Hashing Out the Proposed Changes
The citizens advisory committee will meet tomorrow evening to hear the proposed 10th grade sexual orientation curriculum, and to begin going over changes to the 8th grade curriculum that have been recommended by committee members.
Yesterday MCPS sent out a 39-page, eleven-megabyte PDF document listing all the changes that were suggested. Because I was in China, very busy, and largely cut off from a computer, I didn't submit any changes, but it looks like other members put in most of the stuff I would have suggested.
This will be a good one -- we are now to the part where the rubber meets the road. One camp seems to be campaigning for more statements pointing out that homosexuality is not a disease and it's not a choice, for the inclusion of more pointed statements from the medical and psychological associations supporting acceptance of gays and lesbians. The other side wants to include "former homosexuals" -- you know, someone who used to be gay and now isn't... mmm hmmm, we sure see lots of those around. Some members want to take out the word "tolerance," and we can see why.
Interestingly, a lot of the suggestions, maybe even most of them, don't really fall on one side of the culture-war divide or the other. Some terms do have weird definitions in the draft curriculum. Some things aren't clear. Some sections are disorganized. I don't think either side really wants to make sexual orientation a kind of subtopic, under the heading, Bullying.
A difficult problem: sexual identity, gender identity. I'm afraid the literature, including the textbooks that the school district likes, is, let's say, confused about these concepts. There are definitions out there, even in apparently authoritative sources, that flatly contradict one another. Committee members have proposed this and that, and I'm afraid it will be difficult to straighten it all out. But we have to, and we will.
Well, there is a ton of stuff here to read, including several entire journal articles in this PDF file. I hope everybody can work together to produce classes where our students learn something, both some facts that they may not have known, and some values that perhaps they have not been exposed to, having to do with how people can get along with one another. It might just be that it comes down to a face-off between forces wanting to create the impression that there's something wrong with gay people and those who promote the idea that sexual minorities are people, too. I wish it didn't come down to that, but that's the way the situation has been defined, and we probably can't avoid it. In that case, it just comes down to votes, and the question will be, can the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and PFOX accept losing?
Yesterday MCPS sent out a 39-page, eleven-megabyte PDF document listing all the changes that were suggested. Because I was in China, very busy, and largely cut off from a computer, I didn't submit any changes, but it looks like other members put in most of the stuff I would have suggested.
This will be a good one -- we are now to the part where the rubber meets the road. One camp seems to be campaigning for more statements pointing out that homosexuality is not a disease and it's not a choice, for the inclusion of more pointed statements from the medical and psychological associations supporting acceptance of gays and lesbians. The other side wants to include "former homosexuals" -- you know, someone who used to be gay and now isn't... mmm hmmm, we sure see lots of those around. Some members want to take out the word "tolerance," and we can see why.
Interestingly, a lot of the suggestions, maybe even most of them, don't really fall on one side of the culture-war divide or the other. Some terms do have weird definitions in the draft curriculum. Some things aren't clear. Some sections are disorganized. I don't think either side really wants to make sexual orientation a kind of subtopic, under the heading, Bullying.
A difficult problem: sexual identity, gender identity. I'm afraid the literature, including the textbooks that the school district likes, is, let's say, confused about these concepts. There are definitions out there, even in apparently authoritative sources, that flatly contradict one another. Committee members have proposed this and that, and I'm afraid it will be difficult to straighten it all out. But we have to, and we will.
Well, there is a ton of stuff here to read, including several entire journal articles in this PDF file. I hope everybody can work together to produce classes where our students learn something, both some facts that they may not have known, and some values that perhaps they have not been exposed to, having to do with how people can get along with one another. It might just be that it comes down to a face-off between forces wanting to create the impression that there's something wrong with gay people and those who promote the idea that sexual minorities are people, too. I wish it didn't come down to that, but that's the way the situation has been defined, and we probably can't avoid it. In that case, it just comes down to votes, and the question will be, can the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and PFOX accept losing?
posted by JimK at 11:07 AM
17 Comments:
this is the definiton of tolerance now what aspect of NAMbLA are you asking us to tolerate?
tol·er·ance
Function: noun
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4 a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure ; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor
Anon- if there was any question here, it is settled by your first sentence. You are a jerk.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "tolerate":
To allow so as not to hinder; to permit as something not wholly approved of; to suffer; to endure.
Surely even the most dedicated haters can 'tolerate' those of another sexual orientation--or moral conviction.
"It might just be that it comes down to a face-off between forces wanting to create the impression that there's something wrong with gay people and those who promote the idea that sexual minorities are people, too."
This is a misrepresentation of the situation and, as a knowledgable one, a lie. The conflict is between those who want to teach that there is no scientific rationale for establishing whether homosexuality is innate or immutable and those who want to claim there is.
There is no one on either side of the debate that has asserted that any group of people are not "people, too". Bob McAllister set us all straight long ago.
