Wednesday, June 13, 2007

PFOX Comments

Somebody pasted PFOX's response to the new curriculum into our comments this morning. Not surprisingly, PFOX doesn't like the new curriculum.

But the way they put it is fascinating, in the same way that a gory traffic accident makes you look.

From their web site:
The board has demonstrated its bias and arrogance in ignoring the March 7, 2007 Order of Maryland State Superintendent Nancy Grasmick that states that the Maryland Board of Education will render a decision in July on the legal appeal of the curriculum. PFOX, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, and Family Leader Network had filed an appeal of the proposed curriculum, citing factual inaccuracies and violations of state and federal law. The local board’s action in adopting a final curriculum without waiting for the state board’s decision as to the legality of that curriculum tramples on the rights of parents and violates the intent of the Superintendent’s Order.

In her Order, Grasmick cites the curriculum’s attempt to address harassment problems relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. PFOX has documented how the curriculum fails to provide instruction on tolerance of ex-gays -- a group that is the object of harassment encouraged by Montgomery County public school staff and students, a fact which the Montgomery County Board of Education does not deny.

First of all, come on, don't treat the world like they're a bunch of idiots. There's no way the Montgomery County schools were going to sit around doing nothing while they waited for the state to rule on the ridiculous complaint by CRC, PFOX, and that other group. That complaint is riddled with lies and misdirections -- the chances that the state will reverse the county's decision based on that is minute. It would be dumb to wait.

The second paragraph, now we're getting somewhere.

First of all, "how the curriculum fails to provide instruction on tolerance of ex-gays." Yes, the schools fail entirely to mention "ex-gays." There is no "instruction on ex-gays," and no "instruction on tolerance of ex-gays." Also, nothing about unicorns.

Second, the good part: "a group that is the object of harassment encouraged by Montgomery County public school staff and students, a fact which the Montgomery County Board of Education does not deny." (Note: the Montgomery County Board of Education also does not deny the harassment of unicorns.)

There is a quick sleight-of-hand here that would be, I guess, clever, if it worked. PFOX wants you to assume that harassing them is the same as harassing "ex-gays."

If I was "ex-gay," I'd resent that. It's like if somebody said something bad about the President, and I was supposed to think they were harassing me as a straight person.

Let's be clear. Let's say a person used to be gay, and now they're straight. I don't know if that happens, but plenty of people do go the other way: it's called "coming out of the closet." So, let's assume some people go into the closet, too. Now the question is: who is against that? Another way to phrase the question is: who cares? A gay guy wants to be straight, it's his business. Really. Nobody cares. Why would anybody harass him?

How would anybody even know?
When PFOX distributed flyers to the high schools urging tolerance of the ex-gay community, the faculty at multiple schools cooperated with Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) student clubs to oppose our message of tolerance.

A typical example was Winston Churchill High School where GSA students were allowed to place trash cans in the school hallways and carry trash bags labeled “PFOX” to urge all students to trash their ex-gay flyers. The principal, Dr. Joan Benz, stood by the trash cans to ensure that the protest against ex-gays would not be disturbed.

At Wootten High School, a gay teacher and co-sponsor of the school’s GSA club warned PFOX to stay out of the public schools, compared sexual preference to African-Americans’ skin color, and also compared PFOX to the Ku Klux Klan.

OK, they have given two examples of people showing a lack of appreciation for PFOX. None of these acts are against any "ex-gay" person, people just don't like PFOX. That is a b-i-g difference.

For one thing, the acronym "PFOX" doesn't stand for "ex-gay people." That would be "XGP," if you kept the "X" for "ex" like they do. Otherwise it would be "EGP," which is at least almost pronounceable. The people who put out these fliers aren't "ex-gays" themselves. They are supposedly "Parents and Friends" of "ex-gay" people, though both of those words can be questioned.
This discriminatory treatment is not corrected by the curriculum on teaching tolerance for sexual orientation because former homosexuals are not included in the curriculum. Why did the Board approve a curriculum that is supposed to teach respect for diverse sexual orientations when it excludes former homosexuals -- the only sexual orientation that is subject to intolerance by both students and teachers?

We wait for the Maryland State Board of Education to correct the failings of the local board and protect the civil rights of all groups, and not just gays, bisexuals and cross-dressers.”

