be a combination” of boy and girl.  However, some of these youngsters might also have started to question their own gender identity.  And that, according to the American College of Pediatricians, is just the problem with introducing the concept of ‘gender identity’ to children and youth.

“We are increasingly concerned that in too many instances, misinformation or incorrect assumptions are guiding well-intentioned educators to adopt policies that are actually harmful to those youth dealing with sexual confusion,” says Dr. Den Trumbull, Vice President of ACOP.

In view of their concern, the College sent an open letter to America’s 14,800 school superintendents in April 2010 “to provide factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.” The College informed superintendents that adolescents commonly experience “transient confusion” over their sexuality, but said “most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged.”

So the word is, leave well enough alone. According to ACOP, “well intentioned” educators who implement school policies that “affirm” or even encourage non-heterosexual attractions are doing their students a disservice. Encouraging non-heterosexual behaviors among students who may be merely experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion can “lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks,” says the College.

These strong words of caution may have fallen on deaf ears of those school superintendents who have already succumbed to pressure to indoctrinate children into the belief that homosexuality is “normal” and concluded that detailed information about its practice must be dispensed to children starting in kindergarten.

In the Oakland school case, the California Teachers’ Union approval gave the program the appearance of legitimacy. But the state union’s support is not surprising given the National  Education Association’s (NEA) pro-homosexual stance, which is clearly harmful to children.

The fact that the NEA stands behind programs that “affirm” students in homosexual behavior, which may be merely transitory, goes against the best advice of health professionals who are “dedicated to the health and well-being of children.” It also violates an ethical trust, which the College clearly pointed out to the superintendents. “Optimal health and respect for all students can only be achieved within a school by first respecting the right of students and parents to accurate information and to self-determination.”

The Oakland school certainly violated the trust of its parents and students by introducing the inaccurate information presented by Gender Spectrum. As the College stated in a 2010 press release, “There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered. Therefore, the College further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.”

Telling children that they can be like a transgender clownfish or that their sexuality has nothing to do with their “private parts” has no place in any school curriculum. Giving them accurate information, such as the fact that no one is “born homosexual,” and allowing students the time to develop their sexual identity without pressure or propaganda should be the responsibility of every school. And it is the responsibility of the 14,800 school superintendents who lead America’s schools to see that this is carried out.

Unfortunately, many parents don’t know about the school programs and curricula that promote homosexual identification by elementary and high school students. Many parents at the Oakland Redwood Heights Elementary School were unaware that the “gender identity” program was being taught. Concerned parents have allies, however. The American College of Pediatricians’ website, FactsAboutYouth.com, provides accurate information and research on these issues.

As for the parents in Oakland Unified School District, the Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom and parental rights, is offering legal counsel to parents concerned about this matter. “This instruction does not represent the values of the majority of families in Oakland,” said PJI attorney Kevin Snider. Parents are being advised to keep their children home on the days when the “gender identity” material is being presented and to contact the Institute with any questions about truancy or absences.

Opposing the homosexual indoctrination of America’s children is not religious bigotry. It is, as the American College of Pediatricians states, for the “health and well-being of children.”

 

Advertisements

June 12, 2011

June, No Longer the Month of Brides?

Dr. Karen Gushta

The month of June used to be associated with brides and weddings. Now President Obama has proclaimed it “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.”

 

Obama is not the first president to make such a proclamation. In 1999 and 2000, President Clinton marked June as “Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.” Ten years later, more categories of “proud” gender types have been added.   

President George W. Bush declined to bow to pressure from homosexual activists to make similar declarations. His Justice Department also barred a group of federal employees from celebrating the month with this appellation.

Why designate June as “LGBT Pride Month?” As The Daily Caller points out, “June was chosen in honor of the 1969 Greenwich Village riots at the Stonewall Inn where gay rights advocates clashed with New York City police over alleged discrimination.”

It was more than a “clash.” At one point police barricaded themselves inside the bar while the angry mob outside tried to set the bar on fire and used a parking meter as a battering ram in an effort to break down the door to get at the policemen inside.

 

The event, which took place in the early hours of June 28, 1969, is marked as the beginning of the “gay rights” movement. Soon after, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) was formed. The GLF was short-lived, but it introduced the term “gay” to Americans, most of whom would not imagine calling the homosexual lifestyle “gay.”