Grouping people by sexual preference, as in "sexual minorities", is disturbing because unlike race or ethnicity, where the term is most often used, sexual preference is entirely subjective and self-decided. We don't, for example, usually refer to Libertarians as a political minority in need of protection and tolerance.
Following the logic that sexual minority is a practical concept, which I don't, why is same-sex preference the only preference worthy of protection? Not to "slime" anybody but the whole concept of "sexual minority" would seem to lead to the idea that any type of sexual preference is fine and unslimy.
Anon said: "It might just be that it comes down to a face-off between forces wanting to create the impression that there's something wrong with gay people and those who promote the idea that sexual minorities are people, too."
This is a misrepresentation of the situation and, as a knowledgable one, a lie. The conflict is between those who want to teach that there is no scientific rationale for establishing whether homosexuality is innate or immutable and those who want to claim there is.
I do not like being called a liar, especially by someone who is afraid to use their name. You don't like the way I framed the question: tough. Your claim is entirely fabricated -- no one, not in this go-round or the previous one, has suggested teaching anything about "whether there is or is not any scientific rationale for establishing whether homosexuality is innate or immutable." It's not in the curriculum, has not been proposed by any committee member, has not been discussed, is not part of the debate at all. Your portrayal is entirely false, and you know it. A classic instance of projection -- even while you're lying, you accuse me of it. Classic.
My description of the "culture wars" face-off is not inaccurate, and surely is not a lie. CRC and PFOX have reps on the committee to make sure MCPS does not teach that homosexuality is a normal, low-probability phenomenon, that gay people are not sick, that homosexuality is not a choice. Most of the rest of us, not only on this committee but in the county generally, disagree: it is normal, they aren't sick, it isn't a choice.
I didn't lie, and will simply delete your slander if I see this sort of thing again.
It's good to be king.
JimK
"Also, based on mainstream science, we support a new curriculum that recognizes that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that homosexuality is not a disease."
That's your mission as stated on your front page.
"no one, not in this go-round or the previous one, has suggested teaching anything about "whether there is or is not any scientific rationale for establishing whether homosexuality is innate or immutable." It's not in the curriculum, has not been proposed by any committee member, has not been discussed, is not part of the debate at all."
That's your last post. You state mainstream science says homosexuality is not a choice. This is what you want in the curriculum. If innate and immutable isn't what you truthfully mean by "not a choice", what do you mean?
"Most of the rest of us, not only on this committee but in the county generally, disagree:"
There are no county-wide surveys on this, to my knowledge.
"it is normal,"
Ruling on that is viewpoint discrimination, according to the judge. It isn't normal based on traditional societal norms, which appear to still be accepted by most members of our society.
"they aren't sick,"
Depends on your definition of disfunctionality which may be another viewpoint discrimination error. If facts are presented, the behavior seems associated with a number of negative behaviors.
"it isn't a choice."
No science establishes this. Accuracy would demand telling the kids that.
Jim,
In your original post, I get the impression that sexual orientation is only discussed under bullying. Do they really not address sexual orinentation as a matter of development? Do they not say that non-majority orientations and identities are normal variations? If that's the case, this curriculum is not a step forward, it is a leap backward.
Robert
"Do they not say that non-majority orientations and identities are normal variations?"
Could you tell us, briefly, Robert, other than homosexuality and bisexuality, what other types of non-majority orientations and identities you're talking about?
Robert
It is introduced in a discussion of good and bad relationships. Good relationships = respect, tolerance, empathy, bad relationships = bullying etc. I do think this is the wrong way to approach it, and it looks like there will be a lot of discussion tonight. Hopefully we can correct some of these things.
JimK
You're right, Jim. Proper behavior in school is a discipline problem not a health issue.
Anon
I'm not going to go point-by-point with you, because I think engaging bigots only encourages them.
Our web site says that we want a curriculum that recognizes that being gay is neither a disease nor a choice, yes, we expect those facts to underlie the curriculum.
But no one has ever proposed entertaining the debate about the causes of homosexuality in a middle or high school classroom. It's not necessary. We are only promoting contemporary expert knowledge about the subject. The schools should teach what medical and scientific experts know to be true. No position has been taken on the causes of variations in sexual orientation, in any curriculum, this one or the previous one.
JimK
"The schools should teach what medical and scientific experts know to be true."
They don't "know" whether it's a choice or a disease.
"No position has been taken on the causes of variations in sexual orientation, in any curriculum, this one or the previous one."
I didn't say you had. You said it's not a choice. I don't think anyone knows whether it is or not. If it was innate or immutable, then one wouldn't have a choice. Whether it is or not is not knowledge possessed by anyone currently.
Anonymous at October 25, 2006 10:31 AM - those who promote the idea that being gay is mutable and not innate do so out of a desire to
create the impression that there is something wrong with gays and to falsely suggest gays can and should change.
You said "Grouping people by sexual preference, as in "sexual minorities", is disturbing because unlike race or ethnicity, where the term is most often used, sexual preference is entirely subjective and self-decided. We don't, for example, usually refer to Libertarians as a political minority in need of protection and tolerance.".
