"Gender Fluidity" - "Opt-Out" Is a Joke (Installment #3)

This is the third installment of my “Gender Fluidity” posts.

I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. In March, 2015, we were surprised by a notice that the public school board would vote on May 7 to include “gender identity” in the list of nondiscrimination policies. Having voted it in, 10-1, the announcement was made that there was “new business” and curriculum changes to the opt-in reproductive science curriculum were proposed immediately. Despite the county’s claim that this "new business" was a long time coming, it is highly coincidental that the language already in the “new business” was aligned with that of a group allegedly behind these changes, Gender Spectrum. In this post, I make a final objection – that “opt-in” is a joke if it’s meant to “appease” those who see how it directly contradicts the moral teachings of our faith.

Some parents have been “encouraged” that these changes are “only in the opt-out curriculum.”

And even if these curriculum changes are in the opt-out portion of a curriculum, opt-out only creates an environment in which most children will be indoctrinated to view gender and sexuality as “developed over a lifetime.” At some point in peer conversations, opt-out children will speak about the teachings of their faith, that gender and sexuality are “inherent” or “a gift from God.” Such teachings, in view of a school system that has “raised” their peers to see gender and sexuality as a fluid concept, would be labeled as judgmental, hateful, bigoted, etc. Opt-out also is rarely if ever “completely sealed.” Children whisper to each other about what they learned, and opt-out children will hear a peer’s version of what was said, which can be even more dangerous to their understanding.

Additionally, a very concerning pattern has surfaced. I noticed that in K-4, all of the headings relating to “family” and “family roles” have been deleted, and moved to the Health Standards of Living curriculum, under some Virginia Department of Education revised standards of learning for Health Education. Let me be clear that the “Health Standards of Living” curriculum is not opt-out. I believe that these gender identity nondiscrimination implementation “consultants” that the county says it will hire will ensure that the “family” and “family roles” curriculum be edited to reflect the new gender identity nondiscrimination policy, which will inevitably include a "fluid gender and sexuality" concept. I can only imagine it would include such ideas as, not only the structure of family being fluid (which is common to many families, and a fine concept to teach), but also family roles being fluid: mom wanting to be dad, a brother wanting to change to a sister, a girl deciding she wants to have a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend, etc. This crosses the line. This is no longer "nondiscrimination" it is indoctrination and instruction in morality. Fairfax County Public Schools acknowledge that family is important, but clearly, under these changes and with the influence of a group like Gender Spectrum, the makeup of family and family roles is fluid. In the very least, it would be logical to assume such sections of the curriculum would be challenged in the near future when things have “calmed down.”

Since all of these changes were so sudden in our specific county, I have observed a vocational religious friend and a parish priest both encouraging lay to "be brave" and to "speak up." I was in tears last week, praying about how absurd it is to see a priest on Facebook feel the need to encourage parishioners to “be brave” and to speak with love their concerns. They are seeing the lay cowering from fear or giving up in frustration of what a very loud group of “gender fluidity” advocates are threatening.

Up to this point, I haven't even gotten started on the dangers posed by accepting "exploration" curriculum language from children who are predators, who will use the language of "exploration" to prey on their peers and children who are younger. I would like to request that those who are more versed in the actual threats that these gender fluidity changes could pose, that they would write more sage commentary on the topic as a response.

I want to emphasize that I very strongly support the dignity of each human person, and that I reject all unjust discrimination including discrimination of persons experiencing a desire to change gender identity. I need to distinguish between the understandable need for a safe and inclusive environment for all students in a K-12 school, and a curriculum that crosses the line from instructing children from age 5 to age 18 in family structures, biology, and reproductive science to moral instruction at the level of college sociology which, being such a mature topic, varies across both a sociological spectrum and a religious spectrum. Something a primary school system has no business instructing with children.