The fact is, nobody is fooled by this. There is no evidence of anybody ever being harassed for changing from gay to straight. People don't like PFOX because their message is a direct insult to those who are open about their sexual orientation. They say "You can change," but you can't, and you wouldn't want to, if people like PFOX weren't trying to make you feel like there was something wrong with you.

I would like to see where anyone, ever, has reported an actual case of harassment or mistreatment of a person because they were "ex-gay." I don't mean somebody standing on a soapbox preaching about it, I mean a person who changed their sexual identity from gay to straight and then was harassed because of that.

Come on, that's an invitation -- point us to a case of "harassment of ex-gays."

Actually, while we're at it -- can anybody tell me the name of one person who belongs to PFOX who is actually a parent of an "ex-gay" person?

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know of any parents of ex-gays in PFOX. But I think Regina Grigg's kid is gay so maybe she's hoping that someday she'll be the token parent of an ex-gay in the Parents and Friends of Ex-gays.

Or perhaps they cover that by their full name Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays (though the later part is not in the acronym). Though I suppose it would also be equally accurate to be Parents and Friends of Unicorns and Gays.

Timothy

June 13, 2007 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way...

PFOX says:

"But now the Montgomery County Board of Education has done what science and medicine could not do by declaring in its newly approved curriculum that homosexuality is "innate" or inborn."

Can anyone point out for me where the curriculum says "innate"?

Then perhaps someone can tell Regina that "innate" and "genetic" are non synonymous. There are many innate traits that may not originate through "a gene". Left-handedness is an example.

Timothy

June 13, 2007 2:08 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

What's most striking about PFOX-GAG's press releases are that they are becoming increasingly strident and hysterical, as well as accusatory. Clearly not a way to make friends among political figures or their constituents. PFOX-GAG is fighting a losing battle.

BTW, CRC still has that letter sent to PFOX-GAG from the MCPS teacher up on their website, for the purpose of causing him problems at his place of employment. This is a case of real, not imaginary, harassment.

June 13, 2007 2:22 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Timothy, the curriculum uses the word "innate" in two places. One is the Holt text in 10th grade. Your point about innate not the same as genetic is an excellent one, but just a little too sophisticated for "some people" to understand.

JimK

June 13, 2007 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting how TTF gets an ignorant comment and then goes on a jag, building on the misinformation.

An anon quotes R Griggs:

"now the Montgomery County Board of Education has done what science and medicine could not do by declaring in its newly approved curriculum that homosexuality is "innate" or inborn"

Anon comments:

"Then perhaps someone can tell Regina that "innate" and "genetic" are non synonymous"

And, yet, the truth is, R. Griggs never discussed "genetic", which is not a synonym for "inborn" but is a synonym for "innate".

Here's Webster on "innate":

"existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native, inborn"

Next, we have the erudite Jim Kennedy:

"Your point about innate not the same as genetic is an excellent one, but just a little too sophisticated for "some people" to understand."

There you have it:

Musch as the curriculum will teach kids that dangerous behavior is legitimate, Mr. TTF thinks not understanding English is "sophisticated."

Case closed.

June 13, 2007 5:39 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, the curriculum doesn't teach that dangerous behavior is legitimate, it teaches that your bigotry is illegitimate.

June 13, 2007 6:33 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

The curriculum says that sexual orientation is innate, it does not say it's genetic. Regina Griggs and others often make the point that "There is no gay gene," as an argument that sexual orientation is not innate.

If you were born yesterday, your comments would be forgiven. As it is, you know that that is part of the conversation and choose to ignore it, as if all we are allowed to talk about here is the exact words that have been used in this one discussion.

Sorry, no. The difference between innate and genetic is a crucial one, one that Ms. Griggs and her colleagues do not understand.

JimK

June 13, 2007 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But the difference between innate and inborn is not. The pro-TTF commenter was wrong.

You'll defend anything, Jim.

June 13, 2007 6:40 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Once again, Anon plays the fool.

If heterosexuality is innate, so is homosexuality. Period.

It was Rosemary, I believe, who harped on the "genetics" once again at the BoE.

As for an real life former gays in MoCo, the only one who may qualify, if we take her at her word, Is Reverend Grace, and I have never heard anyone say anything derogatory about her.