For 20 years, homosexual activists made modest impact on American culture at large. Then, in 1989, two Harvard homosexual intellectuals, Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk, teamed up to write After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.   

 

Jonathan Kirsch wrote at the time in The Los Angeles Times that “the essential message of the book is an urgent demand for a fundamental change in the very nature of gay activism. The gay community, Kirk and Madsen argue, has resorted to the wrong arguments, the wrong symbols, and the wrong acts of protest. And the authors of ‘After the Ball’ think that they have a better idea.”

Their “better idea” was to exchange the tools of violent protests and barricades exemplified by the Stonewall Riots for “the story boards and 30-second spots of Madison Avenue, a kind of sanitized upscale media radicalism that finds mass demonstrations to be ‘ghastly freak shows’ and prefers highway billboards that ‘earnestly propound appealing truisms, the safer and more platitudinous, the better.’”

Kirk and Madsen said it themselves, “We’re talking about propaganda.”

Rather than protesting with “all the screamers, stompers, gender-benders, sadomasochists, and pederasts, and confirm America’s worst fears and hates” Kirk and Madsen advocated a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising.” Such advertising would depict gays “in the least offensive fashion possible.” And, more significantly, it would make “homo-hating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them.”

As Kirsch observes, “This is pure propaganda, of course, but it is propaganda on the highest levels of insight and calculation.”

It is also propaganda that in a large part succeeded during the 1990s in changing the thinking of many Americans. In his June 1999 proclamation, President Clinton claimed that “gay and lesbian Americans” were serving “openly and proudly” in the federal government. In his 2000 proclamation, he bragged that “more openly gay and lesbian individuals serve in senior posts throughout the Federal Government than during any other Administration.”

President Obama’s proclamation tried to best Clinton’s record by listing all of his administration’s activities, such as the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and the appointment of openly homosexual individuals to executive branch and judicial positions.  

 

According to one commentator, efforts like these could qualify President Obama to be called “the first gay president.” Writing in TheVoiceMagazine.com, Brian Burke observed that in this administration we’re seeing more being done “to promote the gay agenda than in any other American presidency in the history of the United States of America.”  

 

Burke concludes, “Christians should never forget that homosexuality is sinful behavior …. it doesn’t matter what law is passed or what proclamation is made, sin can’t be legalized either, no matter how many people agree. Throughout the Bible Scripture is clear that homosexuality will always be a sin. The President … is wrong to celebrate the lifestyle as if that’s OK.”

 

Nevertheless, celebration of the homosexual lifestyle was part of the U.S. Department of Education’s first LGBT Youth Summit held in Washington D.C. on June 6 and 7.  Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius addressed the group, telling them that they have a “strong voice” and the Obama administration is hearing it. “I want to tell you, you have a friend in this administration who will stand beside you each and every step along the way,” Sebelius said.

 

The administration’s friendship was affirmed by a reporter for the homosexual activist Human Rights Campaign who wrote that “In addition to Assistant Deputy Secretary Kevin Jennings and many of his DOE staff members, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies were well represented.  Many of the federal agency representatives ‘came out’ as LGBT while speaking at the two-day meeting.”

 

But how is the example of government employees “coming out” going to help homosexual youth who, according to conference presenters, “are more prone to exhibit high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, sexual risk-taking, and running away from home?”

 

Conferences sponsored by the Education Department and proclamations that encourage “pride” in their homosexual lifestyles will not help these youth. Christians must “graciously yet urgently speak the truth in love to young people who are hurting themselves with the ‘LGBT’ lifestyle,” as a recent Family Research Council prayer letter urged.

 

Those who believe in the power of Jesus Christ to forgive, heal, and restore must determine to stand together in opposition to our government’s efforts to promote harmful and sinful sexual practices among our youth. Let our proclamation be of Jesus Christ and His willingness to receive all who would come to Him.

 

And then, maybe we can get back to June as the month of brides.

 

~~

Dr. Karen Gushta is research coordinator at Coral Ridge Ministries and author of The War on Children: How Pop Culture and Public Schools Put Our Kids at Risk. Dr. Gushta is a career educator who has taught at all levels, from kindergarten to graduate level teacher education, in both public and Christian schools in America and overseas. Dr. Gushta served as the first international director of Kid’s Evangelism Explosion. She has a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Education from Indiana University and Masters degrees in Elementary Education from the University of New Mexico and in Christianity and Culture from Knox Theological Seminary.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.