We do however refer to religious groups that way. You must find it disturbing that people are grouped by religion as in religious minorities. After all religion is subjective and self decided.
Do you recall deciding to be heterosexual? I assure you gays didn't decide to be gay any more than you decided to be straight.
Anonymous at October 25, 2006 12:51 PM
See above. Common sense says its not a choice. Do you recall a time when you had no sexual attractions, you weighed and compared being gay and straight, chose to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex and immediately felt that attraction? If not (and I'm sure you don't recall doing that) you know being gay is similarly not chosen. You don't need science to tell you this any more than you need science to tell you you didn't choose the desire to sleep part of the day. If being gay was a choice then so would be being heterosexual and no heterosexual honestly believes they chose to be that way.
The fact that homosexuality has existed throughout recorded history at aproximately the same rate is inexplicable unless it is in fact normal and natural for a minority of the population. The work by Evilyn Hooker in the 50's show being gay is not a disease as gay people can not be distinguished from heterosexuals by examining mental health.
"We do however refer to religious groups that way. You must find it disturbing that people are grouped by religion as in religious minorities. After all religion is subjective and self decided."
Being a Canadian you may not understand this but we consider freedom of religious expression to be an important constitutional freedom in America. We don't, except for fringe Tolerance yada-yada groups, believe in the indiscriminate tolerance of all possible sexual activities.
"If being gay was a choice then so would be being heterosexual and no heterosexual honestly believes they chose to be that way."
Heterosexuality is the default preference of human beings. Some reject this for many reasons but there is no reason why that rejection shouldn't be considered a choice. You may not be able to stop a bird from flying into your hair but you can certainly stop it from building a nest there. Similarly, a person may experience a fleeting thought of any behavior but the indulgence and development of these feelings is properly seen as a choice.
Sorry if that confuses you, Randi.
Anonymous at October 26, 2006 6:19 AM
I never suggested indiscriminate tolerance of all possible sexual activities, only tolerance for those activities which do not hurt others, tolerance for activities which are good for the individuals involved and good for society - activities like my wonderful loving supportive relationship with my boyfriend.
In Canada as in the United States religion is singled out for undeserved special rights. We do have our flaws although this is a much more equal and fair country than yours - everyone has the right to marry the one person they love most.
Anonymous at October 26, 2006 6:27 AM said "Heterosexuality is the default preference of human beings.". I'd ask you for a reference or scientific study backing that ignorance up but we both know you pulled that absurdity out of your butt. Only a fool and a bigot claims he knows someone else's experience better than they themselves and that's obviously you.
The sexual desire comes before the behavior and most any gay will tell you the prior desire was anything but fleeting. And gays know what they're feeling, you don't. Sexual orientation is no more of a choice for gays than it was for you.
Play time with an illogical mind and arse fed facts. Let's get this going! I hope you don't submit silence like you've done so many times before.
Anonymous said:
"You state mainstream science says homosexuality is not a choice. This is what you want in the curriculum. If innate and immutable isn't what you truthfully mean by "not a choice", what do you mean?"
It simply means that there was no choice in the matter. If you're equating that with innate and immutable, that's your problem. Let's see that this strawman doesn't pop up in the future.
Anonymous said:
"It isn't normal based on traditional societal norms, which appear to still be accepted by most members of our society."
How can I reply to this? I know! I can just repeat what you said! "There are no county-wide surveys on this, to my knowledge." Gotcha! And note, you better substantiate if you're gonna try and explain this one.
Anonymous said:
"No science establishes [that it isn't a choice]. Accuracy would demand telling the kids that."
Well er, no science establishes that heterosexuality isn't a choice either, so why are you assuming so? Oh right, because that's just you. I wonder if there is any hope for you.
Anonymous said:
"I didn't say you had. You said it's not a choice. I don't think anyone knows whether it is or not. If it was innate or immutable, then one wouldn't have a choice. Whether it is or not is not knowledge possessed by anyone currently."
Are you talking about homosexuality or heterosexuality?
Anonymous said:
"Being a Canadian you may not understand this but we consider freedom of religious expression to be an important constitutional freedom in America."
How subjective is that? What if sexual expression was considered an important constituational freedom and everyone was brought up to believe that? Wow I'm absolutely in awe at the sheer lack of logic! Not. Typical special rights yada-yada...
Anonymous said:
"Heterosexuality is the default preference of human beings."
Let's do a you! No science can back that up. No one knows for sure whether heterosexuality is the "default" preference. Your hypocrisy just leaves me in awe! Not. Typical... you, hehe.
Anonymous said:
"Some reject this for many reasons but there is no reason why that rejection shouldn't be considered a choice."
I sincerely agree with you completely here. Does that confuse you? I really do agree with that statement, because unlike your other rubbish, it's actually logical enough to resist refutation.
Anonymous said:
"Similarly, a person may experience a fleeting thought of any behavior but the indulgence and development of these feelings is properly seen as a choice."
Development? What do you mean by this?
Post a Comment
<< Home