June 13, 2007 8:49 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I didn't quote all of PFOX's web page in this post. Here's how it starts:

Montgomery County, Md. School Board finds “gay gene”: Violates State Board of Education’s Order

ROCKVILLE, Maryland – PFOX released this statement in response to the Montgomery County School Board’s approval of a new sex education curriculum for public schools:

“According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological cause for homosexuality. But now the Montgomery County Board of Education has done what science and medicine could not do by declaring in its newly approved curriculum that homosexuality is “innate” or inborn...


It's the SOS. Innate=genetic.

JimK

June 13, 2007 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
My kids are both hetero and while they were harassed for other things while at MCPS- no one ever said "Hey, you, yeah, you HETERO!" So far as I know there is no harassment of straight kids at MCPS. DOes PFOX have proof of kids being bullied or harassed because they are straight? I have found a great deal of tolerance for being straight, both in our schools and in the workplace. So I just think PFOX is nuts -but I need to point out for anon that this is not a medical determination- just my learned opinion.

June 13, 2007 9:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, ex-gays aren't harassed as long as they keep their life story to themselves. If they tell people they used to have homosexual feelings but now haved changed, they are challenged, harassed and ostracized by the liberal crowd, especially the gay lunatic fringe types.

June 13, 2007 11:32 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Give us one example, Anon. One example of somebody being harassed for turning straight who's not up on a soap box somewhere. It's easy to say what you just said, sweeping accusation, I'm asking publicly for one little example -- come on, man, I'm making it easy for you -- embarrass me. Here's my chin, my hands are behind my back: take a swing.

JimK

June 13, 2007 11:46 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

I know I am saying something that a lot of people know but I think it should be said again:

This claim by the ex-gays about harrassment is just a dodge.

While PFOX and the rest attempt to appropriate what they think is the language of the lgbt movement (i.e. calls for tolerance) they are working to undermine anything that will positively affect the gay community.

It's really a big lie.

June 13, 2007 11:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One example of somebody being harassed for turning straight who's not up on a soap box somewhere."

Do they not have the right to stand on soap boxes?

June 14, 2007 12:07 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Sure they have the right, but there are two things here: 1.being "ex-gay" and 2.telling other people how they should live their lives. I want to see an example of somebody being harassed for the first thing -- nobody likes the second, I'm not talking about people telling a loudmouth to shut up.

And c'mon, that won't be that hard, there're what, ten or twenty guys on soapboxes, right? Sure the other tens of thousands of "ex-gays" that we hear about are being harassed all the time, right?

So: one little example of an ordinary "ex-gay" guy being harassed for changing from straight to gay.

JimK

June 14, 2007 7:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
Jim, Jim, Jim- you know better. Anon will not answer- just like when I produced the SG report. Anon was hailing the SG until I showed an SG report with info anon didn't like. There are no harassed ex-gays- but I want people to stop harassing unicorns on this blog.

June 14, 2007 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jim, Jim, Jim- you know better. Anon will not answer- just like when I produced the SG report. Anon was hailing the SG until I showed an SG report with info anon didn't like. There are no harassed ex-gays- but I want people to stop harassing unicorns on this blog."

"Jim, Jim, Jim" won't get an answer because his question is stupid, stupid, stupid.

The SG is the medical authority in the United States. Doesn't mean he's infallible, he just means his pronouncements carry more weight than professional associations whose purpose is to benefit their membership not the general public.

Our new SG will bring some interesting perspective to the situation.

June 14, 2007 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon

Gosh, anon- so true the SG is not infallible unless you can pull up an old discredited statement from 30 years ago. And your take on AMA and APA statements is as- what is the word I want- dumb, ingnorant, silly - take your pick- as everything you post here. Hey, are you a Freeper?

June 14, 2007 2:03 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

As far has harassment of ex-gays goes, I have stated (it's quoted, or was, on the PFOX website), that as one of the leading advocates for LGBT youth in Northern Virginia, I will defend to the utmost anyone who identifies as ex-gay who is being harassed or discriminated against. As much as I disagree with them, individuals who identify as ex-gay are still, if you will, my "peeps."

Robert

June 14, 2007 3:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home