Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use
Social Studies and Anti-LGBTQ Hysteria
Hysteria to the contrary notwithstanding, it's totally fine for children to learn about LGBTQ people.
Copyright © 2024 by Ari Armstrong
September 6, 2024
Like, oh my God, teachers in Colorado might teach students about LGBTQ people in social studies class. According to certain sources, this is a huge problem.
I write a column for Complete Colorado, published by the Independence Institute. On transgender and some other LGBTQ issues, the II tends to be more conservative than libertarian, although it doesn't follow the Colorado Republican party in promoting overtly anti-LGBTQ materials.
As a homeschool dad, I, like the II, also am very interested in freedom in education. The II's Pam Benigno takes point on "school choice." But, whereas I take a squarely secular approach to education, Benigno definitely takes a conservative Christian approach.
Recently Benigno complained about optional "state-provided sexually based educational resources" for use in social studies classes. How do her complaints stack up? Let's take a look.
Benigno begins:
Beginning this fall, Colorado's first and second graders might learn about the story behind Harvey Milk's gay pride flag, while down the hallway, third graders learn about California’s failed 1978 ban on lesbian and gay teachers, Milk's death, and his murderer's controversial sentencing.
Okay. . . why is this a problem? Would Benigno also worry about teaching young kids about the history of oppression directed at women, on grounds that the material is inherently "sexually based"?
As any parent knows, young children have ideas about gender and romance that do not involve the physical act of sex. Kids can see that, in many families, a man and a woman have children together. It is just not a problem to explain such things without reference to the physical act of sex. Likewise, it is just not a problem to explain, say, gay marriage, without reference to the physical act of sex. An adult could say something like, "Gay marriage is when two men love each other and decide to build a life together." This is not hard.
So it is just not a real problem that, as Benigno complains, "the Colorado State Board of Education determined that teachers must introduce sexual orientation and gender identity to children as young as first grade during social studies classes."
Yet Benigno finds it "concerning . . . how teachers will answer the questions during the discussions" about, for example, "Governor Polis being the country's first openly gay elected governor." Kids can easily understand this without having to understand anything about gay sex. Similarly, if Colorado ever gets its first women governor, that would be a worthwhile point to discuss with children.
Benigno worries that "guides for the first and second grades don’t disclose to parents that their children will learn about the history and contributions of LGBTQ individuals." Again, why is this a problem? Benigno seems to think it's bad that children might learn about Milk's murder. Would it also be bad for them to learn about Martin Luther King Jr.'s murder, or is the concern only with LGBTQ people?
Benigno suggests she has problems only with "sexual topics." But we can talk about the murder of Milk without getting into the intimate details of his sex life. I mean, come on. Benigno relies on a silly conflation of "discussions about LGBTQ people" with "discussions about sex."
As a homeschool dad, I want my son to grow up learning about the world. I want him to know about the civil rights movement, and the women's suffrage movement, and the LGBTQ movement. I want him to be educated.
But wait, there's more! On September 5 the II released a video with Jon Caldara (head of the II) interviewing Benigno on the topic.
In the intro teaser clip, Benigno says, "I've heard stories of girls coming out of bathroom stalls and then [there's a] guy standing there with a beard."
Okay, I've "heard stories" about alien abductions and Jewish space lasers. "I've heard stories" is not basis for factual claims. One such "story" has been debunked.
But let's deal with the substantive issues of transgender girls and women sharing bathrooms with other girls and women. This is a problem . . . why, exactly?
Has there ever been a single reported case in Colorado of a transgender girl or woman (or someone purporting to be such) sexually assaulting a girl or woman in a public bathroom? If so I have never heard about it.
The real problem (although still rare) is transgender women getting harassed, threatened, or assaulted by bigoted men when they go into men's bathrooms. The other real problem is biological women mistaken for transgender women getting harassed, threatened, or assaulted by bigoted people when they go into women's bathrooms. The make-believe problem is transgender girls and women sexually assaulting or otherwise hassling girls or women in public bathrooms. Obviously it's possible for that to happen, but it's vanishingly rare.
I hate to break it to Benigno, but it is common practice for fathers to take their young daughters into the men's bathroom when out it public, just as it is common practice for mothers to take their young boys into the women's bathroom. And this is just . . . not a problem. And no one cares about this, because it does not create a pretext to demonize transgender women.
When I traveled in parts of Europe years ago, it was standard practice for men and women to share public restrooms. And, again, this was just . . . not a problem.
All that said, I do think it's a good idea to build, wherever possible, small private bathrooms with locked doors. There are lots of reasons a person might value such privacy. I regularly take my son to a public facility that has two "one seater" bathrooms. These are not marked "men" and "women"; they are both marked "whatever." And that works great.
Caldara starts off the program by asking, "So how old should a kid be before they're indoctrinated with the LGBTIA+ agenda?" (Oh my God they've even gotten to Caldara, what with his singular "they" pronouns!)
Ah, so now the problem is not that the context is somehow "sexualized" but that it is part of an "agenda." Compare: "So how old should a kid be before they're indoctrinated with the civil rights agenda?" Speaking as a father, I think kids should learn the history of how women, Black people, LGBTQ people, and others have suffered violence and legal discrimination.
Benigno says that current standards grew out of House Bill 2019-1192, which is titled, "Inclusion Of American Minorities In Teaching Civil Government."
Caldara calls the inclusion of materials about LGBTQ people "offensive" and "indoctrination." KKK members said precisely the same thing about materials offering the perspective of Black people, Native Americans, and others. Since when did Caldara become so fragile?
Benigno mentions that the State Board offered optional materials about LGBTQ issues. If you click on "15 VOLUNTARY Annotated Resource Sets for Teaching About the Historic and Civic Contributions of the LGBTQ community," you get a 103 page document. What exactly in there is so damned "offensive"?
Now, I do have some problems with some of the language. One bit reads, "Polis committed himself to making sure other Coloradans had the opportunity to pursue their dreams. . . . As Governor, Polis has focused on saving Coloradans money, keeping our economy strong, and reserving our Colorado way of life." The problem with this language is not that it is somehow sexualized or age-inappropriate but that offers uncritical adulation of a Colorado politician. I mean, gross. But these problems have nothing to do with the "LGBTQ agenda." The problem here is just government agents puffing up other government agents.
After a few minutes, Benigno gets to the point. Teachers involved with A Queer Endeavor, Benigno says, "want to turn what we think is normal upside down" and "do not believe . . . that gender is binary." The problem, in short, according to Benigno, is that some teachers want to teach children that LGBTQ people exist.
At one point, in the context of Polis being the state's first gay governor, Caldara says, "At first grade, you don't need to be talking about who's having sex with whom." But nothing in the standards is about that. Caldara's claim is just complete bullshit. Similarly, one can talk about who the 'First Lady" is without getting into the bedroom sexual practices of the president and his wife.
The rest of the video is filled with similar nonsense, resting on the false conflation between the LGBTQ movement and the sex lives of LGBTQ people.
At one point (marker 14:02) Caldara comes close to admitting the ridiculousness of his position:
Yeah, when you're talking about JFK, you're going to have to talk [about the fact that] he was killed. If you're talking about Abraham Lincoln, you're going to say he was assassinated. Harvey Milk, the same way. But the only reason you're talking about Harvey Milk is because he's gay.
Uh, no. Lots of gay people have been murdered who are not mentioned in the materials in question. Milk was an important social and political leader who was murdered because he was gay. Compare: "The only reason you're talking about Martin Luther King Jr. is because he's Black."
Here is my friendly suggestion: If you want to promote school choice, hyperventilating about students learning about LGBTQ people is not the way to do it.