The Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines demagogue as a “person who tries to stir up the people by appeals to emotion and prejudice in order to win them over quickly and so gain power.” On January 30, 2019, in the chambers of the Washoe County School District of Nevada, a committee introduced a new sex education curriculum module which is a perfect example of gender bender demagoguery. Using assumptions of fact, claims of science, plays on emotion and prejudice toward traditional social practice they moved swiftly to assert their power to insert into the minds of students throughout Washoe County a brand new world of sexual orientation and gender opportunity. The only thing missing was a set of cheerleaders doing back flips and screaming in adulation.
Consider some of the terms to be taught to eager young minds as real fact. “Assigned sex” is the gender given by someone, perhaps parents, doctors, or who knows who, based on physical attributes at birth. It is, of course, not conclusive in any way since children must decide what their real gender is sometime later. “Gender fluidity” is the general term for choices of gender open to all persons and presumably includes transgender or any of more than one hundred gender states currently being touted as actual conditions. In addition to widely talked about terms such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality, students are to recognize and accept “pansexuality” which is sexual attraction to three or more genders. Think of the marvelous possibilities for unlimited sexual liaisons and creative relationships!
Several interesting tips were given to help students understand the new material. For example, a distinction was made between orientation and gender. They are not the same, yet somehow gender states are depicted as permanent in much the same way as is sexual orientation. So, somehow “not the same” means “absolutely the same” in terms of durability. Another example, physical sexual attributes do not, repeat, do not necessarily indicate gender. What is visible on the outside does not mean that it represents the real gender on the inside. So, the duty of every student is to look for genuine gender within themselves. They must look to their feelings. Whatever their “true desires” reveal is their gender identity. And that is what they must follow, for the rest of their lives. Even if they are only six years old when they feel it!
The curriculum contained some suggested exercises for teachers to use in teaching this supposedly liberating ideology. Such as how to lead a student discussion on terminology like queer, straight, or any of the many special terms used to describe sexuality or gender. A list of questions, possibly to be used as a test, is one of those exercises.
All of the questions reveal a bias in favor of the material being presented. But one question makes crystal clear what the true purpose and goal of the curriculum is. Students are asked if moving out of a sexual orientation is a myth or a fact. The curriculum requires a response indicating that no change is possible. Both orientation and gender (finally realized) are fixed, immutable qualities that must not be challenged by either the student or anyone else. To do so is personally dangerous. The result is that students are expected to see human sexuality as a series of unalterable cells. Once they find themselves in one of the cells the door is locked behind them and the key thrown away. Thereafter, their orientations and assumed gender call all the shots as to their sexual and personal expressions.
To present as fact to our youth, as this curriculum does, that human personality is locked into certain forms and expressions, sexual or otherwise, is unscientific, anti-religious, and anti-humanitarian bigotry. For over a hundred years, psychological theory and religious beliefs have both affirmed the possibility of leaving deeply entrenched behaviors and moving into others more constructive to the individual and the community. Contrary to the claim that this curriculum opens up new possibilities for students, it actually imposes a world in which free conscientious choice, the bedrock of all human relationships, is discarded in favor of predetermined behavior.
Numerous facts are omitted from the curriculum. Fact: actual transgender is impossible. There are more than 6500 genetic differences between men and women. Fact: there are two and only two genders, male and female, in accord with physiological endowments. Fact: feelings, no matter how strong and persistent, cannot change physiological givens. Fact: thousands of people across North America have successfully moved out of same-sex and transgender lifestyles. Fact: some of those making such changes have done so spontaneously without any intervention from others. Fact: there is no definitive science whatsoever that can explain or support the existence of fixed orientations. Fact: the curriculum itself calls gender fluidity an ideology, a set of beliefs not demonstrated science. Fact: there is no need to add this ideology to sex education mandated to teach human physiology, reproduction, and the dangers of sexually transmitted disease.
Therefore, why are so many members of the Washoe County committee obviously in love with the claims of fixed orientation and gender fluidity? Could it be that they want to use their gender bender demagoguery to set aside faith and tradition? Could it be that the power within their grasp tempts them to push personal prejudices on the entire community in the name of education? Or are they simply trying to keep up with the progressive Joneses stampeding through all our institutions, trampling everything in their path?