"Gender Fluidity" and the Language Contrary to Catholic Teaching (Installment #2)

Last post, I introduced how Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia had proposed sweeping changes to the curriculum as a result of a vote to include gender identity in the nondiscrimination policy list.

I wish to boil it down to a very simple statement: There is a very distinct difference between nondiscrimination/inclusiveness and indoctrination. It is not the business of schools to teach and to preach their beliefs on the inherent or developmental nature of gender and sexuality. Perhaps a topic of sociology coursework in college, such mature topics are not part of a nondiscrimination implementation in K-12 schools.

Here's a quick rundown of facts about Fairfax County and this issue specifically.

May 7, 2015, Fairfax County School Board overwhelmingly voted to include "gender identity" in their nondiscrimination policy, county-wide.

Only 10 parents were given a chance, within an hour, to make public comments at the meeting on this issue. And the School Board did not respond respectfully, in fact many groups consider their remarks arrogant and demeaning, and many parents were locked out of the meeting or escorted out by a large presence of law enforcement.

Gender Spectrum is an advocacy group that has been behind the pressure and threats to implement these changes or file discrimination charges with the Department of Education and risk the revocation of the $42 million in federal grants that Fairfax County receives each year. This could be considered extortion.

Gender Spectrum is the advocacy group and presumed "consultant" hired to implement Fairfax County Public Schools curriculum changes to include "gender fluidity" inclusiveness in the schools. I encourage every reader to familiarize themselves with this group and its mission. It is not simply a program of nondiscrimination. Personally, I find its mission to be one of indoctrination, though some may disagree.

Mid-May, the County surprisingly introduced as “new business” this entire curriculum overhaul that would suddenly be voted upon on June 25, 2015, and only 10 parents will be allowed to speak for 3 minutes each. Again, a very limited amount of time to accept input from parents and interested groups, and a very limited amount of time for any public statements, besides emailing or writing to the board in the interim prior to the vote.

What does the curriculum change mean?

Children as young as 4th grade, 9 and 10 year old children, would be introduced to "gender fluidity" and a "gender and sexual exploration" curriculum.

I had never heard of “gender fluidity” before May. Let me be clear. This is the proposed language that has since been stricken due to the overwhelming opposition over the past 15 days from concerned groups and parents in Fairfax County, Virginia. Here’s the sentence that was going to be added to the 8^th grade curriculum, "The concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum will be introduced."

Here's why a Catholic, such as myself, would consider this to be directly contrary to Church Teaching.

“The concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum will be introduced." It reduces a human's entire scope of identity to sexual identity. It is not only worded inaccurately from even a biological, psychological and sociological standpoint, it is worded to a point that ignores the rest of the human person, reducing us to solely sexual beings.

It might be considered "good news" or at least "progress" to think that the complaints have resulted in at least that line being double-striken. Of course, it still stands in posterity for others to criticize as "not being tolerated."

But there's more.

This is the heading of the 8th grade section on “gender fluid” instruction. I want to be very clear that this crosses the line from nondiscrimination/inclusion to moral instruction. "Students will identify that development of individual identity occurs over a lifetime and includes the component of sexual orientation and gender identity."

Again, this is not for debate. This is against the teachings of other faiths. I have a Master’s degree in English. The sentence equates. Students will identify that development of individual identity occurs over a lifetime” with “Students will identify that development of individual identity includes the component of sexual orientation and gender identity.” This suggests that these two components "develop."

This is the point at which children are being instructed and encouraged to consider that sexual orientation and gender identity can be developed over a lifetime.

Here’s another zinger. Still in the 8^th grade section on gender fluidity under the above heading,

Instruction includes the effect of gender roles and expectations on individual choices and emphasizes that while attitudes about gender roles differ among families, cultures, religions, and individuals, stereotyping individuals based on gender can limit opportunities. Individual identity will also be described as having four parts – biological gender, gender identity (includes transgender), gender role, and sexual orientation (includes heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual).

Let's just point out the inaccuracy. Human beings' individual identities are not solely made up of gender and sexual orientation. So to suggest that "individual identity would have the following four parts," is grossly inaccurate, and just plain wrong. It again reduces the dignity of the whole human person to nothing but sexuality and gender.

As children, it is important for all faiths to teach that we need to show kindness and love towards all no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity or faith or status in life. I want to emphasize that I reject the discrimination of persons based on gender and based on sexual orientation. Informed by my faith, I truly believe that in a peaceful and conversational manner, I may distinguish between the dignity of every person and the propagation of messages that would indoctrinate children to a moral level of instruction on gender and sexuality, especially when it directly contraditcts the teachings of a person's religion.

When a school system deems it necessary to preach to children that they can or need to explore, question, and develop their gender identity, their sexual orientation, as children, it is that point at which I raise my hand and say, "Stop." 8th grade, people, this is 8th grade. Do you know how old 8th graders usually are? 12/13.

Whether a family introduces sexuality and gender as a lifelong discovery or a God-given gift, is up to each individual family.

This is the point at which a school's perceived responsibility to observe inclusiveness and nondiscrimination across the curriculum when discussing biology and reproductive science doesn't become a perceived responsibility to preach a psychological, social, and moral consideration: gender identity exploration and sexual orientation exploration.

This is not the role of a K-12 school system.

I need to emphasize that in my family, we teach love of everyone. We teach kindness towards everyone. And, we teach what our Faith teaches, that sexuality and gender are each a gift from God.

Others may debate it; however, I reserve the right to, informed by my faith, instruct my child in the moral understanding of gender and sexuality with my child and to not have it preached and socially explored by her school’s curriculum.